xanhae Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) But there are no "if's" or assumptions when it comes to competition, regardless of history. The bottom line is the Cadets were an above average finalist with a mediocre show. Their past has nothing to do with their placement in 06. (except maybe it was too high) BOT, I'm looking forward to see how the move to Texas plays out for the Xmen over the long haul. It may provide the stability they need, and propel them back into the mix. Whatever happened to "the person who executes the best wins?"Bluecoats executed better than the Cadets finals night. Period. THANK YOU ouch...i just fell off the chair laughing...im good now really Well I don't understand why that was funny, b/c it happened. And according to that night, the Bluecoats beat the Cadets. Done. Nope, no arguing. It's done. Edited February 15, 2007 by xanhae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegimentContra94 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Oh hogwash! They beat the Cadets because they were incredible, plain and simple. What would have happened if the Cadets had scored on average with their past 25 years, and the Bluecoats likewise? The Cadets had a freakishly low score for them. Likewise, the Bluecoats had a freakishly high score for them. Granted, they are in the midst of an impressive rise in scores, but The Cadets have been consistantly high for a long time. It took an off year by the Cadets for the Bluecoats to pass them up in 2006. The Cadets 1996 3 96.900 1997 2 97.600 1998 1 98.400 1999 4 96.400 2000 1 97.650 2001 2 97.600 2002 3 96.750 2003 3 97.100 2004 4 95.600 2005 1 99.150 2006 5 93.075 The Bluecoats 1996 7 86.300 1997 11 85.600 1998 10 87.100 1999 13 83.000 2000 12 84.400 2001 8 90.750 2002 7 91.500 2003 7 90.750 2004 6 92.125 2005 5 94.450 2006 4 93.175 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thePerfectbuzz Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 THANK YOUWell I don't understand why that was funny, b/c it happened. And according to that night, the Bluecoats beat the Cadets. Done. Nope, no arguing. It's done. lol, i fell off twice in 10 minutes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaSqueegee Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) The Cadets1996 3 96.900 1997 2 97.600 1998 1 98.400 1999 4 96.400 2000 1 97.650 2001 2 97.600 2002 3 96.750 2003 3 97.100 2004 4 95.600 2005 1 99.150 2006 5 93.075 I've never looked at it this way..........but OUCH!!! :sshh: Edited February 15, 2007 by LaSqueegee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommytimp Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 TOPIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubamann Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Then how come Hop has struggle so much over the years keeping his own corps on the field? Cadets have nearly folded on NUMEROUS occasions. Seems as though he should clean his own house, first.......oh yeah, that's right....making money off of the Crossmen WAS one of his ways of cleaning his own house! Gotta love how some people have it bass ackwards. FYI..The Crossmen were big white elephant financially for YEA! The corps was supported at a loss. True, the Cadets have had their share of financial difficulties over the years, but in 1994-1995, they were in a position to help keep the Crossmen on the Field. By that time YEA! was established, and many of the real financial woes of the mid to late 80's were gone. They never had tons of $$ to throw around, to be sure, but obviously he was able to make a choice that saved Bone's ###..pure and simple. If you don't like the guy then that is your business, but on this you are just plain wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legalhack Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) All due respect to the Crossmen, they've changed horses a few times, and with some disastrous results. Good as their jazz/Latin show was in 82, to go to a purely classical show in 1983 (and, incidentally, without their capes in semis, bye-bye GE) was the heighth of stupidity, and the gear-stripping 180 they made going "Caliente" in 85 was almost as bad. It took them the rest of the decade to make up for it. Thanks goodness they hit a groove with the smooth Metheney-style programs in the 90s. The '82 to '83 drop off was in large part due to design issues. However, the 1982 Crossmen were a relatively experienced bunch with some bona fide legends who aged out that year (Robbie Robinson and Mark Thurston). The '83 corps was less experienced and, unlike the Cavies now and BD then and now, Crossmen did not have a large pool of near virtuosi from which to pick. Sure, they were talented but the '83 show was a tough sell (spinning snow flakes my A#%) and a more experienced group might have been able to pull it off a little better and exerised the leadership that would help he corps deal with the shako and white shoes issues better. Edited February 16, 2007 by Legalhack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geddy Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 One would have thought that, but if you look at both of those years even though the Crossmen were really really good the reason they finished 6th was in large part due to several corps that usually finish higher were having off years. In 1992 both Phantom and SCV were having difficult years. in 1997 it was The Cavaliers. Now, don't get me wrong, I think both of those years were probably the best years for that corps from a show and performance standpoint, but if any of the corps mentioned above were their normal selves The Crossmen wouldn't have finished 6th. So the only reason Coats were fourth in 2006 was because the Cadets were having an off year? Thank you for negating that inane comment.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The '82 to '83 drop off was in large part due to design issues. However, the 1982 Crossmen were a relatively experienced bunch with some bona fide legends who aged out that year (Robbie Robinson and Mark Thurston). The '83 corps was less experienced and, unlike the Cavies now and BD then and now, Crossmen did not have a large pool of near virtuosi from which to pick. Sure, they were talented but the '83 show was a tough sell (spinning snow flakes my A#%) and a more experienced group might have been able to pull it off a little better and exerised the leadership that would help he corps deal with the shako and white shoes issues better. Gotta go with politics too (Shoot me if you want) I believe that show should have been in finals. ~G~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsnewbie Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 lol, i fell off twice in 10 minutes.... Off-topic, maybe, but, it seems you find the fact that, on finals night, the Bluecoats performed better/scored higher than The Cadets in the captions of brass performance, percussion, and overall score "funny". In fact you "fell off" your chair laughing, twice, in 10 minutes , so maybe you would care to englighten us so that we may all see the humor in this? Yes The Cadets outperformed the Bluecoats in all visual captions and one GE caption on finals, and questionably had a harder brass book, but it does not take away from the fact that they were outperformed musically. On finals night of course. ------------- username outdated, marched div 1 06 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.