Phantombari1 Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) Agreed. An off year is substantially different for each core. For instance the Blue Devils would probably think anything lower than 2nd place as an off year. Crown would think anything lower than 3rd place is an off year. It just keeps going. *Just vague examples Right on the money...At some point the other corps got better or Phantom got complacent. 5th place in some years would have been a great finish considering the quality of all the corps on a particular year. That however was not the norm. Accepting mediocrity is not in my vocabulary...for others its acceptable. Now I'm hoping this year is an off year and we finish higher...much higher. Edited June 28, 2016 by Phantombari1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdaddy Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Right on the money...At some point the other corps got better or Phantom got complacent. 5th place in some years would have been a great finish considering the quality of all the corps on a particular year. That however was not the norm. Accepting mediocrity is not in my vocabulary...for others its acceptable. Now I'm hoping this year is an off year and we finish higher...much higher. I don't want to beat a dead horse... However, I'll go grab my club... I've argued before that Phantom Regiment is, historically, a fifth place corps. Occasionally, they get the perfect design team and put out an effective product (e.g., I always think of 2005-2008). And occasionally, they have a design team that puts out a stinker (e.g., I'd argue 1998, 2009, 2013-2015). And then there are some points in between where those stinkers required them to recover, where there was a solid product but aspects weren't competitive (e.g., 1999-2001, 2010). This is why I'm not so worried about placements - I'm worried about feeling good about the direction. I don't think it's an issue of complacency. As others have argued, I think it's more of an issue of management (i) having difficulty adjusting to the new design reality of DCI, and as a result (ii) keeping strong design talent. When the design team hits on all cylinders, management looks great. When they don't, the capability of management (or lack thereof) stands out. Ultimately, any issues with this corps in 2016 (if there do indeed exist any - we're very early in the season), it's not an issue of complacency, it's capability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted June 28, 2016 Author Share Posted June 28, 2016 I don't want to beat a dead horse... However, I'll go grab my club... I've argued before that Phantom Regiment is, historically, a fifth place corps. Occasionally, they get the perfect design team and put out an effective product (e.g., I always think of 2005-2008). And occasionally, they have a design team that puts out a stinker (e.g., I'd argue 1998, 2009, 2013-2015). And then there are some points in between where those stinkers required them to recover, where there was a solid product but aspects weren't competitive (e.g., 1999-2001, 2010). This is why I'm not so worried about placements - I'm worried about feeling good about the direction. I don't think it's an issue of complacency. As others have argued, I think it's more of an issue of management (i) having difficulty adjusting to the new design reality of DCI, and as a result (ii) keeping strong design talent. When the design team hits on all cylinders, management looks great. When they don't, the capability of management (or lack thereof) stands out. Ultimately, any issues with this corps in 2016 (if there do indeed exist any - we're very early in the season), it's not an issue of complacency, it's capability. Agreed. I'm much more worried about enjoyment of the product than the placement. Phantom has historically been a 5th place corps and anyone pretending otherwise is fooling themselves 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRapp Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 I don't want to beat a dead horse... However, I'll go grab my club... I've argued before that Phantom Regiment is, historically, a fifth place corps. Occasionally, they get the perfect design team and put out an effective product (e.g., I always think of 2005-2008). And occasionally, they have a design team that puts out a stinker (e.g., I'd argue 1998, 2009, 2013-2015). And then there are some points in between where those stinkers required them to recover, where there was a solid product but aspects weren't competitive (e.g., 1999-2001, 2010). This is why I'm not so worried about placements - I'm worried about feeling good about the direction. I don't think it's an issue of complacency. As others have argued, I think it's more of an issue of management (i) having difficulty adjusting to the new design reality of DCI, and as a result (ii) keeping strong design talent. When the design team hits on all cylinders, management looks great. When they don't, the capability of management (or lack thereof) stands out. Ultimately, any issues with this corps in 2016 (if there do indeed exist any - we're very early in the season), it's not an issue of complacency, it's capability. Phantom, sort of like Scouts, has always had a very unique brand position within DCI. As the activity has changed, and become more diverse in terms of show style, I think it's become more difficult for those two corps to find their unique place in DCI while still evolving "with the times." I'd put Cavaliers, as an all-male corps, in that group as well. It isn't impossible to be a medalist, just more difficult. It certainly seems as though there is strong disagreement within the ranks of Phantom as to how to evolve. Some would rather finish eighth and be true to their roots, while others would rather be Bluecoats and medal every other season. No doubt many if not most would hope that Phantom could remain Phantom and compete for a medal every year. For me, SCV has always been somewhat similar to Phantom in terms of their brand. They tend to do more theatrical, traditional shows that lean more toward a classical/classic style. SCV, like Phantom, has also struggled to remain an elite corps (though has never finished lower than sixth). It's not that they have gotten worse, they've actually gotten better by the numbers. But there are now some other corps that have played in a broader, more contemporary style that has established them as a heavyweight. My two cents is, if you are going to focus on a specific niche/style, you better be prepared to go all in on a show concept. Phantom, to me, feels constrained and not as confident as they used to be from a show design standpoint. It used to be that you couldn't wait to see what Phantom was going to do, and now you watch their shows and give polite, respectful applause and forget what they did a day later. JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general_tsos_chicken2 Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 I think the only issue is that those in charge can't hire the right people for the jobs, as evidenced by their revolving door of staff personnel. They seem to think that they will give someone already affiliated with the corps a chance and everything will turn out great! That may work with Will Pitts, but it's not going to to work elsewhere--at least any time soon. I think this years show would be really something if Jamey Thompson were still around. Any of the 05-08 shows would still place very well today -- I don't buy that they need to modernize by having props, electronics etc. They simply need to have a well designed program, and spin, play and drum better than others. Look at SCV this year for example. Because of the music, I will still take this years show over the giant puppets, annoyingly cheesy shopping girl, and awful arrangements of the last four years. I can not believe those ideas made it through a single design meeting, let alone make it to the field. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantombari1 Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) Placement isn't an issue when we are competitive. Take the New Normal top 7 (I count Madison in that) The overall scores in a competitive environment should be closer if the product is there in the beginning. With the talent the corps get most should be (IMO however unrealistic,) closer battling for spots. (Wouldn't that be exciting?) The quality level from those out of the top three should be better...I guess you could say that about all the corps. In terms of Phantom...There is no excuse for not competing with the top corps. Winning is one thing...competing is another. We are consistently not competitive with the top. To me that says it's a management issue. Edited June 28, 2016 by Phantombari1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted June 28, 2016 Author Share Posted June 28, 2016 Placement isn't when we are competitive. Take the New Normal top 7 (I count Madison in that) The overall scores in a competitive environment should be closer if the product is there in the beginning. With the talent the corps get most should be (IMO however unrealistic,) closer battling for spots. (Wouldn't that be exciting?) The quality level from those out of the top three should be better...I guess you could say that about all the corps. In terms of Phantom...There is no excuse for not competing with the top corps. Winning is one thing...competing is another. We are consistently not competitive with the top. To me that says it's a management issue. You count Madison in the new normal top 7? The last time they placed 7th or better was 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry7184 Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 For me, SCV has always been somewhat similar to Phantom in terms of their brand. They tend to do more theatrical, traditional shows that lean more toward a classical/classic style. SCV, like Phantom, has also struggled to remain an elite corps (though has never finished lower than sixth). JMHO SCV finished 8th in 2005, and 7th in 1980, 1992, 1993, 2008 and 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantombari1 Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 You count Madison in the new normal top 7? The last time they placed 7th or better was 2005. One can hope and dream. And I know its sad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 One can hope and dream. And I know its sad... What years did you march Phantom? 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.