Have DCI Standings Actually Stagnated?

[N.E. Brigand]

Some have argued that comparisons between DCI and sports leagues are inapt. Nonetheless, I will open with a note on the Super Bowl, which is five years older than DCI. I lately read that of 32 NFL teams, 14 have never won the Super Bowl, including 4 that have never even reached the title game. This made me wonder how competitive DCI is. Here are two lists to ponder:

Number of Corps Reaching DCI Finals That Missed the Previous Year

(in parentheses are corps that never made Finals before)

2012 - 1

2011 - 1

2010 - 1

2009 - 1

2008 - 2

2007 - 1

2006 - 0

2005 - 1

2004 - 1

2003 - 2

2002 - 3 (1 - Cascades)

2001 - 1

2000 - 1

1999 - 1 (1 - BAC)

1998 - 1

1997 - 1

1996 - 1

1995 - 1 (1 - Crown)

1994 - 1 (1 - Magic)

1993 - 2 (2 - Glassmen, Colts)

1992 - 1

1991 - 3 (1 - BK)

1990 - 2 (1 - Dutch Boy)

1989 - 2

1988 - 0

1987 - 1 (1 - Bloo)

1986 - 1

1985 - 2 (1 - Star)

1984 - 2 (1 - VK)

1983 - 1 (1 - Suncoast)

1982 - 1 (1 - Sky Ryders)

1981 - 2

1980 - 2

1979 - 2

1978 - 4 (2 - Spirit, North Star)

1977 - 3

1976 - 4 (3 - Optimists, Freelancers, Guardsmen)

1975 - 4 (3 - Oakland Crusaders, Royal Crusaders, Cadets)

1974 - 5 (4 - DeLaSalle Oaklands, BD, Purple Lancers, Phantom)

1973 - 3 (3 - Madison, Black Knights, Commodores)

1972 - 0 [no DCI Finals in 1971]

Number of Corps Reaching Their Best Finals Placement to that Date

(for the first time; bold indicates best placement ever, sometimes equaled later)

2012 - 0

2011 - 0

2010 - 1 – Bloo (3rd)

2009 - 1 – Crown (2nd)

2008 - 1 – Crown (4th)

2007 - 1 – Crown (6th)

2006 - 1 – Bloo (4th)

2005 - 1 – Bloo (5th)

2004 - 2 – Bloo (6th), Crown (7th)

2003 - 0

2002 - 1 – Cascades (12th)

2001 - 0

2000 - 2 – BAC (5th), BK (6th)

1999 - 1 – BAC (9th)

1998 - 1 – Glassmen (5th)

1997 - 0

1996 - 3 – Phantom (1st), Magic (8th), Crown (10th)

1995 - 3 – Bloo (7th), Glassmen (8th), Colts (9th)

1994 - 3 – BK (7th), Glassmen (10th), Magic (11th)

1993 - 2 – Glassmen (11th), Colts (12th)

1992 - 2 – Cavs (1st), Xmen (6th)

1991 - 2 – Star (1st), BK (9th)

1990 - 3 – Cavs (2nd), Star (3rd), Dutch Boy (12th)

1989 - 2 – Star (6th), Bloo (8th)

1988 - 0

1987 - 3 – Star (7th), VK (7th), Bloo (11th)

1986 - 4 – Cavs (3rd), Suncoast (5th), Star (8th), Sky Ryders (9th)

1985 - 3 – Cavs (5th), Star (10th), VK (11th)

1984 - 1 – VK (12th)

1983 - 2 – Cadets (1st), Suncoast (6th)

1982 - 3 – Cadets (3rd), Xmen (7th), Sky Ryders (10th)

1981 - 1 – Cadets (7th)

1980 - 4 – 27th (2nd), Bridgemen (3rd), Xmen (8th), Cadets (10th)

1979 - 3 – Spirit (4th), Guardsmen (7th), North Star (9th)

1978 - 5 – Bridgemen (5th), Spirit (5th), Xmen (9th), North Star (10th), Guardsmen (11th)

1977 - 4 – Phantom (2nd), Freelancers (8th), Optimists (8th), Xmen (11th)

1976 - 7 – BD (1st), Phantom (4th), Bridgemen (6th), Cavs (7th), Optimists (10th), Freelancers (11th), Guardsmen (12th)

1975 - 6 – Scouts (1st), BD (3rd), Oakland Crusaders (6th), Royal Crusaders (9th), Phantom (10th), Cadets (11th)

1974 - 8 – Scouts (2nd), Muchachos (4th), Kilties (6th), DeLaSalle Oaklands (7th), Cavs (8th), BD (9th), Purple Lancers (10th), Phantom (11th)

1973 - 8 – SCV (1st), Troopers (2nd), Scouts (4th), Kilties (5th), Muchachos (8th), Bridgemen (9th), Black Knights (10th), Commodores (12th)

1972 - 12 – Kingsmen (1st), Blue Stars (2nd), SCV (3rd), 27th (4th), Argonne Rebels (5th), Troopers (6th), Des Plaines Vanguard (7th), Kilties (8th), Cavs (9th), Muchachos (10th), Bridgemen (11th), Bleu Raeders (12th)

And as you know, of the 22 active World Class corps, 16 have never won the Championship (none for the first time since 1996) and 13 have never even medalled (only 2 for the first time since 1991). That's 73% of corps not winning DCI vs. 44% of NFL teams that haven't won the Super Bowl. As regards both Finals appearances and new high-placements for corps, it would seem the real stagnation happened in the early 1980s, with a brief period of diversity as regards the latter statistic in the mid-1990s.

So, have DCI's World Class standings stagnated? What is a fair way to measure that stagnation? Or a fair comparison in other competitive leagues? If you feel that the placements have stagnated, is that a problem? Why? (Or why not? If the Browns can't win a Super Bowl in 45 years, why should I care if Boston can't win DCI in 40 years?) And would you really be happier if it were different? If, say, there was a good chance that four to six corps every year, including your longtime favorite, actually missed Finals?

[Michael Boo]

The lowest ranking NFL team gets the first draft pick for the next season. If the lowest ranking corps got first choice among the top instructors from the top corps each year, things would get shaken up. As for a draft for new talent, can you imagine what would happen if someone wanting to march Blue Devils was told they had to go to a corps that was typically at or near the bottom of the rankings in order for corps to achieve parity? It's not going to happen. But since that does happen in the NFL, you'll see teams near the bottom surge to near the top over relatively few years when they make good picks in the draft and out-trade other teams.

[StarOrg]

I really enjoyed looking at your stats so thanks for pulling that together. Interesting. But Boo is right you can't really compare the two.

[mobrien]

I think it would be worth a review of the judging standards to possibly revise what is thought of as good, since the current approach encourages corps to "teach to the test" from a programming standpoint, which has led to an unfortunate sameness in approaches. Everyone feels they need "a theme" and that if "the theme" isn't clever enough, it won't win.

Here's the thing; almost none of the themes are ever that clever. Sometimes they're just plain awful. Either they're loaded with pretension or they're just a little too obvious, hence cloying (too many examples to mention).

Shaking up the competitive possibilities would be a good thing, but the way to do it isn't through drafts or penalties or spending caps; it's through a revised judging system that's more geared towards performance skills and audience impact and less concerned with 'design.' You know that your activity is succeeding when the crowd goes into Finals week having no idea which of any 4 or 5 corps will win on Saturday night. Put THAT as the goal, and design a judging system that would allow it to happen again.

Side note; Oakland Crusaders in '75 were only half a new Finalist; DeLaSalle Oaklands had made Finals the year before.

Edited February 13, 2013 by mobrien

[ibexpercussion]

There are also less groups around now, and many that have gone inactive made finals at one time. So if you were to add those back in the % numbers would be higher. Also, there were less kids traveling across the country (or internationally) to march for this corps or that one, so the localization of talent around a corps helped with getting more groups into finals. Also, 1988 and 2006 were the only years that someone that didn't make finals the year before, did not make it into finals.

Think about this as well, there are many more restrictions on college and pro sports as far as eligibility, etc., but how many times have the Spurs made the playoffs in the NBA recently? How many years in the NCAA basketball tournament have Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc made the big dance? OR what about Women's basketball, how many years have UCONN, Tennessee, Stanford, Duke been the big dogs so to speak. And since 1995 UCONN or Tennessee have won it 12 out of 17 years.

[jjeffeory]

I think it would be worth a review of the judging standards to possibly revise what is thought of good, since the current approach encourages corps to "teach to the test" from a programming standpoint, which has led to an unfortunate sameness in approaches. Everyone feels they need "a theme" and that if "the theme" isn't clever enough, it won't win.

Here's the thing; almost none of the themes are ever that clever. Sometimes they're just plain awful. Either they're loaded with pretension (BD's Dada show fell in that category for me; it was someone who heard about Dadaism, but didn't understand the first thing about it), or they're just a little too obvious, hence cloying (too many examples to mention).

Shaking up the competitive possibilities would be a good thing, but the way to do it isn't through drafts or penalties or spending caps; it's through a revised judging system that's more geared towards performance skills and audience impact and less concerned with 'design.' You know that your activity is succeeding when the crowd goes into Finals week having no idea which of any 4 or 5 corps will win on Saturday night. Put THAT as the goal, and design a judging system that would allow it to happen again.

Side note; Oakland Crusaders in '75 were only half a new Finalist; DeLaSalle Oaklands had made Finals the year before. />

Agreed, this is the homogenization of drum corps that I've complained about on here over the last many years; many people cry that this is untrue and they have cited their evidence to the contrary. The interesting thing to me is that we're seeing some competitive improvement from corps who choose to steer away from the homogenization trend a little bit and design shows closer to their roots. I'm specifically thinking of corps such as Crossmen, Spirit of Atlanta, and Phantom Regiment who are having success. This coming season promises to give us even more corps breaking away from the sameness; maybe they'll do well and we'll see more shakeups. So maybe there's hope for a competitive shakeup soon? Frankly I believe that a change needs to happen at the very top of the activity for things to move forward.

I'm generally ok with the judging of the execution part of shows. I believe that the judges probably get that right, but I will point out that this is where I believe that the sameness in approach is in full force. I believe that the variety of "marching" has decreased; you either generally march like BD or the Cavaliers... In the past, it seemed to me that each corps' marching style was more distinct from one another. Of course movement has increased and guard movement has changed the activity as well.

I'm not the happiest about how the show content is rewarded - ie what is thought of as good. Sometimes it doesn't engage me in a way that makes me want to keep watching... In theater that wouldn't go over well, but we seem to be okay with that in DCI...

I'm personally okay with themes, especially when they tie some different musical styles together or provide something positive to keep me engaged... What I see today from quite a few corps is too much "content" chopped and bopped together with a label slapped on it and put out as a show and it just doesn't work. If their show music DID fit together into a cohesive product, great! If not, they shouldn't be getting Box 5 numbers no matter how well it is executed. Some of this seems to be due to an influx of WGI people but I'm sure I've oversimplified that and offended someone somewhere.

Anyway, I'm trying not to go OT, but I really think you've got something here.

[bluecoats88]

also - you can look at DIV III football. prior to this year for the previous 7 years the same two teams Mount Union & UW Wisconsin made the championship game. And this past season Mount Union made it and won, UW Wisc. did not make the game after winning the previous season.

[cixelsyd]

So, have DCI's World Class standings stagnated?

Yes.

What is a fair way to measure that stagnation? Or a fair comparison in other competitive leagues?

Since every measure I can imagine will point to DCI competitive stagnation, these questions might not matter.

If you feel that the placements have stagnated, is that a problem? Why?

Yes, because some fan interest is based on the competitive aspect of the activity, and thus has waned over the time that competition has stagnated.

(Or why not? If the Browns can't win a Super Bowl in 45 years, why should I care if Boston can't win DCI in 40 years?)

But it is not that the Browns could not win - IIRC, they were a few yards short of making the Super Bowl two years in a row in the Marty Schottenheimer era. In DCI, we have numerous teams that have never been comparably competitive, probably far more than in the NFL.

And would you really be happier if it were different? If, say, there was a good chance that four to six corps every year, including your longtime favorite, actually missed Finals?

I have many favorites, both in and out of finals. Closer competition would be more exciting to me.

[N.E. Brigand]

I think it would be worth a review of the judging standards to possibly revise what is thought of good, since the current approach encourages corps to "teach to the test" from a programming standpoint, which has led to an unfortunate sameness in approaches. Everyone feels they need "a theme" and that if "the theme" isn't clever enough, it won't win.

[...]

Shaking up the competitive possibilities would be a good thing, but the way to do it isn't through drafts or penalties or spending caps; it's through a revised judging system that's more geared towards performance skills and audience impact and less concerned with 'design.' You know that your activity is succeeding when the crowd goes into Finals week having no idea which of any 4 or 5 corps will win on Saturday night. Put THAT as the goal, and design a judging system that would allow it to happen again.

This is a recurring point that has been mentioned repeatedly in the "spending cap" thread, by people who are otherwise largely in disagreement about the state of drum corps and probably could use more discussion.

Side note: Oakland Crusaders in '75 were only half a new Finalist; DeLaSalle Oaklands had made Finals the year before.

Thank you. I thought there might be some re-naming in the 1970s listings to trip me up.

- - - - - - - - - -

There are also fewer groups around now, and many that have gone inactive made finals at one time. So if you were to add those back in the % numbers would be higher.

The only percentages I had indicated were groups that won the championship (27% DCI vs. 56% Superbowl). If we add in all the inactive groups to make Finals (including two champions), the percentage of championships in DCI actually gets much worse, not better: only 8 corps have won DCI World Class, out of 46 corps that have made Finals, which is just 17%.

Also, there were less kids traveling across the country (or internationally) to march for this corps or that one, so the localization of talent around a corps helped with getting more groups into finals.

Do I correctly understand you to mean there were fewer "super-corps" then, and so talent was more evenly distributed?

Also, 1988 and 2006 were the only years that someone that didn't make Finals the year before, did not make it into Finals.

Statistical noise, I think: for the 30-year period 1983-2012, the average number of corps making Finals in a year who missed the year before is 1.3. That's one corps for 19 years, two corps for 7 years, and zero and three corps for 2 years each.

For the 10-year period 1973-1982, the average number of corps new to Finals or returning after absence each year was 3.0.

Interestingly, the most recent year where three corps made Finals after a year's absence (or more) is 2002, and that is a year that I have seen multiple people describe on these forums as a weak Finals lineup. Does that mean that people would prefer to see the same corps in Finals every year?

Think about this as well, there are many more restrictions on college and pro sports as far as eligibility, etc., but how many times have the Spurs made the playoffs in the NBA recently? How many years in the NCAA basketball tournament have Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc made the big dance? OR what about Women's basketball, how many years have UCONN, Tennessee, Stanford, Duke been the big dogs so to speak. And since 1995 UCONN or Tennessee have won it 12 out of 17 years.

I don't know. If you think those comparisons will help understand DCI better, by all means give us the figures!

- - - - - - - - - -

Agreed, this is the homogenization of drum corps that I've complained about on here over the last many years; many people cry that this is untrue and they have cited their evidence to the contrary. The interesting thing to me is that we're seeing some competitive improvement from corps who choose to steer away from the homogenization trend a little bit and design shows closer to their roots.

[...]

Anyway, I'm trying not to go OT, but I really think you've got something here.

I have no objection to threads I start going in unexpected directions. Please don't let concerns about being off topic stop you.

(Edited to fix typos.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by N.E. Brigand

[N.E. Brigand]

The lowest ranking NFL team gets the first draft pick for the next season. If the lowest ranking corps got first choice among the top instructors from the top corps each year, things would get shaken up. As for a draft for new talent, can you imagine what would happen if someone wanting to march Blue Devils was told they had to go to a corps that was typically at or near the bottom of the rankings in order for corps to achieve parity? It's not going to happen. But since that does happen in the NFL, you'll see teams near the bottom surge to near the top over relatively few years when they make good picks in the draft and out-trade other teams.

I really enjoyed looking at your stats so thanks for pulling that together. Interesting. But Boo is right you can't really compare the two.

Actually, Michael doesn't say that. He identifies a key reason why there is more parity in the NFL than in DCI, and in an implicit comparison, notes that this is not the case in DCI by asserting (probably correctly) that DCI will not institute a similar rule. The two have been compared!