Could SCV be a dark horse?

[N.E. Brigand]

Looking at last night's recap, the content scores are still higher than the achievement scores. If we can safely assume that there is more to add (which wouldn't surprise me), there is much more potential to this show, and an honest shot at medaling come August.

Could someone please explain this to me like I am dumb? (I am, in this regard.) I see this quite often on these forums, but don't completely understand. So:

1. What does this concept entail?

2. When looking at a recap, how can I tell?

Thanks.

I'm dumb too, but I'll give it a shot. Looking at the recaps for Denver, for instance, you'll see that each category, like "Visual Proficiency" or "Music - Percussion" is subdivided into two columns. The first columns are titled "Cont" or "Comp" or "Subst", while the second columns are titled "Achv". If a given first column has a larger score than its related second column, i.e., if the "Content" or "Substance" of the drill or the percussion book shows more difficulty than the corps is "Achieving", the corps can improve its overall score simply by performing better: they have "room to grow", and since there's still more than four weeks to finals, all corps are sure to get cleaner. Of course, they want the content to go up too! They do this in part by adding elements to their shows to make them more difficult and in part simply by getting cleaner, because the judges can see or hear more clearly what you're doing in the first place. However, several people here have emphasized that it's harder to make a show more difficult than it is to clean, so it's better to have higher content than achievement numbers at this point.

In Denver, all the corps have higher content than achievement numbers in most categories. The exceptions, where the judge felt the members were outperforming (or at least matched with) their material, were Crown in GE Visual, SCV in Percussion, and Troopers in Guard.

I look forward to being corrected if I've got that wrong!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Link to discussion threads for all 2013 World Class corps

[Liahona]

Could someone please explain this to me like I am dumb? (I am, in this regard.) I see this quite often on these forums, but don't completely understand. So:

1. What does this concept entail?

2. When looking at a recap, how can I tell?

Thanks.

It is my rudimentary understanding (I'm sure there are others that have a more in depth understanding than me)... that if the content caption is higher than achievement caption then the difficulty and depth of the program given to the performers may be sufficient.

The achievement caption is how well that difficulty and depth of the content is being performed by the actual corps members. Improving achievement also directly improves content captions as well and in effect the actual depth of that program content becomes even more evident.

In essence, when you have an easier obtainable show by the performers while it may appear/sound "cleaner" for example, the actual depth of the program and difficulty of its content may hinder its growth (peak early) due to not being "difficult" enough. If your achievement scores become higher than content (a sign of impending doom IMO), then that means that the performers are better than the show that was given to them to perform.

Using the above logic (or illogic for that matter…lol)...It is always easier to water down with the fire hose than to add more substance much later as the season progresses. This is NOT to say though that added layering does not occur to boost the content scores as well. In reference to more difficult musical books, I sometimes enjoy early season music arrangements more than later seasons ones and love when corps produce early season cd’s for purchase as well for that very reason.

[Slingerland]

In a word, "nope."

They're a solid 4th. Nothing wrong with that, but the level of inventiveness and execution in the current top three is several steps beyond what Vanguard has here. It's a great drumline, but the basic shape and content of the show isn't breaking any ground, and plays it pretty safe with the source material.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Slingerland

[OrlandoContraAlum]

Thanks N.E. Brigand and Liahona, both of your explanations make sense!

Next question: in the Music Caption, is Music Analysis somewhat analogous to the old school "Ensemble Music" caption?

Edited July 8, 2013 by OrlandoContraAlum

[actucker]

In a word, "nope."

They're a solid 4th. Nothing wrong with that, but the level of inventiveness and execution in the current top three is several steps beyond what Vanguard has here. It's a great drumline, but the basic shape and content of the show isn't breaking any ground, and plays it pretty safe with the source material.

Without seeing them up against Phantom and Coats, I don't even know that I'd say they're solidly in fourth. From what I've seen, it seems that Coats, Phantom and Vanguard will have just as interesting a fight for the 4-6 spots as Crown, Cadets and Devils will have for the top 3.

I don't see Scouts breaking into that top 6, but they have a better chance there than any of Vanguard, Coats and Phantom breaking into the top 3 in my opinion.

[skywhopper]

Next question: in the Music Caption, is Music Analysis somewhat analogous to the old school "Ensemble Music" caption?

It's exactly analagous. And the old name was wayyyy better. The corps is not doing analysis on the field. They are performing as an ensemble, though. The new names of Music Analysis and Visual Analysis sound as if they are entirely based on the design, yet they still have achievement subcaptions.

[OrlandoContraAlum]

It's exactly analagous. And the old name was wayyyy better. The corps is not doing analysis on the field. They are performing as an ensemble, though. The new names of Music Analysis and Visual Analysis sound as if they are entirely based on the design, yet they still have achievement subcaptions.

Thanks! (I agree, Ensemble Music makes more sense. It's like DCI hired some Six Sigma types to come up with these names)

[MisterA]

I would LOVE to see SCV win. I think their show is amazing, and by far my favorite show of the season. And while I think it would be possible, I don't think it will happen. I think Vanguard will end up in 4th, possibly 3rd place at finals. And from what I have been hearing, I think most fans are going to have SCV in their top 3 favorites this year. I will say I think if they were a little cleaner right now, comparable to the top 3, I think they would be between 1-1.3 points closer to them right now. But I also do not see them dropping below 4th for the rest of the season. I think the big surprise by the end of the season will be Cavaliers and Madison Scouts ending up in 5th and 6th place, finishing ahead of Phantom and Bluecoats.

[RDevil12]

You're right, they haven't gone head to head and if you think the Coats show has that strong of a wheel to ride on, I won't argue with it. You may be right. It's going to be fun to see how it all turns out in August.

Bluecoats and Madison have gone head to head once this year. Albeit early (June 25th @ Fairfield), Bluecoats had a 2.4 point spread over Madison at that time.

[perc2100]

I'm dumb too, but I'll give it a shot. Looking at the recaps for Denver, for instance, you'll see that each category, like "Visual Proficiency" or "Music - Percussion" is subdivided into two columns. The first columns are titled "Cont" or "Comp" or "Subst", while the second columns are titled "Achv". If a given first column has a larger score than its related second column, i.e., if the "Content" or "Substance" of the drill or the percussion book shows more difficulty than the corps is "Achieving", the corps can improve its overall score simply by performing better: they have "room to grow", and since there's still more than four weeks to finals, all corps are sure to get cleaner. Of course, they want the content to go up too! They do this in part by adding elements to their shows to make them more difficult and in part simply by getting cleaner, because the judges can see or hear more clearly what you're doing in the first place. However, several people here have emphasized that it's harder to make a show more difficult than it is to clean, so it's better to have higher content than achievement numbers at this point.

I would substitute "difficult" with the term "effective." It might be semantic, but there have been plenty of examples of incredibly effective content but not necessarily incredibly difficult. Sometimes something might even appear more difficult than it really is (or, with a slightly lesser achieving group, something simpler might appear more difficult due to members struggling).

Also, especially early season, I think sometimes this type of thing might get too much weight with folks. Yes, it is intriguing that if a corps is consistently scoring higher in achievement than they are in content, and it COULD be trouble for a corps down the road. But it could be a matter of funky numbers management: if a judge just really loves corps A's design but they don't achieve as much execution-wise as Corp B, it doesn't necessarily mean that corps A is overachieving a weak book (especially if we're talking .1 or so points). If we get into late July, and SCV is still consistently scoring higher in execution subs than content, maybe this will be another conversation. I personally love it when judges mix-up Sub-captions: that type of thing sometimes makes a LOT of sense early season.

Of course, I think it's fairly obvious that Blue Devils have a better design from a Vis. Effect standpoint, but they are not executing right now (while conversely Crown is executing but has a slightly less awesome visual design from a Vis Effect standpoint). If spreads between content & achievement start widening, or if we're talking about, say, Cadets coming in 4th GE Vis content and 1st in GE Vis achievement, THEN we'll know a corps is in trouble with their design! We'll know a lot more about where everyone really stands and how things are shaping up as the WC corps compete against each other at the same show.