Do the Mildands Grading tables need to be rebalanced again ??!!

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by lawrence martin, Mar 31, 2014.

  1. Over the last couple of years the numbers of bands promoted/relegated has been changed from the standard two, to try to even out the higher sections in the grading tables, e.g. 4 were promoted from 4th, so 3 could be promoted from 3rd to 2nd to try to even the second section up in line with the first and third sections. However from looking at the promotions/relegations due in Jan 2015, it appears that 3 are being promoted from 2nd to 1st and 3 are being relegated from 2nd to 3rd, which means once again the 2nd section will only have 12 bands, compared to the 17 in the 1st section and 18 in 3rd section, which totally undoes the rearranging from previous years. Do we need to have an extra band promoted from 4th and 3rd, to try to even the sections out or just leave it as it is, or maybe only one should be relegated, seeing as the other two are on equal marks, which is why there are 3 intended to be relegated in January. What do other people think?
     
  2. theMouthPiece Related Searches

    Find more discussions like this one
    tables
    Mildands Grading
    numbers
    1st section
    marks
  3. johnmartin

    johnmartin Active Member

    I think that gradings should be based on the relative standard of the bands rather than an arbitrary desire to even out numbers in sections
     
  4. stevetrom

    stevetrom Well-Known Member

    and how do you decide the relative standards of the bands?

    maybe a contest held every year and then perhaps look at the last 3 years?

    the 1st section is way too large, 3 down 2 up for a few years or a one off 'cull' to get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th sections better balanced

    Currently (I think)
    1st - 18
    2nd - 14
    3rd - 18
    4th - 25

    I would suggest a better balance of:
    1st - 14
    2nd - 16
    3rd - 20
    4th - 25
     
  5. owain_s

    owain_s Member

    The rules now are pretty much those drawn up by Kapitol, aren't they? I don't think they make any allowance for arbitrary 'rebalancing' nor for regional committees to alter them, which certainly might prove to be an issue in the future in areas where there's smaller numbers, and it turns out that three or four get promoted/relegated.
     
  6. stevetrom

    stevetrom Well-Known Member

    The regional committees are free to re-balance sections, Midlands did this last year (or maybe the year before ?) to rebalance 3rd/4th sections
     
  7. Accidental

    Accidental Supporting Member

    ^ not exactly...

    Kapitol promotions own the National Championships and the National Rules. The Regional Committees are not autonomous, they exist to organise the Regional Championships, in order to grade bands according to the Nat. Rules and send qualifiers to the National Finals, on behalf of Kapitol. The only region permitted under the rules to operate its own grading table is the Scottish; any grading changes in Wales and the English regions have to be approved by Kapitol first.

    Re-balancing does happen from time to time, but it isn't arbitrary. LSC relegated 3 from the top section after this area to get back to the 12 (after 3 were promoted on tied points a few years ago), but it took time to get that approved and all the bands were given several months notice, it didn't just happen.
    If enough Midland banders feel their area gradings would benefit from re-balancing, a proposal would need to go to Kapitol via the Regional committee.

    But fwiw, I think it would be incredibly unfair on the bands who have worked hard to earn promotions to relegate them again because someone somewhere thinks the section's got too big.
     
  8. StellaJohnson

    StellaJohnson Active Member

    I think that was more to do that the 2 bands that come 1st and 2nd twice in the fourth section in the last 2 contests that year failed to get promoted, which I think is fair enough to promote.

    The problem you get with trying to rebalance sections and it still happens in the current format, bands are getting promoted by just getting steady 6th places and not really challenged for the top spots are getting promoted, this is just adding to the problem. In my view the band getting a steady 6th spot each year are not ready for promotion. Either way you can't win

    You should be promoted based on good results and be ready for the next challenge not just to re balance sections
     
  9. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    From the Midlands web-page

    28th March 2012

    The area committee has released the following statement…
    “Following the Midland Regional Committee Meeting on Saturday 24th March, it was agreed that a proposal to allow Regional Committees the ability to promote additional Bands to even out the numbers in sections, be presented to the next Forum Meeting”
    For information, this is a request that has been put several times before (probably from other Regions as well!) but its something our Bands are asking for.

    30th May 2012

    Following a meeting of the Kapitol Forum in London on 12th May, Burbage (Buxton) Band & Ireland Colliery Band have been invited by the Midland Regional Committee to move from the 4th Section to compete in the 3rd Section and Ibstock Brick Brass have been invited to move from the 3rd Section to compete in the 2nd Section, these all to take effect from 1st January 2013.
    All three bands have accepted this invitation in writing.
    These promotions will be in addition to those bands already promoted after the 2012 Contest.
    These additional promotions are at the discretion of the Midland Regional Committee, with the aim of a gradual equalisation of the sections.
     
  10. marc71178

    marc71178 Member

    No, it was a rebalancing exercise. Previously bands have had to gain promotion under the league table rules regardless of 2 good places in a row. I know a band a few years ago appealed to go up after consecutive good results but were refused so had to spend another year in that section.
     

Share This Page