2016 Prediction Thread

[BlueStainGlass]

I was also (am still) quite excited when they announced some Crown staff additions awhile back for the upcoming season, but I would imagine the reason most people seem to be leaving them out of their preseason Finals list is because the show sounds so...safe and uninspired, I guess. We know almost nothing about it, so that could be completely wrong and it could be a doorbuster of a production. But, at first glance, which is all we have for anyone, Troop seems to have really revamped the blander and less-complex show design issues that have plagued them the last few seasons and appears to be putting out a fresh product in a new (more current?) direction, with the Lovatt-Cooper piece in particular adding some meat in the preseason videos that hasn't been present recently. The Academy & OC (again at first glance only) both appear to be embracing their strong 2015 seasons & shows and running in even bolder and more interesting directions with their success. While the Blue Stars' staff changes have me a bit tentative, their 2016 production also appears to be a show that will continue to stretch their identity as a corps. And everything we've heard about Boston's preseason design efforts seem to have them chasing a high single digit placement rather than fighting for a Finals spot.

Crossmen, on the other hand....eh. "Continuum", on the surface, strikes the mind as something that could easily end up being an unmemorable show. Maybe when it's fleshed out more it will be terrific, who knows. Add to that the fact that as of now, the music is all original, and count me extra unenthused. Again, the corps in their ballpark will be performing Prokofiev, Wagner, Mozart, Beethoven, Michael Kamen, Paul Lovatt-Cooper, Herrmann, Bjork, Queen, etc. That's a lot of depth and musical fortitude to be sandwiched with. As someone who's been around the BOA world for awhile, none of Markworth's original stuff (I stress original) for the field has ever struck me as particularly memorable, sensational, or anything that's the BEST musical vehicle for the band performing it. It's always nice, though. I understand that some good staff changes and talent retention have transpired, but if it's a dud of a show (not saying it will be), there could be too many corps with terrific programs and equally-talented performers nipping at Crossmen's collective heels.

I should also note that Colts' announcement had me a bit disappointed as well. It seems more along the lines of the dozen safe, easily-forgotten, nice-but-non-finalist shows in the past 15 years or so, whereas the last two seasons they truly carved out a niche for themselves among the 22 world class corps. Narration hated or loved or anywhere in between, they were much more watched and discussed than the vast majority of their seasons prior to that. I fear that "Nachtmusik" will be more cautious and less bold, retreating back to a safer design.

I've taught Markworth originals and met him. I agreed with you until you got to the part that they aren't memorable. He has the benefits of complete writing so I feel like he gets a consistent brass to drum writing instead of 2 different writers.

[Jake W.]

I've taught Markworth originals and met him. I agreed with you until you got to the part that they aren't memorable. He has the benefits of complete writing so I feel like he gets a consistent brass to drum writing instead of 2 different writers.

Excellent point about the streamlined ideas when the brass & percussion writing from the same source. And, to be clear, I'm sure that Markworth is an incredible guy, I definitely don't mean to argue for or against his character or humanity. And, to be even clearer, his stuff for WGI and the percussion realm is well-lauded, and even further, his current arrangements (which is why I stressed original works) for Centerville are smart and intuitive. I still stand by my statement, though, that none of the completely original wind music books I've heard (Centerville & Bellbrook are my general experience) have been anything other than good visual designs that surpassed their lackluster music writing. And that is what has me worried for Crossmen next year; again, especially with so much musical meat in their competitive neighborhood.

[noahsigs]

In my opinion, the most unstable corps right now is the Bluecoats. I could see them winning, and I could see them in 6th. I can't think of any corps with that big a gap in my perception, besides maybe Phantom. (5-10)

[Cappybara]

In my opinion, the most unstable corps right now is the Bluecoats. I could see them winning, and I could see them in 6th. I can't think of any corps with that big a gap in my perception, besides maybe Phantom. (5-10)

Really? I think that they have the potential to be a fixture in the top 4 for a bit as long as they keep putting out show designs that are appealing to the marchers. These guys are basically the 2000's Cavies of the 2010's without the DCI championship to speak for it.

They're putting out super innovative shows and pushing the boundaries of drum corps much like the Cavies did and that's going to attract a lot of talent to them. And their design staff has been showing that they make shows that are as competitive GE-wise with the other top 3 corps.

[jjeffeory]

In my opinion, the most unstable corps right now is the Bluecoats. I could see them winning, and I could see them in 6th. I can't think of any corps with that big a gap in my perception, besides maybe Phantom. (5-10)

I think Cavaliers are the most stable corps right now, but they've done some things in the off season that will hopefully address that... I certainly do NOT believe that they'll be 9th again any year soon, and they could easily go back 6th like they were 2 years ago, or even higher.

2015 was not a good year for them health-wise. They could have very well been in 6th.

My reasoning for the stability issue lies in the math.

Their range in scores over the last 5 years has been from 96.850 down to 88.325 ( 8.525 points), which is all over the place. Pretty much the definition of unstable.

I would guess that Phantom will score higher this as well. Remember, they were 3rd a mere 4 years ago. The range in their scores over the last 5 years has been a rather unstable 90.325 - 96.550 (6.225).

I think Bluecoats have proven themselves this last couple of years. I think they're definitely top 4 today. Their placements haven't been as stable as some corps, as they've placed from 7th - 2nd place, but the range in their scores over the last 5 years has been 92.550 - 97.175 (4.625 points), which is more stable than the two corps mentioned above.

Over the last 5 years, SCV placements have been a stable 4th - 6th place. Their scores range from 96.850 - 92.200 ( 4.65 )

Over the last 5 years, The Cadets have placed 1st - 4th. Their range in scores over that 5 years has been VERY stable. They go from 98.350 to 95.050 ( 3.3 points).

Even Crown's placement isn't that stable yet. They were 5th in 2014 ( with an INCREDIBLE show). Crown has been elite since 2007 though, so their scores have been very high despite their placements.

Their range in scores over the last 5 years has been VERY stable (2nd most stable). Their scores range from 98.300 to 95.950 ( 2.35 points).

The only other corps that is more stable in scoring is the Blue Devils corps.

For comparison's sake, if one looks at Madison, they're stuck roughly in the 87 - 90 point range, which lands them between 8th - 10th place. That's actually pretty stable score and placements.

BD is the most stable scoring and placing corps right now.

Over the last 5 years, Blue Devils have placed either 1st or 2nd. Their range in scores over that 5 years has been extremely stable. They have scored from 99.650 to 97.650 ( 2 points).

As GUARDLING stated in another thread, just one caption can cause big differences in placements from year to year. ( I'm paraphrasing).

I personally believe that one of the more unstable corps, placement wise is the Blue Knights. Great outcomes for them the last two years with wonderful shows, but before that hovering around 9 - 11th. So in the last 5 years, they've placed between 6th and 11th place. They're currently on the upswing, but I think they're a wild card. If they come out swinging and place 4th or 3rd this year, that would STILL be unstable placements, but in a positive direction.

They have scored from 91.850 to 86.700 ( 5.15 points). That's good for the 3rd most unstable scoring ranging of the corps listed here.

The lesson here is that there are some corps who have stable placements from year to year, but unstable scoring from year to year. ( SCV, Bluecoats)

Other corps, have unstable placements from year to year, but stable scoring. ( Carolina Crown)

Some corps have both unstable placements and scores during the last 5 years ( Cavaliers, Phantom Regiment, Blue Knights)

Then there's the Blue Devils who are stable in both scoring and placements. ( Ok, The Cadets are pretty stable on both fronts too).

Anyway, pretty interesting stuff and partly hints at some things that are happening in real life regarding staff stability or lack thereof in certain corps and show design over that period in time.

[shofmon88]

I think Cavaliers are the most stable corps right now, but they've done some things in the off season that will hopefully address that... I certainly do NOT believe that they'll be 9th again any year soon, and they could easily go back 6th like they were 2 years ago, or even higher.

2015 was not a good year for them health-wise. They could have very well been in 6th.

My reasoning for the stability issue lies in the math.

Their range in scores over the last 5 years has been from 96.850 down to 88.325 ( 8.525 points), which is all over the place. Pretty much the definition of unstable.

I would guess that Phantom will score higher this as well. Remember, they were 3rd a mere 4 years ago. The range in their scores over the last 5 years has been a rather unstable 90.325 - 96.550 (6.225).

I think Bluecoats have proven themselves this last couple of years. I think they're definitely top 4 today. Their placements haven't been as stable as some corps, as they've placed from 7th - 2nd place, but the range in their scores over the last 5 years has been 92.550 - 97.175 (4.625 points), which is more stable than the two corps mentioned above.

Over the last 5 years, SCV placements have been a stable 4th - 6th place. Their scores range from 96.850 - 92.200 ( 4.65 )

Over the last 5 years, The Cadets have placed 1st - 4th. Their range in scores over that 5 years has been VERY stable. They go from 98.350 to 95.050 ( 3.3 points).

Even Crown's placement isn't that stable yet. They were 5th in 2014 ( with an INCREDIBLE show). Crown has been elite since 2007 though, so their scores have been very high despite their placements.

Their range in scores over the last 5 years has been VERY stable (2nd most stable). Their scores range from 98.300 to 95.950 ( 2.35 points).

The only other corps that is more stable in scoring is the Blue Devils corps.

For comparison's sake, if one looks at Madison, they're stuck roughly in the 87 - 90 point range, which lands them between 8th - 10th place. That's actually pretty stable score and placements.

BD is the most stable scoring and placing corps right now.

Over the last 5 years, Blue Devils have placed either 1st or 2nd. Their range in scores over that 5 years has been extremely stable. They have scored from 99.650 to 97.650 ( 2 points).

As GUARDLING stated in another thread, just one caption can cause big differences in placements from year to year. ( I'm paraphrasing).

I personally believe that one of the more unstable corps, placement wise is the Blue Knights. Great outcomes for them the last two years with wonderful shows, but before that hovering around 9 - 11th. So in the last 5 years, they've placed between 6th and 11th place. They're currently on the upswing, but I think they're a wild card. If they come out swinging and place 4th or 3rd this year, that would STILL be unstable placements, but in a positive direction.

They have scored from 91.850 to 86.700 ( 5.15 points). That's good for the 3rd most unstable scoring ranging of the corps listed here.

The lesson here is that there are some corps who have stable placements from year to year, but unstable scoring from year to year. ( SCV, Bluecoats)

Other corps, have unstable placements from year to year, but stable scoring. ( Carolina Crown)

Some corps have both unstable placements and scores during the last 5 years ( Cavaliers, Phantom Regiment, Blue Knights)

Then there's the Blue Devils who are stable in both scoring and placements. ( Ok, The Cadets are pretty stable on both fronts too).

Anyway, pretty interesting stuff and partly hints at some things that are happening in real life regarding staff stability or lack thereof in certain corps and show design over that period in time.

I get what you're saying, but strictly speaking, this is a statistically unsound argument. The scores of one year can't be directly compared with any other year, or even between shows. They're too unstable and too subjective. What they do is basically put a novel number to a rank (1st in brass, 2nd in brass might be 19 and 18, or 19.2 and 18.7). To have any sort of statistical power, you need to use rankings to compare years. If you do this, BK would still have a pretty variable placement, same with the Cavaliers. BD would be stable at the top.

[Cappybara]

I get what you're saying, but strictly speaking, this is a statistically unsound argument. The scores of one year can't be directly compared with any other year, or even between shows. They're too unstable and too subjective. What they do is basically put a novel number to a rank (1st in brass, 2nd in brass might be 19 and 18, or 19.2 and 18.7). To have any sort of statistical power, you need to use rankings to compare years. If you do this, BK would still have a pretty variable placement, same with the Cavaliers. BD would be stable at the top.

Maybe my mind isn't grasping this properly but can he not compare years in this place? If he uses BD as the base with a 2 point stability range, then every corps would be ranked relative to BD. So Crown would be said to be +.35, for example.

Since every corps has competed in each of the years mentioned, and we are using the ACTUAL ranges relative to one corps, I think it would be valid to compare corps as they were all being judged the same way in each of the years that his analysis was using.

[jjeffeory]

I get what you're saying, but strictly speaking, this is a statistically unsound argument. The scores of one year can't be directly compared with any other year, or even between shows. They're too unstable and too subjective. What they do is basically put a novel number to a rank (1st in brass, 2nd in brass might be 19 and 18, or 19.2 and 18.7). To have any sort of statistical power, you need to use rankings to compare years. If you do this, BK would still have a pretty variable placement, same with the Cavaliers. BD would be stable at the top.

I knew someone would make that argument, and I agree that the scores can't be directly compared from year to year, or even between shows, BUT the baseline between each year and corps is the same.

2015 scores between corps at that show hold for that year and show. The same relationship holds for each other year's scores. It's the best we can do since DCI scoring isn't an exact science. I think it's good enough, but I also know the limitations of the methodology.

The bigger point was that I gave reasoning behind my opinion rather than just saying, I believe this because I just believe it... It's all for fun anyway.

[Hook'emCavies]

I think Cavies finish in the top 6 this season. The changes will benefit the corps.

[George Dixon]

I knew someone would make that argument, and I agree that the scores can't be directly compared from year to year, or even between shows, BUT the baseline between each year and corps is the same.

2015 scores between corps at that show hold for that year and show. The same relationship holds for each other year's scores. It's the best we can do since DCI scoring isn't an exact science. I think it's good enough, but I also know the limitations of the methodology.

The bigger point was that I gave reasoning behind my opinion rather than just saying, I believe this because I just believe it... It's all for fun anyway.

relative scores can be compared. I agree with your analysis...