L1STEN2311 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 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. i certainly agree the early 90's were great for the crossmen, but i'm just saying, look at the top of dci, most corps admin. staff, and instructional staff have been working together for years sometimes even decades. i understand yea's logic (kind of) for all the change, but at the same time, you have to give people a chance to grow and learn in the activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossmenAlumni Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Wanna talk about the 2006 Bluecoats and Cadets? New thread here. Enjoy! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossmenAlumni Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 i certainly agree the early 90's were great for the crossmen, but i'm just saying, look at the top of dci, most corps admin. staff, and instructional staff have been working together for years sometimes even decades. i understand yea's logic (kind of) for all the change, but at the same time, you have to give people a chance to grow and learn in the activity. Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that this particular corps has endured stretches of change before where they've done pretty well in spite of it all. I'm not saying that's the way it should be or that I like it that way. Just saying that it doesn't always mean disaster. It's easy for people to say "just keep the staff the same." Sometimes, that's way more easier said than done. People get married and start families. People go back to school and can't commit the kind of time they used to. People simply move on, get new real-life jobs, or take other drum corps offers closer to home or for more pay. And there are even occasions where changes MUST be made because the chemistry isn't right or they're just not doing the job they were hired to do. It's all a delicate balance...and if there were a magic formula out there to success, more than a few corps would have been able to figure it out by now. Hopefully, this new team in Texas will be able to establish some roots that will allow the corps to move ahead and be successful on AND off the field for many years to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubamann Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that this particular corps has endured stretches of change before where they've done pretty well in spite of it all. I'm not saying that's the way it should be or that I like it that way. Just saying that it doesn't always mean disaster. It's easy for people to say "just keep the staff the same." Sometimes, that's way more easier said than done. People get married and start families. People go back to school and can't commit the kind of time they used to. People simply move on, get new real-life jobs, or take other drum corps offers closer to home or for more pay. And there are even occasions where changes MUST be made because the chemistry isn't right or they're just not doing the job they were hired to do. It's all a delicate balance...and if there were a magic formula out there to success, more than a few corps would have been able to figure it out by now. Hopefully, this new team in Texas will be able to establish some roots that will allow the corps to move ahead and be successful on AND off the field for many years to come. I guess we can all agree Bones is a tough ol' cuss. The Crossmen organization has endured enough hardship for 10 corps.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertrombone Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 So the only reason Coats were fourth in 2006 was because the Cadets were having an off year? An arguable point that nobody made. If '05 Cadets happens in '06, Coats are probably indeed 5th. Of course, if everyone had put their best show ever on the field in '06 (despite it being a phenomenal year top to bottom, shocker, this did not happen), Coats probably don't finish higher than 8th. Neither the reply you were answering (obviously, I'm speaking for someone else here) nor my reply are meant to berate '06 Coats, for whom I Bloo'ed vociforously, and whose show I loved! Just sayin... That being said, nothing can be taken away from Coats show, performance, talent level, etc. Two thumbs enthusiastically way up! Crossmen '92 (**biased personal opinion forthcoming--don't flay me**) did not strike me as a tremendously talented corps. They just had one of the best-conceived and designed shows of all time! That kind of helps. I was in Sky and we had the joy of touring with them extensively throughout the year. It was a joy to see the show grow from something that we on tour enjoyed seeing at shows to something the audiences really started diggin', to the judges, to Finals night. Wow, when PR was announced in 8th!! And SCV in 7th!!! And Xmen in 6th!!!!! That was fun. Unfortunately, Xmen could not remain independent, but fortunately YEA was able to rescue them from oblivion. Great move. I've said before, and I'll say it again--the move to Texas is huge. The concentration of talent is incredible. Don't be surprised to see a top 6 move down here. Just a hunch--they all audition here, after all. Sadly, the combination of everyone wanting to march top 6 and Hoppy robbing Xmen for Cadets leaves a bit of a vaccum year to year, so you don't see the results of a Blue Knights or Bluecoats in Xmen year after year (ie, consistently 6-10). Staff's move up, members move up, and Xmen place lower. Texas will change that to a degree. 10th place--been saying that since the day they moved. And tubamann is right...while Xmen endure, many more than 10 other corps have wilted and gone away. RIP SkyRyders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaners Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 ya sorry guys for taking this way off topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowend Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 TRENDS!! By looking at the Cadets' history for the past 23 years, and by looking at that of Bluecoats, you can understand WHY things ended up the way they did. Sure, scores from one year to the next don't matter; BUT, you can use them to analyze what happened, theorize about what might have happened, and attempt to predict what will happen. In short, the Cadets being down and Blue being up happened to coincide at the right time. If either Cadets or Blue had kept the same level as before, all would be status quo. Then, there's the whole argument about corps jumping corps that aren't having down years, but that's a whole other off-topic thread! 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.