Wetherby Remains 2nd Section for 2007

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by Temporary Noble, Apr 29, 2006.

  1. Following the 2006 regional contest, it was necessary for the Band to appeal to the grading committee to remain in the Second Section. As I'm sure you all know, the grading system uses the results from the last three years to decide the promotion and relegation. Our results for the last two years have been much better than the first year in the second section, showing the band has made significant improvements. In fact, we were one place infront of South Yorkshire Police in 2005 and one place behind in 2006 and they're promoted!!

    We will now start the 2007 regional contest with the 4th lowest points in Yorkshire (2nd section)...
  2. Charmed

    Charmed Active Member


    Good luck for next year. With having the 4th lowest points (I assume you mean you're near the top of the table and not the bottom) a good result next year could mean promotion! Just shows you how 'weird and wonderful' our promotion/relegation system is.
  3. HSB

    HSB Member

    Don't agree with appeals, you should be up or down, that's the rules.

    If you don't want to to go down you should work for a better result. If you come up you should prove yourselves.

    No time for appeals. Up or down, that's what the results are there to decide.
  4. bumperman

    bumperman Member

    Have to agree with HSB.

    Its like Sunderland appealing to stay in the Premiership. Its just how it goes. Our band got relegated in 2005 from Yorkshire 1st section. We were thinking about appealing but thought that going straight down would mean that we would have the chance of getting promoted quicker. Even if we won in 2006 I think we could still have got relegated.

    Anyway's all the best to Wetherby band this year and next. All the best and hope to see you in some contests this year (Easingwold?) Hi to Cat and Pete!

    P.S You were awesome on Bargain Hunt!;)
  5. Also agree there should be no such thing as appeals. Unless my band has to.
  6. Charmed

    Charmed Active Member

    Hey, shouldn't you be working???? ;)
  7. HSB

    HSB Member

    Exactly, Hatfield won the Yorkshire first section Area yet successfully appealed to stay down. Next year they won the first section again.

    Makes a mockery of the Areas.

    You win, you're up, you're lowest on points, you're down.

    Should be simple, I would think....
  8. Charmed

    Charmed Active Member

    Yes but that could have just been a one off! How were we to know? The year before our win we came 2nd in the 2nd section. Not exactly convincing area results in the 1st section to be promoted to Championship in one year. AND it's not the area that says if you win you go up automatically, that's the Nationals. It's possible a band could win the 1st section area, but not have enough points from the previous 2 years to gain promotion. Our win in the first year of 2004, fantastic yes, but the only reason we got promoted was because of the average points given for the previous two years and not points we had earned in that section.

    I don't think it makes a mockery of the Areas at all. We had one really bad result in the 2nd section, followed by 2 years of mid table results (8th and 6th, I believe) and were relegated to the third section, despite appealing we had to go down. The following year we won the 3rd section area, but also had to play locally in the Championship/A Section contests. The bands in the 3rd section did not like us being in that section, and I could understand why! Sometimes it's necessary to appeal because of the way the relegation/promotion system is worked out.

    Under the current system, things are not as Black and White as you seem to think they are HSB!

    EDIT: Ps, the assisstant was not being serious, I can assure you. It was a tongue in cheek statment.
  9. Pythagoras

    Pythagoras Active Member

    Appeals shouldn't be allowed. OK the system throws up the odd quirky result, but the amount of appeals at the moment is ridiculous. If you have the highest 2 points totals, your down. The idea of saying, we've had 2 really good results and 1 awful 1 so we should stay up doesn't work. It would be like football teams saying, we won our last 10 games so we shouldn't go down even though we were in the bottom 3, that was because we got no points before christmas.

    Certainly appeals against going up should never be allowed. Or if it is allowed, the band should be barred from competing at competitions like Pontins that year where the prize money is a lot higher than the area or bands would just deliberately stay down to get money more easily, or should be made to compete at the higher level at any competition other than the area.

    Surely its much simpler to just say no appeals.

    Yorkshire area is far to willing to let bands stay up or down
  10. stevetrom

    stevetrom Well-Known Member

    Why would anyone appeal against promotion?

    How can anyone say they should'nt be relegated when there results show otherwise?

    Are appeals the reason for the imbalance in some area/sections? Midlands Area 17 in the 1st Section, 12 in the 2nd Section, 17 in the 3rd Section.
  11. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    What makes a mockery of the rankings system is this whole average points score nonsense. I'll admit, it's tricky to find a better system, but a band that wins a section usually goes up with seven or eight points hung over from the year before. As happened to us when we went up to Champ level. Came fourth, got 7.5 points. So in stead of going up with eight points over two years, we went up with fifteen. After one bad result (14th) we were straight back down again on 29 points when in reality we should have had 24 and stayed up.

    I suppose it helps put the brakes on things for bands who go down, (Us again!) and stops them being overloaded with points before they start, but it's far from a perfect system and really does need a re-think.
  12. I seem to have opened a massive can of worms here!

    I don't think the football analogy works, because they play 40 odd games a year, not 1. Though we're not a big contesting band, we've held our own at all the other contests we've been to - Easingwold, Hardraw Scar, Malton...

    An appeal isn't "outside" of the rules, the rules allow appeals! I think it's in everyone's interest to have bands in the "right" section for their standard of playing. I'm sure we've all been to other contests where the band that wins a given section is miles better than everyone else. The grading system works best where there are lots of bands, but in Yorkshire at the moment, there aren't enough, which is probably why there are so many appeals!
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  13. stevetrom

    stevetrom Well-Known Member

    Perhaps then the solution is for a more radical review of Areas and Sections, some of the more Northern Midlands bands could move in to the 'Yorkwhire' or North West Areas.

    Looking at the bands competing this year an average of 11/12 competed in Championship, 1st, 2nd and 3rd sections and an average of 18 in the 4th section. Some sensible moving of bands on a geographical/sectional basis would give all of us a better spread of bands and better contests.

    Also looking at this years Areas why does Yorkshire have 14 Championship section bands but less in every other section. All of the other Areas have a broadly pyramid structure with more in the lower(est) sections.
  14. I quite agree - or alternatively do we still need 5 sections???

    In terms of geography, North & East Yorkshire bands are not even in the Yorkshire region - so Harrogate, Hull, etc go to the North - Someone suggested elsewhere that this keeps the North Area viable in terms of numbers, so maybe we need some bands from further south as you suggest...

    Champs is a bit big in Yorkshire at least partly due to Imps winning the nationals and therefore getting promotion when they wouldn't have done from the areas, which is all decided before the nationals of course...
  15. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    nothing wrong with appeals in my book - makes a lot of sense, especially in areas like Yorkshire where a lot of bands are in the correct section but one dodgy result can mean unnecessary yo-yoing. areas like London where there are loads of bands in the wrong section should be more proactive about putting bands where they belong, the grading tables never reflect any sort of reality because what happened three years ago is no reflection on the standard of bands now.

    the average points system is quite good, whoever suggested that you carry points across sections, obviously hasn't given a lot of thought to the ludicrousness of going up into the top section with a better grading than dyke, or conversely, dropping like a stone through several, progressively smaller sections after a valiant 14th against good standard.

    i think people get too easily taken in by bad analogies with football, and obsession with league success; the idea of grading is to get bands in the correct section, and few bands should be aiming to get promoted as often as possible for the sake of it without a corresponding increase in commitment and all round musical ability.
  16. brasscrest

    brasscrest Active Member

    I've quoted this a bit out of context, but I think it's a good point on its own. Whenever I read these discussions, I'm struck by the fact that most bands face player turnover and often MD turnover over the course of three years, and that the currnent system does not take into account the trend of the band over the three year time frame.

    A strictly mathematical formula for promotion/relegation, without any sort of appeal, leaves bands that have rapidly improved in danger of relegation, which could then adversely affect the morale and spirit of the group.

    The "accuracy" of the system might be improved by (1) increasing the number of contests that count toward the grading (which is problematic and probably not practical at all) and/or (2) weighting the grading formula, for example, current year counts as 40% of the final grading, past year 1 as 32%, past year 2 as 28%. This would reward bands who have improved over time.
  17. It was good though
  18. Charmed

    Charmed Active Member

    Oh, that's why after successfully appealing to remain in 1st section 2004, we got 5th at the Finals, and 6th at Pontins in 2004. Then after being promoted after the 2005 area, we got 6th at the Finals and 8th at Pontins, because we are better than other bands in the 1st section? I don't think so!
  19. JR

    JR Member

    ..no we don't - I think we need to scrap the 1st section - in Yorkshire the standard of the old 2nd section in the mid to late 1980s was higher than today's 1st (and also 20 years ago there were 30 plus bands competing in the 4th section)
    Yorkshire is something of a special case - writing from experience, it is so hard to establish a band in the top flight (though Rothwell Temps and Hepworth are making a very good fist of it) - this is an interesting debate and I would resist any move to create a breakaway "super league" or equivalent.

    john r
  20. diddle e donk

    diddle e donk New Member

    we should mix things up and not have areas, still sections, but be drawn out of a hat to see who and where you will be competing.would make things more interesting and would raise standards of bands.ie a yorkshire band could be drawn to play somewhere down south, would be more of an event than just turning up to st. georges every year, and the right ( best bands) would get to the finals. why should it be regional ?