I think Crown and Coats got ripped off

[Cappybara]

26 minutes ago, garfield said:

Hey, come on!  If you're going to pun the guy, at least do it right! 

That's Damp Otter to you.

 

Wow, I'm disappointed in myself 

[greg_orangecounty]

1 hour ago, George Dixon said:

I strongly believe Coats should have won and Crown should have been third

Am I alone? 

I think the judges got it right from what I saw. 

But its soooooo subjective now and I see how people can disagree.

greg_orangecounty

[HockeyDad]

2 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

Reread your proposal and tell me it isn't the same thing. 

Not liking repeat and repeat and repeat champion = everybody should win. Nope. That's not even close to what I said.

Must be that new math. 

I miss the University of Florida band thread. 

[HockeyDad]

Upon further reflection, I may be more a fan of the second place shows than the first:  Phantom Regiment in 78...and 79...and 89...and 06.  27th Lancers in 80.  Crown in 15.  SCV in 87.  Cavies in 91 (audible gasp!). And so on

[Spatzzz]

I think BD and BC was a coin flip although BD seemed to have the better finals run and in the end the kids got to decide.

For me Crown wasn't a medal contender at all, in fact 5 or 6 would be a better place for them. Cavaliers should have been in that battle with SCV for 3rd. Better show than Crown by a mile. Crown has a great hornline, competitive battery, bottom half guard and visual design. 

[greg_orangecounty]

12 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

I miss the University of Florida band thread. 

I asked the mod to nuke it and, thankfully, he or she did.

It was embarrassing. 

[Cappybara]

18 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Not liking repeat and repeat and repeat champion = everybody should win. Nope. That's not even close to what I said.

Must be that new math. 

I miss the University of Florida band thread. 

So because a set of corps can't win off of their own merits, we instead take the winner out of competition by default so other corps get a turn at being the winner. Sounds like the math is very sound to me. 

[skevinp]

I wonder if, under the old scoring, there would have been ties for first and third.

[BranchHill]

... and all along, I have thought it was Pacific Crest who received the short end of the judging stick. *SHRUG*

[HockeyDad]

2 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

So because a set of corps can't win off of their own merits, we instead take the winner out of competition by default so other corps get a turn at being the winner. Sounds like the math is very sound to me. 

If only it were “of their own merits.”  This thread wouldn’t exist. But as (maybe almost) everyone agrees, there is no way to prevent subjectively in judging. So it never has been, and never will be, ENTIRELY of their own merit.

i think judges get the general groupings accurate. For example, 9 thru 12. 5 thru 8. 1 thru 4.  But within the groupings there will always be difference of opinion, personal preferences of individual judges, etc.