Matthew Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 (edited) If you are a director who had some suggestions and concerns or just wanted to try something out, here is the place for you to share your ideas and rationale behind them. I have a few here, and I am still creating more. Perhaps you have a spin on something I have stated here--say it, and lets start planning for Season 8. DCPI-Season VIII Rules Proposals Proposal: No director can exceed more than 1 corps per division—making each director allowed to only field 3 corps per season (1 for each division). Even if the membership is scarce for a given season, this rule should remain in place. Rationale: This not only prevents “flooding”, but it keeps the playing ground fair and stable. Does it really make sense to have directors competing against themselves? Though you can not share captions between corps anymore, “flooding” is still an issue, as the heavyweight players still dominate with 2 or more corps per division. Our goal should be to expand all divisions, so this might bring some directors to field division II/III corps, who normally would not—making the playing ground there just as much successful as the division I field has been. For instance, Tri-Color would no longer be Division I, and instead, they would field a Division III corps, while I would continue to field Emerald Regime in Division I, and Bleu Knights in Division II. Any other corps that I have previously founded could compete during another season, but one would have to rotate a corps in or out, if said rule is in place. Proposed by: Emerald Regime DBC ----------------------------- Proposal: Administration of DCPI support staff should not be able to run a competitive corps period. If an administrator wishes to compete, they should be able to compete for SCORE ONLY, placements would be void, and they would not be able to advance to the various rounds at regionals, and championship events. It would basically be for "judged" exhibition. Rationale: This is more for integrity, and though we have never had a big issue with this before—I think this is something that should have been installed in the beginning. I am not pointing the finger at anyone, but it always seems odd; or slightly unfair when the administrator is the one with the two top corps—regardless of how good that person might be at playing “the game”. If we go to the automated system, that takes care of half of this issue. But with the current system, the directors submitting are at just as much as an unfair advantage as the person reading the captions. Proposed by: Emerald Regime DBC ------------------------------ Proposal: Focus shows with less than 6 corps attending, should be relocated to a nearby location where more corps are competing or “cancelled”. Hopefully as our tour schedules improve, this will be less of a problem. What I think should happen, is we take a census of where corps are from, and try to have more shows in those areas at specific times, or figure out where the density of corps is going, so we arent having shows in "Butte Montana" where only 2 corps are going, while everyone else is in Dubuque IA. Rationale: Focus shows this season have been rather lop-sided. Some focus shows had as many as 6 or so corps, while the other show had 15 or more corps. Proposed by: Emerald Regime DBC ------------------------------- Proposal: Remove the “prelims” show from Division I DCPI-Championships, and just have the following: quarter-finals, semifinals, and finals. DCI has the following setup: Division II/III has: prelims, semifinals, and finals Division I have: quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals Rationale: It doesn’t make sense to have DCPI - Division II/III only has 3 rounds for Championships, but instead allows DCPI - Division I to have 4 rounds. Consistency is nice to have across the board, and we should observe the same format for all divisions. In DCI, all corps has a shot at performing 3 times. Proposed by: Emerald Regime DBC ------------------------------------------ Proposal: No DCPI Administrator or Manager may give competitive advice, such as: assisting with captions and what captions are “good or bad”, or could be better for a director’s corps. There are several veteran directors to get advice from should you need it. Rationale: It is the director’s responsibility to run his or her own corps. If they are scoring low, it is their task to find the information that readily available on dci.org and the DCPI site with DCI corps statistics from a given year. Proposed by: Bleu Knights DBC -------------------------------------- Proposal: Create a Regional Division I. This division would still compete with Division I corps, but would have a limited touring schedule (and smaller amount of shows to attend--15-25 shows), would also have less points starting the season, and would only earn a 3 point bonus increase throughout the season. Rationale: It would not create anymore work than we have now, but it would allow many of the Division I directors who have fielded corps to not have to "fold" them. This is all in the event that the 1 corps, per director/division passes. Though this is fantasy, I know how some directors feel about folding up a corps, especially if they were a founding corps or have been around here a while. Plus, it doesnt hurt to have a regional division, for the less active director who wants to experience DCP, but maybe doesnt have the time. Proposed by: Tri-Color DBC Those are just a few of my proposals, I am working on rewording and making them better--so please do not put these in an "official" thread. Edited March 12, 2007 by Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex VK DM Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I was thinking about this yesterday. If the "1 corps per div. per dir." passes we may see a huge jump in D2 & D3. If we are looking at keeping things consistent between divisions, finals should consist of the top 12 from EACH Division. To model this after DCI is a mistake only because D2/3 in DCI compete in the same sheets. Here D2 and D3 have different points (sheets). It works well when the numbers are low in those divisions, but wouldn't work if there were 30 D3 corps and only 6 made finals. This may be a "wait and see" type of thing. where we go through season 8 like it is and see how many corps we get. Then change it for season 9. OR Half the corps make finals maxing out at 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scadesboi Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Proposal: All captions submitted late and accepted (when there is a due date) are subject to a .5 penalty. Either that or they should just not be accepted. We all saw the fiasco that occurred this Finals week with caption submissions. I even made a mistake which cost my corps an extra point the extra point to be used. Proposed by: IYMA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 I was thinking about this yesterday. If the "1 corps per div. per dir." passes we may see a huge jump in D2 & D3. If we are looking at keeping things consistent between divisions, finals should consist of the top 12 from EACH Division. To model this after DCI is a mistake only because D2/3 in DCI compete in the same sheets. Here D2 and D3 have different points (sheets). It works well when the numbers are low in those divisions, but wouldn't work if there were 30 D3 corps and only 6 made finals.This may be a "wait and see" type of thing. where we go through season 8 like it is and see how many corps we get. Then change it for season 9. OR Half the corps make finals maxing out at 12. I agree, and in previous seasons at DCPI, it used to be the top 12 of Division II/III combined, which meant that the top 9 were usually from Division II, and the last three spots were filled by the top 3 Division III corps. The reason why Matt did the top 6 from each division was for this reason--for this season. Otherwise, no Division III would have made finals by that logic. If there are over 24 division II corps, and 24 division III corps I can see doing top 12 from EACH, however, there isnt... if we would have did the top 12 from each division this season (in division II/III), we would have wound up with 2-3 corps from each not advancing. From the responses I have gotten in PM's, I think the 1 corps per div., per director is going to pass this season. And I have no problem with putting one of my "elite" division I corps in division II or III. I think it is a competitive division, with a lot more "winning" options than division I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 (edited) I agree, and in previous seasons at DCPI, it used to be the top 12 of Division II/III combined, which meant that the top 9 were usually from Division II, and the last three spots were filled by the top 3 Division III corps. The reason why Matt did the top 6 from each division was for this reason--for this season. Otherwise, no Division III would have made finals by that logic. If there are over 24 division II corps, and 24 division III corps I can see doing top 12 from EACH, however, there isnt... if we would have did the top 12 from each division this season (in division II/III), we would have wound up with 2-3 corps from each not advancing.From the responses I have gotten in PM's, I think the 1 corps per div., per director is going to pass this season. And I have no problem with putting one of my "elite" division I corps in division II or III. I think it is a competitive division, with a lot more "winning" options than division I. P.S.---I thought the top 6 from Division II, and top 6 from Division III to make a top 12 was a good idea. Another option would be to just have Division II/III be worth the same point values (or maybe close to it), since they are on the "same sheets". Has a Division III corps ever won the "Grand Division II/III Finals" in DCI? So Division II having 100 points to start with, Division III would start with 95 instead of 90, which would make it more of what we are trying to simulate. I do know, with this current system, Division III corps will almost never beat or outscore Division II corps in "finals"--and that is not the case in DCI. Edited March 12, 2007 by Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I'd like to offer a couple of comments/observations, with respect to some of the proposals offered: 1. I will be looking to the participating members for ways to simplify the 'business rules' for the league, especially in the coming season. As we work our way thru the validation rules for the new software, there are some areas (bonus points, use-em-or-loose-em, etc) that create complexities that may not be warranted in the code. Consistency is an absolute MUST in any software design - so the number of 'special cases' that we can avoid will make our programming jobs easier. Please take some time to give thought to the ways we can simplify the rules. Proposal: Administration of DCPI support staff should not be able to run a competitive corps period. If an administrator wishes to compete, they should be able to compete for SCORE ONLY, placements would be void, and they would not be able to advance to the various rounds at regionals, and championship events. It would basically be for "judged" exhibition.Rationale: This is more for integrity, and though we have never had a big issue with this before—I think this is something that should have been installed in the beginning. I am not pointing the finger at anyone, but it always seems odd; or slightly unfair when the administrator is the one with the two top corps—regardless of how good that person might be at playing “the game”. If we go to the automated system, that takes care of half of this issue. But with the current system, the directors submitting are at just as much as an unfair advantage as the person reading the captions. 2. Just to be VERY clear .... NO participant had any form of access to generated scores, caption selections, or information that was unpublished during Finals week. All captions selections processing, scores generation, tabulation, and results determination were handled exclusively by me. In those few cases where I consulted with Matt on procedural or precedent issues ... the identity of the entities was carefully guarded - NOT because there was every any question of his integrity ... but because I wanted to be able to make this statement. That said - I believe there is very real value in the DCPI Administrator being a non-competitor - just to remove any question others may have. Proposal: All captions submitted late and accepted (when there is a due date) are subject to a .5 penalty. Either that or they should just not be accepted. We all saw the fiasco that occurred this Finals week with caption submissions. I even made a mistake which cost my corps an extra point the extra point to be used. Proposed by: IYMA 3. In my opinion, the issue this past week was one of communication - which we can and will fix moving forward. The schedule for Finals week should include a clear schedule of caption submission deadlines .... with the system rejecting late submissions. This is actually a pretty easy 'issue' to fix. That's my $0.02 on what I've seen noted to-date. I'll look forward to working with our members to create a GREAT league that'll be open to a much wider audience. -john Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 No woodwinds. Great Lakers DBC :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 Thanks John, and we all know that you were the main one who handled what you mentioned. This type of rule should have been in place from the beginning though. Even when Steve and Jeff were both running it together, this type of suggestion was started by another director who is no longer around. It's like when a host band competes in their own show and wins everything--parents and students start talking...even though that band did not hire the judges (not the best example to give, but you know what I am trying to say). Matt has been active in this league from the beginning, and has won before this, and has been one of the key players around here, do I don't think anyone is questioning his integrity, as he had already stated before how things would be run and who was running what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 No woodwinds.Great Lakers DBC :P Too late, Tri-Color used clarinets and sax's in season 5, and earned a 2nd place tie! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudHype Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I'm going to add a statement. As the 2nd place director, I had no problem loosing to Matt. Him and I where going for the same set of finals night captions. I noticed that and realized that more then likely, I would be the 2nd one to send in those captions so I choose the 2nd highest set of captions. With generation going a certain way, I could of won with that set. He picked the best set. I picked the best that had a chance to beat that set and almost did. Now that being said I'm going to write a rule to submit tomorrow. You know what I could of done? Sent all in early!! How fair would of that been? Your right... not very. I like the final week changes but I want to see things running smoothly. So here is my rough idea. No more bonus points for finals week, helps code. and a time window to submit your changes finals week. Nothing early or late. Detailed explanation tomorrow:) 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.