2019 Predictions!

[queenanne_1536]

2 hours ago, George Dixon said:

It is highly unlikely 

George, at this time during the 2016 season (see the Cadets 2016 thread) people were saying Cadets had serious design issues and were in trouble. You argued otherwise. The Cadets finished 6th. A week or so into the season in 2017 (see the Cadets 2017 thread) you argued the Cadets could medal. Others disagreed. The Cadets finished 7th. As I said, everyone has biases, including me. But, we have to recognize those biases for what they are. Saying "It's highly unlikely" just doesn't fly. If the Blue Stars can improve and grow on last season, it's entirely likely. I predicted the Cadets 7th and Blue Stars 8th, but I may be wrong. If you told me before I saw anyone in 2016 that the Cavaliers were going to beat the Cadets, I would have said "unlikely." It happened. In fact, as soon as I saw both their shows, I was pretty sure it was going to happen.

Getting rid of almost all my biases has made DCI so much more enjoyable. My anger and disagreement at BD winning so much is gone (not saying at all you're angry, I am just saying I was). I love them now. My anger at Madison being "screwed" is gone. They are gone and neither was true. Both Madison and BD have always gotten what they deserve, for better or for worse. I could site several more examples, but it has been so freeing and enlightening to see things for what they are, not through a biased lens. You have an overwhelmingly strong pro-Cadet bias. In my opinion, that has clouded your judgement of where they are in the past, just like my pro-Regiment, pro-Scouts, pro-Crown, anti-Bloo pro-Cadets, and anti-BD, anti-Cavies, and anti-BK biases (Good God, I used to be such a hater) have clouded my judgement in the past, for years and years and years.

I want the Cadets to get back to the top as much as anyone, but it's not going to happen over night. and it's just as likely the Cadets could drop to 8th or 9th as it is they could rise to 5th. 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by queenanne_1536

[George Dixon]

* so done with this 

bring on the season!!! Woo hoo!

[queenanne_1536]

Just now, George Dixon said:

* so done with this 

bring on the season!!! Woo hoo!

I have to say your response is disappointing, but do enjoy the season.

[queenanne_1536]

2 hours ago, Algernon said:

No, a fan of consistency in staffing, especially in the design process.

 

This. Exactly. Consistency in staffing and creating a team that works well together isn't easy. SCV started that process in 2008 and it wasn't until 2017 that they cracked the top 3. It takes a long time. I do think the Cadets are the right path and it's going to be exciting to watch them over the coming years, but it's going to take some time. Not just one or two seasons.

[cfirwin3]

2 hours ago, queenanne_1536 said:

I'm not so sure it's highly unlikely. You have to realize you have a very strong pro-Cadet bias. That's fine. It took me more than 25 years to get rid of all but one of my biases. My biggest bias was my anti-BD bias. I didn't even think they deserved it in 2014 if you can believe that. Now that it's gone, I look back and yes, BD deserved everything they got. Biases can sometimes cloud us from seeing what's really going on. Of all the biases I've been able to shake, I still have a small pro-SCV bias. I doubt that will ever go away, and I'm ok with that.

But I don't have a Cadet bias at all.  I am pointing out the recruitment advantage that the Cadet name has.  While that may be A bias... it isn't MY bias... it's merely an observation.  They are more suited to accelerate quickly under functional terms than a drumcorps like Blue Stars.  Blue Stars are developing as a first time contender (and they are developing as a contender, make no mistake of it).

Just to be clear, you can't really tell someone what or how THEY think.  We can only talk about what we observe and try to back it up with a theory.

We have seen extremely fast placement improvement on a return to normalcy and name-recognition recruitment before.  It's quite common, actually.  SCV and Cavies (for example) have been through it before, more than once for each.

In contrast Crown and Bluecoats (as recent, new, contemporary contenders) had to climb hard for a fairly long duration.. and that was with the intent to contend for a championship (nearly a decade in the making for both... I was there at the start of one of those, and it was obvious what they were up to).  On the other hand, there is the Crusaders (and others at times) that made very fast leaps to high placements... but that is quite rare and relatively unpredictable.  Given that this is a prediction thread, the point that is being made concerning placements, is that some projections seem to be predictions of relatively unpredictable outcomes (there's not really a good reason to assume it with such regularity as people are).

In spite of the Cadet internal narratives that are ongoing, they are arguably in a better place today than they were last year, the year before, etc... for obvious reasons.

I could say the same thing for The Madison Scouts.  They arguably have a better chance at accelerated placement under the conditions of a well written program... merely because the history and prestige of the name draws disproportionate interest and talent.

None of us are saying that we would 'eat our hats' if the Blue Stars bested the Cadets.  But we ARE saying that we wouldn't put ANY money on the suggestion that they will.  There's not really a good reason to assume it.

[queenanne_1536]

1 minute ago, cfirwin3 said:

Just to be clear, you can't really tell someone what or how THEY think.  We can only talk about what we observe and try to back it up with a theory.

None of us are saying that we would 'eat our hats' if the Blue Stars bested the Cadets.  But we ARE saying that we wouldn't put ANY money on the suggestion that they will.  There's not really a good reason to assume it.

I'm not telling anyone what or how they think. I'm telling them how I think, and I think it's fine to point out that I think someone has a bias. I've provided ample evidence of that bias.

I also said above that I wouldn't put money on Blue Stars besting the Cadets either, but I wouldn't say it's "unlikely." 

[BlueStainGlass]

2 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said:

But I don't have a Cadet bias at all.  I am pointing out the recruitment advantage that the Cadet name has.  While that may be A bias... it isn't MY bias... it's merely an observation.  They are more suited to accelerate quickly under functional terms than a drumcorps like Blue Stars.  Blue Stars are developing as a first time contender (and they are developing as a contender, make no mistake of it).

Just to be clear, you can't really tell someone what or how THEY think.  We can only talk about what we observe and try to back it up with a theory.

We have seen extremely fast placement improvement on a return to normalcy and name-recognition recruitment before.  It's quite common, actually.  SCV and Cavies (for example) have been through it before, more than once for each.

In contrast Crown and Bluecoats (as recent, new, contemporary contenders) had to climb hard for a fairly long duration.. and that was with the intent to contend for a championship (nearly a decade in the making for both... I was there at the start of one of those, and it was obvious what they were up to).  On the other hand, there is the Crusaders (and others at times) that made very fast leaps to high placements... but that is quite rare and relatively unpredictable.  Given that this is a prediction thread, the point that is being made concerning placements, is that some projections seem to be predictions of relatively unpredictable outcomes (there's not really a good reason to assume it with such regularity as people are).

In spite of the Cadet internal narratives that are ongoing, they are arguably in a better place today than they were last year, the year before, etc... for obvious reasons.

I could say the same thing for The Madison Scouts.  They arguably have a better chance at accelerated placement under the conditions of a well written program... merely because the history and prestige of the name draws disproportionate interest and talent.

None of us are saying that we would 'eat our hats' if the Blue Stars bested the Cadets.  But we ARE saying that we wouldn't put ANY money on the suggestion that they will.  There's not really a good reason to assume it.

Blue Stars were a contender when it all started 😉 should have won in 1972!

[Brass34]

3 minutes ago, queenanne_1536 said:

It takes a long time. I do think the Cadets are the right path and it's going to be exciting to watch them over the coming years, but it's going to take some time. Not just one or two seasons.

Explain Boston.

[cfirwin3]

Just now, queenanne_1536 said:

I'm not telling anyone what or how they think. I'm telling them how I think, and I think it's fine to point out that I think someone has a bias. I've provided ample evidence of that bias.

I also said above that I wouldn't put money on Blue Stars besting the Cadets either, but I wouldn't say it's "unlikely." 

You have provided no evidence of a bias.  You just merely stated it as if it were true... you stated it several times and it was your only point.  I'm not trying to argue WITH you, but you did tell me what I thought and you told me how I got to my conclusion based on what you say I thought.

Wouldn't you say that withholding our proverbial pennies on a 'friendly bet' is essentially admitting that something is unlikely?  That's all we are saying here.

[cfirwin3]

2 minutes ago, BlueStainGlass said:

Blue Stars were a contender when it all started 😉 should have won in 1972!

Can't argue with that one. 🤐