Sign in to follow this  
BlueStainGlass

Finals Format

Recommended Posts

I liked the '88 random draw.

 

So there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 12:51 AM, LoveKathyG said:

I loved it.  

 

14 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

I liked the '88 random draw.

 

So there.

So did the Scouts: they loved the '88 random format! Go to the fromthepressbox website and see this for yourself. The entire season the Scouts were bouncing around 4th to 7th; even at their last regular performance in Aug just prior to heading into KC for Semi-Finals they were around 7th with a score of 92.7. Then, unbeknownst to the fans due to the secret random draw for Finals, they jumped a whopping 5 points, again jumped a whopping 5 points at the very next show which was Semi-Finals and vaulted into 1st place with a 97.8!. The fans did not discover this until the Final scores were announced at Finals retreat!

(Added note: some may try to point to 2008 Regiment as a similar example. However, a check of their scores against BD and The Cavaliers all season in 2008 shows that all three were neck to neck throughout the summer; with Regiment being tied with The Cavaliers at least twice and beating BD at least once at Allentown. Nothing like the 7th place to 1st place 5-point vaulting in one show for the Scouts in 1988).

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Stu said:

 

So did the Scouts: they loved the '88 random format! Go to the fromthepressbox website and see this for yourself. The entire season the Scouts were bouncing around 4th to 7th; even at their last regular performance in Aug just prior to heading into KC for Semi-Finals they were in that 4th-7th range. Then, unbeknownst to the fans due to the secret random draw for Finals, they jumped a whopping 5 points, again jumped a whopping 5 points in just a few days and vaulted into first place at Semi-Finals. The fans did not discover this until the Final scores were announced at Finals retreat!

No one would believe it if that happened today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the more random prelim order, it was fun. Maybe try it for San Antonio, make it a 2-day event, prelims and finals.  Put some of the higher-ranking corps on early at Prelims to get people in the seats.  it could add some drama as it’s often the first big meet up of the season…could also see the corps benefit by not having to travel for a day. Could also see the attendance going up on both days as it’d be more trip worthy.  Didn’t they do the corps in seeded chunks for finals there anyway?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I could see randomizing corps after Thursday's show into groups of three, so the 10/11/12, 7/8/9, 4/5/6, and 1/2/3 groups performed in drawn order from within their respective tier. It likely wouldn't make that much of a difference in the final scores (at TOC shows, even if BD performs first, they usually win in years when they dominate), but it would make for a little intrigue on the big night.

As an observation, the unspoken sentiment of the opposition to the concept following the '88 experiment appears to be a belief that the 'wrong corps' won that night and that the draw had something to do with it. Not saying I agree or disagree with that belief, but it's the gorilla in the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 1:18 AM, Stu said:

 

So did the Scouts: they loved the '88 random format! Go to the fromthepressbox website and see this for yourself. The entire season the Scouts were bouncing around 4th to 7th; even at their last regular performance in Aug just prior to heading into KC for Semi-Finals they were around 7th with a score of 92.7. Then, unbeknownst to the fans due to the secret random draw for Finals, they jumped a whopping 5 points, again jumped a whopping 5 points at the very next show which was Semi-Finals and vaulted into 1st place with a 97.8!. The fans did not discover this until the Final scores were announced at Finals retreat!

1

I was in the stands for those championships.  Most around me/us thought SCV sewed it up on Saturday night...when Scouts were named as champions, a bunch of us just looked at each other with our mouths open.  It was NOT the universal bedlam in the stands that some seem to remember....

And I do know there are a lot of people who will say it was clear that Scouts were the winners that night, and they were certainly an awesome corps ... but from OUR vantage point, SCV owned the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

 I could see randomizing corps after Thursday's show into groups of three, so the 10/11/12, 7/8/9, 4/5/6, and 1/2/3 groups performed in drawn order from within their respective tier. It likely wouldn't make that much of a difference in the final scores (at TOC shows, even if BD performs first, they usually win in years when they dominate), but it would make for a little intrigue on the big night.

As an observation, the unspoken sentiment of the opposition to the concept following the '88 experiment appears to be a belief that the 'wrong corps' won that night and that the draw had something to do with it. Not saying I agree or disagree with that belief, but it's the gorilla in the room.

In 89 at Kansas City, the prelims were a completely random draw, top to bottom.  I distinctly remember Cadets playing Les Mis on Thursday at about 2.30pm in the afternoon under a 98 degree sun on that turf.  I think they were 3rd or 4th out of the gate to play that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2017 at 11:05 AM, hughesmr said:

I was in the stands for those championships.  Most around me/us thought SCV sewed it up on Saturday night...when Scouts were named as champions, a bunch of us just looked at each other with our mouths open.  It was NOT the universal bedlam in the stands that some seem to remember....

And I do know there are a lot of people who will say it was clear that Scouts were the winners that night, and they were certainly an awesome corps ... but from OUR vantage point, SCV owned the night.

Totally agree. The crowd around me were exactly the same - silent and mouths open in total disbelief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2017 at 10:46 AM, Slingerland said:

As an observation, the unspoken sentiment of the opposition to the concept following the '88 experiment appears to be a belief that the 'wrong corps' won that night and that the draw had something to do with it. Not saying I agree or disagree with that belief, but it's the gorilla in the room.

If not the secrecy of score/ranking from Fri Semis in 1988, what else would explain an immediate 5 point jump and a leap from a 7th seed going into Semis to first going into Finals? Did they really increase that drastically in quality from the previous show just prior to Semis?

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stu said:

If not the secrecy of score/ranking from Fri Semis in 1988, what else would explain an immediate 5 point jump and a leap from a 7th seed going into Semis to first going into Finals? Did they really increase that drastically in quality from the previous show just prior to Semis?

while i think SCV should have won, on 8/13, per fromthepressbox.com, SCV had a 94.3 and Madison had a 93.9

 

on 8/6, SCV had a 92.2, and Madison 90.4. so in a week Madison knocked 1.4 off of the deficit. Going down South energized Madison because on 8/3, they were .1 behind The Cadets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.