shaners Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 so by the logic of a few of you guys...... pioneer, pacific crest, and esperanza are all goin to have ok years and score in the top three by some phenomena cause the rest of dci had bad years why have judges and scoring then? why not just place corps by how much one person feels the year is going... heck, i like esperanzas uniforms better then the cadets last year, does that count? should esperanza be in the top 5? and you know what, if we could travel back in time, maybe we can tell chicago bears quarterback grossmen to watch out for the interseption and maybe they would have won the super bowl cause grossmen wouldn't have had a off day... catch my drift? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegimentContra94 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 so by the logic of a few of you guys...... pioneer, pacific crest, and esperanza are all goin to have ok years and score in the top three by some phenomena cause the rest of dci had bad yearswhy have judges and scoring then? why not just place corps by how much one person feels the year is going... heck, i like esperanzas uniforms better then the cadets last year, does that count? should esperanza be in the top 5? and you know what, if we could travel back in time, maybe we can tell chicago bears quarterback grossmen to watch out for the interseption and maybe they would have won the super bowl cause grossmen wouldn't have had a off day... catch my drift? No, I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshamello Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 so by the logic of a few of you guys...... pioneer, pacific crest, and esperanza are all goin to have ok years and score in the top three by some phenomena cause the rest of dci had bad yearscatch my drift? 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 add to that: 1984 98.0 1985 98.4 1986 95.6 1987 97.9 1988 96.1 1989 95.6 1990 97.7 1991 93.7 1992 97.0 1993 97.4 1994 97.7 1995 97.2 Now, catch MY drift (and the drift of what others have been trying to say) ... if a corps has a record like that (with only one other finals score lower than 95.6 in 23 years, then a large part of Bluecoats beating them in 2006 was due to the fact that The Cadets had an off year for both show design and corps talent (a lot of first time drum corps marchers). That does not take away the fact that the Bluecoats had an amazing year (for them) and have been on a great path of growth. It does say, though, that had The Cadets NOT had an off year, they would have at least been battling it out with BD for fourth and not have been beaten by the Bluecoats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimedrummer Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) add to that:1984 98.0 1985 98.4 1986 95.6 1987 97.9 1988 96.1 1989 95.6 1990 97.7 1991 93.7 1992 97.0 1993 97.4 1994 97.7 1995 97.2 Now, catch MY drift (and the drift of what others have been trying to say) ... if a corps has a record like that (with only one other finals score lower than 95.6 in 23 years, then a large part of Bluecoats beating them in 2006 was due to the fact that The Cadets had an off year for both show design and corps talent (a lot of first time drum corps marchers). That does not take away the fact that the Bluecoats had an amazing year (for them) and have been on a great path of growth. It does say, though, that had The Cadets NOT had an off year, they would have at least been battling it out with BD for fourth and not have been beaten by the Bluecoats. I understand Shaners point. Record or no record, bottom line, the Cadets past has absolutely nothing to do with the results of 06. Saying the Bluecoates had a great season...."for them" tells of a preconceived level of expectation. Maybe for the Bluecoats, their expectations were higher than forth. Like in sports, you have to prove it on the field. Regardless of past records, you still have to go out and play and march better than the competition. Maybe there's a new kid on the block. Edited February 16, 2007 by oldtimedrummer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) add to that:1984 98.0 1985 98.4 1986 95.6 1987 97.9 1988 96.1 1989 95.6 1990 97.7 1991 93.7 1992 97.0 1993 97.4 1994 97.7 1995 97.2 Now, catch MY drift (and the drift of what others have been trying to say) ... if a corps has a record like that (with only one other finals score lower than 95.6 in 23 years, then a large part of Bluecoats beating them in 2006 was due to the fact that The Cadets had an off year for both show design and corps talent (a lot of first time drum corps marchers). That does not take away the fact that the Bluecoats had an amazing year (for them) and have been on a great path of growth. It does say, though, that had The Cadets NOT had an off year, they would have at least been battling it out with BD for fourth and not have been beaten by the Bluecoats. How silly. One year has nothing to do with the other. These are numbers of finals results based on criteria of each year, Nothing carries over and off/on years do not give weight to the next years product or outcome. Each years final result is based on head to head competition and numbers being awarded by individuals that do not take the prior year into consideration. Its coincidence the Cadets in the past were consistent and each year's score has nothing to do with the other, or else you will have to expect Cadets to remain around a "93" based on the year that just passed. Bluecoats were better and got a higher score that Cadets on the same night the Cadets received a lower score than Bluecoats - all things being fair and equal and both performing their material to maximum effect. ~G~ Edited February 16, 2007 by GMichael1230 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCordell Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Isn't this thread about the CROSSMEN? Banter about the Cadets/Bluecoats in some other thread. ~Jon Cordell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossmenAlumni Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Did anyone catch Heroes the other night? Was anyone else surprised that Nathan Petrelli was the cheerleader's biological father??? I wonder if the invisible man dude will help Peter learn how to control his abilities, or if maybe he's going to make things worse. Should be interesting.... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1STEN2311 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 since about 2000 the crossmen haven't had the same corps director for more than 2 years same brass, vis, or perc staff for 3 years. how can you keep returning members if you are continually changing everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaners Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 thank you to those who see my point. all im sayin is that scores do not matter from year to year. period. if cadets win 2007, awesome! BUT 2006 would have had nothing to do with it! once again, i understand that the cadets have been consistent and had a drop in score in 06, BUT that has NO effect with how they place in future years, (minus audition/camp draw, but thats not what were talking about) back on topic, if crossmen do great this year, the number of times they have been in finals will not have been a reason why! especially now with the total makeover of the corp! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossmenAlumni Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 since about 2000 the crossmen haven't had the same corps director for more than 2 years same brass, vis, or perc staff for 3 years. how can you keep returning members if you are continually changing everything? Point understood and I don't necessarily disagree. YET... 1989-1995 4 corps directors 5 brass caption heads 4 drillwriters 4 color guard staffs Those are some pretty great years for the corps. Very popular with the fans, and they did fairly well on the competitive side of things. Now in no way am I saying that all this change was ultimately good for the corps....I would have much preferred more continuity. Just saying that just because things have changed often, doesn't mean that the corps always suffered. The next few years will be very interesting. 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.