TommySopranoContra Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 ^Star of Indiana 92/93! Again I'm not worthy! Keep going... Ignore the highschooler's idolization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardman Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Doesn't matter how they came to the score, Cadets did NOT deserve that high of a score. They should have been scored MUCH closer to Cavaliers and Phantom Regiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bictaa Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 yes i agree... for that it was a good and clean show, but not clean enough for 99.15. I would go a little less like 98.9 or something. Semi's scores reflected it more realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Doesn't matter how they came to the score, Cadets did NOT deserve that high of a score. They should have been scored MUCH closer to Cavaliers and Phantom Regiment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> were you there? Not being rude - just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 yes i agree... for that it was a good and clean show, but not clean enough for 99.15. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so - what part wasn't clean enough in your mind? B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS0527 Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 (edited) Cavaliers bore me year after year. I usually like their drill, but this year was just... a snore too. I would really love to see them play some enjoyable music for once. Their composers for the original pieces should learn something from the Cadets' original pieces this year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have yet to hear an unjoyable music show from the Cavies since Niagara Falls. God forbid they learn something from the Cadets...listening to their championship week performances, I'm not too impressed with the Cadets' show musically...doesn't mean they didn't deserve the title, but it's hard for me to stay focused Edited August 16, 2005 by sooneralum2001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Judges do NOT have the ability to give scores down to the hundredth. The only reason it shows up that way on the recap sheet is become some captions are averaged together. Yeah, the old tick system was a GREAT idea... Umm, yeah. Good idea. Let's go back to the old system where nobody ever tried anything difficult. Let's go back to the old shows where there was a "concert" selection and "park-and-blow" for minutes on end. Why are people getting so hung up on the scores??? If you like Cavies and PR, why is it not enough to just go on loving their shows?? The fact that they didn't win doesn't diminish their seasons of hard work. Ten years from now, nobody will care about the scores anymore. In fact, nobody will care about the placements either. People will only care about which shows were their personal favorites. For some it will be the Cadets. For others it will be the Cavaliers or Phantom. Maybe even SCV, Bluecoats, Crossmen, Southwind, or whoever. Scores and placements isn't what creates a classic show... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> for the record, tough stuff did happen in the tick days, especially on the music end. I mean drumline played nice duple rolls of 32nds, not 16th, drumlines played singles, brass lines played a ####load of syncopated 16th rhythms. and visually, the whole drill game changed under the tick system with Cadets...and only had a year to see if it worked before they changed it..and it must have worked, cause under the old rules they won. now i am no fan of straight ticks either, as your tick may not match my tick, but the tick system did have some pro's and cons, just like todays build up reward design heavy system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 They can do a tie in those subcaptions (eg, GE Music Repertoire Effect), and I've seen it happen...Take, for example, Ensemble Music at 2004 Semifinals...the top 3 corps all got a 9.9 in Musicianship...they had different Tech scores, so the totals out of 20 weren't the same... I just looked at the recaps from finals the other night, and 5 judges did tie a subcaption at some point...for example in Brass, the Cadets and Phantom both got a 9.8 in Musicianship.. Etc... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> IMO, that's bad judging. there should be no ties in the subs. That's where you have to make a call. Ok, the overall numbers may even out for the total, but in the subs, you should never tie. the judges are paid to make a call, and if you have to tie, it better be so unclear even the most qualified judge couldn't tell. I know where I judge, if i tied a sub, holy #### Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^Michael^ Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Doesn't matter how they came to the score, Cadets did NOT deserve that high of a score. They should have been scored MUCH closer to Cavaliers and Phantom Regiment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Care to outline your qualifications to make this judgment? Oh - your opinion as a fan who spends a few bucks a year on the activity? Yeah, that's what I thought.... Not saying you're not absolutely entitled to your opinion. What I object to is people who state their opinions like they were fact! Peace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom&Phitch Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 The scores might sound right, but there is one things judges cant get wrong, the spreads.... even if cadets got a 93.15 that cavies still qould have gotten a 91.whatever.... Cadets beat the cavaliers at their own game... 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.