N.E. Brigand Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 First of all, there is plenty of shake up in every placement every year. If there's "plenty" now, was there "too much" in the 1970s? Cadets went from 3rd to 5th to 1st to 4th. Phantom went from 9th to 6th to 5th to 3rd. Troopers, Colts, Madison, Crossmen, Blue Stars, Glassmen, and Spirit among others have been in and out of finals (some more than once) in the last few years. Cavaliers were looking like BD in 2011, what with their consistent 1st placements--by a large margin--until Texas and fell in placement this year. Crown has been a rising star since they fell out of Finals in 2002, and even they had Blue Devils beaten at a regional in 2011. Boston has been all over the map, scv has spent time on discs 1 and 2 recently. Bloo was in top three in 2010 and 7th the next year. I guess that also kinda answers the question of DCI standings stagnation. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Look back at my first post. You see the past two years as especially volatile, but on the other hand, in neither year did any corps have their best-ever Finals placement--and that's the first time that's ever happened two years in a row, going back to DCI's founding. It might be worth determining the average change in placement for each year. Still, maybe we're at the bottom of the curve, in terms of the fluidity of placement, and things will be changing? Yeah, why not. I've calculated the average change in placement for the top 25 corps every year, to get some additional perspective on this question. For example, in 1997, these are the number of placements each of the following top 25 corps moved from the previous year: BD -- 1st (tie) to 1st = 0 Cadets -- 3rd to 2nd = +1 SCV -- 5th to 3rd = +2 Phantom -- 1st (tie) to 4th = -3 Madison -- 6th to 5th = +1 Xmen -- 8th (tie) to 6th = +2 Cavs -- 4th to 7th = -3 Glassmen -- 13th to 8th = +5 BK -- 12th to 9th = +3 Magic -- 8th (tie) to 10th = -2 Bloo -- 7th to 11th = -4 Crown -- 10th to 12th = -2 Colts -- 11th to 13th = -2 Kiwanis -- 14th to 14th = 0 BAC -- 17th to 15th = +2 Musicale -- 18th to 16th = +2 Spirit -- 23rd to 17th = +6 Les Etoiles -- 15th to 18th = -3 Pioneer -- 20th to 19th = +1 Mandarins -- 21st to 20th = +1 Southwind -- 24th to 21st = +3 East Coast -- N/A to 22nd = +4 Spartans -- N/A to 23rd = +3 Patriots -- N/A to 2rth = +2 Troopers -- 19th to 25th = -6 Take the absolute value of all the changes, add them up, and you get 63. Divide by 25 slots, and you get an average ranking change for 1996-1997 of 2.52 per corps. To keep things simple, I have assumed all corps that did not crack the top 25 in the previous year placed 26th (because, for one thing, I had no idea what number to use for a corps that didn't compete at all the previous year). For 1994-1995, 1998, and 2000-2010, there were fewer than 25 corps in Quarterfinals, in which case I divided by the actual number of participating corps. If you do this simple arithmetic for the history of DCI, this is what you get: So the overall trend appears to be toward less turnover, and while the big decline in churn came in the 1970s, the calcification continues. Only two years in the 2000s, for instance, have seen more change than in 1997, and only one significantly so (2002; the other year is 2007). And 2010, 2005, and 2006 appear to be the three least surprising years in DCI's history. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 So the overall trend appears to be toward less turnover, and while the big decline in churn came in the 1970s, the calcification continues. Only two years in the 2000s, for instance, have seen more change than in 1997, and only one significantly so (2002; the other year is 2007). And 2010, 2005, and 2006 appear to be the three least surprising years in DCI's history. Actually, what your chart shows is that since 1981 the placement change has been very consistent floating between 2 and 3 for the last 32 years, outside of a few that dipped below 2 slightly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Actually, what your chart shows is that since 1981 the placement change has been very consistent floating between 2 and 3 for the last 32 years, outside of a few that dipped below 2 slightly. Actually, what my chart shows is that 7 of the 10 years with the least change in placement were in the past decade: 2010 1.70 2005 1.71 2006 1.83 1998 1.92 1984 2.00 2003 2.00 2004 2.00 2011 2.00 2012 2.00 1988 2.04 1992 2.12 Edited February 24, 2013 by N.E. Brigand 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 I'm not sure what good that will do. And if we're technically talking about what we think they want... The MOST recent e-mail leak says that they do not have all the answers and do not all agree on a plan or what to do. Prior... You've pointed to a slide in the proposal where they say that all 7 are behind it and endorse the ideas in the proposal. Now we have evidence that the 7 do not all agree and do not have all the answers (from the email in January). So one could make the inference that they are no longer associated with a proposal that they all stood behind because its been said that they no longer all agree. Also if the proposal was supposed to represent ideas for covering all the answers to DCI problems then an acknowledgment that they do not have the answers means that they either no longer have proposals to fix DCI or the answers they provided in the past are no longer relevant. Saying "I don't know" is pretty much a denial of the original proposal where they originally would have said "we do know... it's this proposal." Make sense? No. The G7 proposal was full of spots marked "work to be done". The 7 agreed on what they presented, but had not worked out all the details. In other words, they did not have all the answers yet (and still do not), and they did not agree on all the details (and still do not). None of that supercedes the G7 proposal that they do agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) No. The G7 proposal was full of spots marked "work to be done". The 7 agreed on what they presented, but had not worked out all the details. In other words, they did not have all the answers yet (and still do not), and they did not agree on all the details (and still do not). None of that supercedes the G7 proposal that they do agree with. In fact it most certainly can. I'm sorry you fail to see through assumptions and insinuations. If the G7 say they do not have the answers and do not all agree in January how the hell do you know it's the same things that you claim they dont agree/don't have the answers for? You are making stuff up and pretending to know what goes on the G7 heads due to some prejudicial thoughts about them. Not very objective. Edited February 24, 2013 by charlie1223 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 In fact it most certainly can. I'm sorry you fail to see through assumptions and insinuations. If the G7 say they do not have the answers and do not all agree in January how the hell do you know it's the same things that you claim they dont agree/don't have the answers for? You are making stuff up and pretending to know what goes on the G7 heads due to some prejudicial thoughts about them. Not very objective. I am going based on what is in writing. You are the one contending that what is in writing is no longer true. I think it is clear which one of us is indulging in conjecture. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) I am going based on what is in writing. You are the one contending that what is in writing is no longer true. I think it is clear which one of us is indulging in conjecture. You are selectively choosing what is in writing. Completly ignoring most recent and relative information. Not just what is in writing but what is currently implemented by the G7. Edited February 25, 2013 by charlie1223 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 You are selectively choosing what is in writing. Completly ignoring most recent and teletive information. Not just what is in writing but what is currently implemented by the G7. Really? Looking back at the G7 proposal recently, I was amazed at how much of what is being said and done now still comes straight out of that document. By the way, what is "teletive" information? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Really? Looking back at the G7 proposal recently, I was amazed at how much of what is being said and done now still comes straight out of that document. interesting aint it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesman Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I have been saying this for years, and no one ever listens. The second the lower corps accept the fact that they are never going to compete with the big boys, and then STOP TRYING TO, this activity will be on the path to recovery. Maybe they haven't been listening because every year there is an exception to what you have been saying. Whether it is Bluecoats or Boston cracking the top tier or Phantom, SCV or Cavies falling out it there is still some movement. Why should the door be closed on the up and comers? Creativity and competition are not limited to a select group of the current in crowd. I would guess that there are some like yourself within the activity that have no problem limiting the competitive field so that a cushy top tier position is guaranteed with no need to worry those "lesser" corps might bump them out their exclusive club. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.