Frameworks versus The Zone

[FrankA]

Cavies

Tie

Cavies

I really enjoyed both shows but I give the edge to Frameworks

[SkyRyder_FMM]

02 had a very weak field. 2nd and 3rd place were probably the poorest 2nd and 3rd in 6 years. 4th wasn't much worse than usual, but still off. The (large) gap was about right... but BD and Cadets were scored much too highly, and showed very poor versions of themselves that year. I say this with great attachment to one of those corps. And relative fondness for the other :)

The 05 field was better, but still weaker than the prevous 2 years, pretty much down the board, although I tend to limit the comparison to those actually in the running for the championship.

(referring to my saying Cavies 04 is the most unbeatable show to date)

I was referring to the finals version, of course. BD 04 is probably the most unbeatable *BD* show to date. What a great matchup that year!

F. G.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. BD, Cadets, and SCV were not weak in 02. You may have not liked their show designs (can't say I disagree with that for BD and Cadets), but the level of performance and execution for these three corps was anything but weak. These three corps were extremely close all summer. In quarters, they were within a point of each other. In finals, the scores were spread out, but that happens every year (and is not really indiciative of a big difference in performance). The spread between SCV and Cavies based on the finals scores was not real. The spread between 1st and 4th in quarterfinals were far more realistic. As I said, Cavies were dominant all summer. But the rest of the field was anything but weak. As rut-roh mentioned, there was risk of Cavies peaking while BD and Cadets tweaked and refined their shows and as SCV cleaned.

And how is 05 weaker than 04 or 03? Cadets did not dominate in 05. They did not clearly pull ahead until late in the summer, and the championship was not a foregone conclusion.

How are you determining whether the field is "weak"? Show design? Corps with a legitimate chance to win? Dominance of a corps during the summer (ala 02 Cavies)? Spreads between the top several corps?

Regardless of how you look at it, it's pretty hard to say that the top 6 corps during just about any year are weak.

[rut-roh]

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. BD, Cadets, and SCV were not weak in 02. You may have not liked their show designs (can't say I disagree with that for BD and Cadets), but the level of performance and execution for these three corps was anything but weak. These three corps were extremely close all summer.

That's not really the issue. The issue is that as close as those three corps were to each other, NONE of them came close to the Cavaliers all year long. When you're winning every show by at least one full point (and regionals by more, sometimes two!), you simply don't have any competition. If your competition is that far away from you, then I feel it's appropriate to say that competition was, for lack of a better term, weak. It's a relative term, for sure. But I think it holds up when you consider that on average, corps don't go undefeated for an entire season, and the corps who wins finals doesn't normally do so by over a point.

As rut-roh mentioned, there was risk of Cavies peaking while BD and Cadets tweaked and refined their shows and as SCV cleaned.

The risk was, IMO, pretty small. There really was an air about them that summer that nobody would stop them.

[Lance]

I gave all to the Cadets. It's not my favorite Cadets show ever, but I like it a lot better than Frameworks.

[Morgoth Bauglir]

rut-roh, I agree with you in term of the Vaies being unbeatable in 02. I remeber seeing them all season, and the vibe throught the whole drum corps universe was that they were going to win. There was no doubt.

But was it becuase the other corps were weak? No. Cavies were just that much better. 02 is my favorite year of all time. Cavies, BD, Blooo, Cascades, Phantom, and especially SCV all had amazing shows. Cavies were just untouchable.

It wasn't the lack of strength in other corps that made Cavies win. They won it themselves.

Edited May 12, 2006 by G-Cym

[rut-roh]

It wasn't the lack of strength in other corps that made Cavies win. They won it themselves.

Oh I know exactly what you're saying, which is why I said it's a relative term. Obviously, they were playing on another planet that summer from everyone else. But that still factors into the euqation of competition. Relative to the Cavaliers, their competition was weak. It can only be compared to what it was that summer.

[Feet Guru]

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. BD, Cadets, and SCV were not weak in 02. You may have not liked their show designs (can't say I disagree with that for BD and Cadets), but the level of performance and execution for these three corps was anything but weak. These three corps were extremely close all summer. In quarters, they were within a point of each other. In finals, the scores were spread out, but that happens every year (and is not really indiciative of a big difference in performance). The spread between SCV and Cavies based on the finals scores was not real. The spread between 1st and 4th in quarterfinals were far more realistic. As I said, Cavies were dominant all summer. But the rest of the field was anything but weak. As rut-roh mentioned, there was risk of Cavies peaking while BD and Cadets tweaked and refined their shows and as SCV cleaned.

And how is 05 weaker than 04 or 03? Cadets did not dominate in 05. They did not clearly pull ahead until late in the summer, and the championship was not a foregone conclusion.

How are you determining whether the field is "weak"? Show design? Corps with a legitimate chance to win? Dominance of a corps during the summer (ala 02 Cavies)? Spreads between the top several corps?

Regardless of how you look at it, it's pretty hard to say that the top 6 corps during just about any year are weak.

I should be clear on how I define this.

Obviously, none of these corps is "weak" in terms of having a poor performance, in and of itself. With the level of competition in the Div 1 drum corps activity, a top 4 finish almost always indicates a very high level of performance, design, execution, etc.

The general trend is that this is more and more true with every year, but lets hold the past 6-8 as relatively constant for sake of example.

When comparing the strengths of fields, because corps can move up and down (recall Bluecoats/Scouts and BD/SCV over the last two years) it is more appropriate to compare the placements between years. Was the 2nd place corps from 2003 better/worse than the corps that took 2nd in 1998? and so on.

It pains me to repeat, since it seems like such a negative thing to say (although its not that bad, really): there have not been 2nd and 3rd place shows as poor as those in 2002 in recent history (6-8 years). A counterexample would come in handy here, but as far as I know it doesn't exist. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place shows from 2005 were better, but not as good as those from the two years prior.

Strength is not determined from just the performance of he eventual champion, and has next to nothing to do with that group's "domination" (or lack thereof) of other corps, since this only tells us that one corps is beating the rest, which doesn't tell us much about one group's level if relative strengths are not compared. Again, evaluating strength on cross-year comparisons of placement is more appropriate.

F. G.

[Matt_S]

Too many of you are trying to compare the spread between first and everyone else as justification for the field being "weak". If that's your method, well then you'll never think a corps is strong unless another corps is strong with them, a la 2004. Yes, it's possible that the Cavaliers and Cadets scored so high because everyone else scored low. But it's just as possible that the other corps scored so low because the Cavaliers and Cadets scored so high. Distance between two corps can be because one corps falls behind, but it can also be because the other corps pulls so far ahead.

As far as judging the second place corps from one year to the next, that strikes me as subjective, we're all going to have our own ideas. Cadets 2002 didnt do much for me, but the next person you talk to might have absolutely loved it, and thought it was stronger than the third place show from 2005.

[SkyRyder_FMM]

rut-roh, I agree with you in term of the Vaies being unbeatable in 02. I remeber seeing them all season, and the vibe throught the whole drum corps universe was that they were going to win. There was no doubt.

But was it becuase the other corps were weak? No. Cavies were just that much better. 02 is my favorite year of all time. Cavies, BD, Blooo, Cascades, Phantom, and especially SCV all had amazing shows. Cavies were just untouchable.

It wasn't the lack of strength in other corps that made Cavies win. They won it themselves.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Perhaps you articulated it better. Thanks.

[dciguy01]

Cavies had the better show, but you are kidding yourselves if you think the common fan will remember that show more than one that had a friggin door right on the middle of the field.