number of bands in sections

[madandcrazytromboneguy]

hey every1, just wanted 2 know ur views on something which has puzzled me 4 a while now, i find it very weird that some areas have a huge champ section and a small 4th section and others r completely the opposite, do u think there should b as similar number of bands in each section as possible, rather than all the sections being quite widely numbered?, 4 instance the yorkshire champ section is pretty big, but the 1st and 4th sections r pretty small, both under 10 bands i think, should the champ section in all areas just b the top 10 and then all the other areas b fairly randomly numbered?, i think i saw the l+sc area list and i think the 4th section there was huge, around 20 bands, i found it quite scary 2 think that u cud fit all of them bands and another section in aswell and it must b really difficult 4 an adjudicator 2 write about 20+bands, no wonder some results r a bit iffy sometimes, neway i hope i havnt brought up a dodgy issue here, im just interested 2 know every1elses views on it, please reply 2 this topic, and 2 every1 whos competing next month, GOOD LUCK AT UR AREAS!

 

[Crazysop]

It does strike me as odd, with promotions and relegations e.t.c u'd think that the numbers would remain balanced?!! But then what do I know!!!!!!!

 

[madandcrazytromboneguy]

1 thing which springs 2 mind is bands appealing and bands pulling out and new bands coming in, and i dont think the points system makes things any easier 2 understand, yeah if u come 3rd u get 3 points, 6th 6 points etc but shud there b an exact number of points required 2 go up or down etc, 2 b honest i think the whole system is 2 complicated and sumthin shud b done about it pdq!

 

[ploughboy]

i heard, or read somewhere, there was an unwritten agreement to keep Champ. sections to 12 bands. In yorkshire a couple of years ago we promoted 3 bands because of tricky tied points, the 2 bands that were due for relegation appealed (they were a big name) and thus we have 16!!

(I'm not 100% sure, but that's pretty close i think)

So.. We have four bands in the top section that really should be in the 1st fighting to get there!, Thus down all the sections it's unbalenced!!

Only my opinion and some of the facts may be a little hazy, but i'm pretty sure i'm close to the facts!

 

[madandcrazytromboneguy]

i think the champ section used 2 b like wot the football premiership is like this season, 3 teams way ahead of the rest and uve got a situation where its not whos gonna b in the top 3, but which order the top 3 r going 2 b in at the end of the season, (personally i think 1. arsenal, 2. man utd, 3. chelsea), but neway it used 2 b like that in champ section, black dyke, brihouse +rastrick, grimethorpe and ybs, it wasnt a question of whos the top 4 goin 2 b, its wot order r they goin 2 b in after the contest, last yr and maybe the yr b4 i can't remember now have been ecceptions with i think stocksbridge and sellers doing well(is that right or wrong, i can't remember), neway the fact is, it used 2 b almost a seperate contest after the top 4, should there b a contest where the BIG! bands of each area contest 2 c who really is the best?, uve got those 4 from yorkshire mentioned above, north west have fodens, fairies, dobcross and leyland, etc, i dont think its fair 2 have such uneven sections, but i dont think our opinions on here r going 2 b enuff 2 change the rules. r they?!

 

[WoodenFlugel]

I think there is a national agreement that Championship Sections should be no more than 12 bands. It's rigidly adhered to here in the Midlands (as Kibworth found to their cost a few years ago) but I can't comment on other Areas!

IMHO 12 is still too many (certainly here anyway) I think that the Champioinship Section should be just that - elite bands competeing at the highest level. I think that the remaining sections should be split more equally, here we have 15 in the first section, something like 22 in the second and third and nearly 30 in the fouth, I can't explain why the mismatch, it may be from when the fifth section was added a few years ago. I suppose the fouth section will always have a few more due to semi-competeing / struggling bands going to the Area one year and missing the next.

Of course this fantastic theory of mine opens other problems like how do you deal with all the irate ex-top section bands you've just relegated? How do you go about equalising the other sections? What happens when bands merge / go under? :dunno

 

[Accidental]

I think there's 2 main factors in the unevenness(is that a word?!) of the sections: The ridiculous difference in size of different regions, and the fact that gradings should be relative nationally not just within each region. There's not much point spreading the bands evenly across the sections if that means people are then stuck in a grade which is too tough or too easy for them.

Approx 100 bands compete in the London & Southern region, so on paper you'd expect 20 in each section. In fact there are around 30 bands in the 4th section and only 14 in the top section, and imho only 7 or 8 really "deserve" championship grading. Wether we like it or not, its because our general standard "down south" just isn't as high as other regions. I guess the flip side is that areas like Yorkshire end up with way too many in the top section, and that was the subject of a whole other thread :roll:

 

[bassinthebathroom]

Possibly a reflection of the relative strength of the region in question - more top section bands = stronger region i.e. better bands (?)

 

[yorkie19]

The Yorkshire Area Championship section seems to have sparked some debate over the last couple of years.

- BOC Alert -

In 2001, Imps and Yorkshire Co-op were the two bands nominated for the drop. They both appealed and were granted a stay of execution. However, 4 bands were promoted (Marsden, Drighlinton, Stocksbridge and Pennine). In 2002, 15 bands competed (Todmorden had quit for the North West by this point). Yorkshire Co-op and Carlton Main were the two bands who faced relegation this time. Yorkshire Co-op were relegated and Lindley were promoted. In 2003, there were again 15 bands. Marsden and Drighlington have been relegated and Chapeltown and Knottingley have been promoted.

Personally, I've got nothing against the bands that have come up, but the last two years contests seem to have dragged on into forever. There were just too many bands in the top section.

For my money, the rules across the areas should be uniform, ie a set number of bands in the top section (12 seems like a good number) and also an agreed method for promotion and relegation (ie average over 3 years or top and bottom two in each section). The rules seem very ambiguous at times. It shouldn't matter who is lined up for relegation either. If you are in a relegation position, you should be relegated. There should be no right of appeal.

Anyway, rant over.

Sam

 

[michellegarbutt]

When the championship/1st section was split into 2 seperate sections gradings were worked out so that there was approximately an even number of bands in each section but as the years have passed some bands have folded leaving sections short while new bands have formed and have entered in different sections . Also as bands have won appeals against relegation/promotion the sections have become uneven

 

[madandcrazytromboneguy]

good answer yorkie, kinda explains some of the info 4 me, i agree in that unless bands have a valid reason 4 an appeal, they shud just go down, wot about the 1 or 2 bands u get who appeal against goin up if they feel they rnt ready or good enuff etc?, wot u do then?

 

[eckyboy]

In Scotland there are 10 bands in each section apart from the 2cnd where there are 12-dont know why

 

[HBB]

<biased> Because the 2nd section is the best place to be. </biased>

I also think that it's the most competative. It the border between, lower and upper banding sections.

 

[yorkie19]

good answer yorkie, kinda explains some of the info 4 me, i agree in that unless bands have a valid reason 4 an appeal, they shud just go down, wot about the 1 or 2 bands u get who appeal against goin up if they feel they rnt ready or good enuff etc?, wot u do then?

In a way, you have to respect that. If you followed my logic, though, I guess you would have to promote them irrespective of whether they wanted to go up or not. That's a whole different ballgame.

 

[Straightmute]

For my money, the rules across the areas should be uniform, ie a set number of bands in the top section (12 seems like a good number) and also an agreed method for promotion and relegation (ie average over 3 years or top and bottom two in each section). The rules seem very ambiguous at times. It shouldn't matter who is lined up for relegation either. If you are in a relegation position, you should be relegated. There should be no right of appeal.

Not sure I can agree with you on this one Sam! It all seems to hinge around whether you prioritize musical ability or mathematics when you make the rules. If music is more important, which I think it is (!), then surely the Championship Section should be made up of bands who have met the required standard, rather than those who have simply fulfilled the arithmetic requirements of qualification.

Example: if 12 bands are demanded in each regions' Championship Section, a significant number will be relegated from the Championship Section in the Yorkshire Region and a number will need to be promoted from the first section in other regions, such as the North of England.

With no disrespect to any N of E bands, the consequence of this policy would be that there were significantly better bands in the First Section in Yorkshire than perhaps the majority of Championship Section bands in N of E. There might be bands amongst the latter which are unwilling to be promoted and which are unable to cope with the technical and musical challenges of test pieces in the top section... But the consequence would be that within a quite small geographical area, standards between sections will be far from compatible.

But hang on, these are supposed to be National gradings, with the implication that standards are broadly the same across the country. These gradings are applied to contests other than the regionals, where bands may face competition from members of two or three other regions. Is that fair?

Why no appeals? Is the system of adjudication now so infallible that results can be relied upon with such confidence? Some people might delight in seeing Black Dyke play in the First Section next year (which they will if last year's result is repeated) but would that be a true indiction of their musical ability, and what would be the effect on the other First Section bands, in their region and around the country?

D

 

[Dave Payn]

Taking the point about Dyke playing in the first section next year (!), indeed, we can't just assume the whole adjudication system is infallible, nor is anything going to be a TRUE reflection of what section bands should be in (a generalisation) on the basis that 'promotion and relegation' is as near as dammit based on the results of ONE contest a year. Woe betide any band who dares to have an off day!

Much as I hate comparisons between brass bands and sport, could you imagine the snooker fraternity (as one instance) accepting the world rankings on the basis of one tournament at the Crucible Theatre every year? or in football, the Premiership being decided on one (instead of 38 ) game per season where the referee could (and usually does anyway) have a 'mare? Don't think so.

The appeal structure should definitely stay!

 

[madandcrazytromboneguy]

im gettin the feelin that the man in charge's opinion is not relevant anymore really coz look at it this way, every1 appeals in everything now, music, sport, politics, u name it, its being appealed in, y do we need adjudicators, referees, officials, etc, when we have ourselves 2 appeal and write our own rules and do wot we want, regardless wot ne1else says or thinks etc, the whole systems gettin 2 stupid 4 my liking

 

[Cornishwomble]

Why can't other results be taken into consideration, most areas have their own annual competitions.
The results from those could also be added to the nationals result, thus allowing for "blip" results plus it would also ensure good support for regional competitions as well

 

[Accidental]

Great idea in theory Roy, but I can't see how that could work in L&SC - the region includes many local associations, some of which have bands graded differently, and only a very small number compete against each other apart from at the areas because the region's so flipping big...... All a bit of a nightmare really!

 

[Cornishwomble]

I understand right now it's a mess but the imbalance is due to bands not competeing at these contest, thus the bands that do go win and get promoted locally, the top bands in the region don't go to these contest so this is why you get 4th section nationally in the top section locally.
If we said from next year that locally you go into the section you are graded nationally and the results from that section went to towards "annual" grading then, the top bands would go cos otherwise they would drop valuable grading points.
If you got promoted from 4th to 3rd section nationally then that's were you play in the local competitions.
I feel that this would make local competitions get better attendence. In Truro contest this weekend for example there are no Championships section bands which for the annual Cornwall contest a bit poor.