1998-2018

“You’re entitled to your opinion.   I’m entitled to mine. Yours is informed by no better evidence than mine is..”
Objection. Facts not in evidence. This statement has no basis for support and is therefore purely speculative.
“But I will say that there is evidence.”
Anecdotal evidence is largely meaningless, only empirical evidence matters. Due to the nature of this forum and some participant’s preferences neither of us will be allowed to openly discuss the evidence and I have no desire to take this conversation outside the forum. I’ve been down this path enough times before. Hang on to your opinion if it helps you rationalize outcomes and enjoy competitions. It didn’t help me when I was getting started.
“I will say also that I have heard, with my own ears, directors communicating that the phenomena does occur.”
So have I, generally from Directors struggling to rationalize their programs difficulties breaking through to the next level. Saying something happens doesn’t make it true.
“I’ve heard judges say it does occur.”
No comment. Addressing this directly would require breaking our programs Code of Conduct. I’m not going to do that. However, I will add that I notice you didn’t indicate whether the judges you heard said they have personally made decisions based on reputation or if they were saying they know about others who admit to doing it.
 “So it’s not just my opinion.”
Correct. Unfortunately it’s a very widely held fallacy. Again, that doesn’t make it true.
“If you reread my original post, I don’t quibble with it.”
No need. I noted that the first time. I’m not convinced that bears any relevance on the subject.
“Your esoteric explanation really dances around the key word- it’s subjective.    Just like gymnastics and ice skating - and therefore it uses criterion that aren’t objective.”
This activity is a combination of science and art. Of course it’s subjective; I did not suggest otherwise. One of the issues in UIL judging is that the relative value of these subjective preferences are not well defined. For example, are musical and visual accuracy more or less valuable than demand? This example, to a certain extent, also falls on a sliding scale of subjectivity but that doesn’t mean it can’t be better defined through documented video training examples. The NFL and NCAA use this option to clarify pass interference rules changing from well defined objectivity in the ‘70’s to the highly subjective mess of today’s game. Another example would be whether music and drill demand have higher value when performed in combination versus being performed separately. This one is actually defined on the judging sheet but we routinely see some bands highly rewarded for what amounts to “park and play” even though this is clearly not in compliance with the current judging sheet. Adjudication based entirely, or even just heavily, on personal preferences is not sustainable. As for the esoteric nature of my comment, you seem to have missed the point. There are people on this forum who can, and will, learn when given the opportunity, simply because they want too.
“Like reputation.“
Where exactly is “reputation” on the judging sheet? I’m not saying there are no Judges that have ever been influenced by reputation. But I am saying that it is a very small minority and also highly inappropriate. All a Judge has is their own reputation which is why they don’t let a bands reputation influence the outcome of a competition. Each performance must speak for itself or integrity and credibility is lost.
“Boxing”
An interesting example. A few years ago I asked a Judge I’ve known for decades about his decision regarding First and Second place at DCI Finals in Indianapolis. He talked me through the details and then said, “If you want to beat the World Champion, you have to do it decisively and leave no question about it.” On the surface that statement might appear to support the idea of reputation influencing a Judge but further discussion revealed that’s not what he was talking about. If you want to break through to the next level, kick down the door. Win decisively. Leave no doubt.
“And that’s irrefutable.”
Hardly, but you have made it clear you have no intention of being persuaded which is why I originally indicated I was done with this conversation. I chose to reengage because of the possibility that someone else will be open to the information and learn a new perspective. Thereby giving up on a tired fallacy, while gaining a better understanding of the adjudication process and more satisfying enjoyment of the contests they attend. It worked for me.
Yeah, I know. My wife always tells me, “Too many words.” 🙄

“You’re entitled to your opinion.   I’m entitled to mine. Yours is informed by no better evidence than mine is..”
Objection. Facts not in evidence. This statement has no basis for support and is therefore purely speculative.
“But I will say that there is evidence.”
Anecdotal evidence is largely meaningless, only empirical evidence matters. Due to the nature of this forum and some participant’s preferences neither of us will be allowed to openly discuss the evidence and I have no desire to take this conversation outside the forum. I’ve been down this path enough times before. Hang on to your opinion if it helps you rationalize outcomes and enjoy competitions. It didn’t help me when I was getting started.
“I will say also that I have heard, with my own ears, directors communicating that the phenomena does occur.”
So have I, generally from Directors struggling to rationalize their programs difficulties breaking through to the next level. Saying something happens doesn’t make it true.
“I’ve heard judges say it does occur.”
No comment. Addressing this directly would require breaking our programs Code of Conduct. I’m not going to do that. However, I will add that I notice you didn’t indicate whether the judges you heard said they have personally made decisions based on reputation or if they were saying they know about others who admit to doing it.
 “So it’s not just my opinion.”
Correct. Unfortunately it’s a very widely held fallacy. Again, that doesn’t make it true.
“If you reread my original post, I don’t quibble with it.”
No need. I noted that the first time. I’m not convinced that bears any relevance on the subject.
“Your esoteric explanation really dances around the key word- it’s subjective.    Just like gymnastics and ice skating - and therefore it uses criterion that aren’t objective.”
This activity is a combination of science and art. Of course it’s subjective; I did not suggest otherwise. One of the issues in UIL judging is that the relative value of these subjective preferences are not well defined. For example, are musical and visual accuracy more or less valuable than demand? This example, to a certain extent, also falls on a sliding scale of subjectivity but that doesn’t mean it can’t be better defined through documented video training examples. The NFL and NCAA use this option to clarify pass interference rules changing from well defined objectivity in the ‘70’s to the highly subjective mess of today’s game. Another example would be whether music and drill demand have higher value when performed in combination versus being performed separately. This one is actually defined on the judging sheet but we routinely see some bands highly rewarded for what amounts to “park and play” even though this is clearly not in compliance with the current judging sheet. Adjudication based entirely, or even just heavily, on personal preferences is not sustainable. As for the esoteric nature of my comment, you seem to have missed the point. There are people on this forum who can, and will, learn when given the opportunity, simply because they want too.
“Like reputation.“
Where exactly is “reputation” on the judging sheet? I’m not saying there are no Judges that have ever been influenced by reputation. But I am saying that it is a very small minority and also highly inappropriate. All a Judge has is their own reputation which is why they don’t let a bands reputation influence the outcome of a competition. Each performance must speak for itself or integrity and credibility is lost.
“Boxing”
An interesting example. A few years ago I asked a Judge I’ve known for decades about his decision regarding First and Second place at DCI Finals in Indianapolis. He talked me through the details and then said, “If you want to beat the World Champion, you have to do it decisively and leave no question about it.” On the surface that statement might appear to support the idea of reputation influencing a Judge but further discussion revealed that’s not what he was talking about. If you want to break through to the next level, kick down the door. Win decisively. Leave no doubt.
“And that’s irrefutable.”
Hardly, but you have made it clear you have no intention of being persuaded which is why I originally indicated I was done with this conversation. I chose to reengage because of the possibility that someone else will be open to the information and learn a new perspective. Thereby giving up on a tired fallacy, while gaining a better understanding of the adjudication process and more satisfying enjoyment of the contests they attend. It worked for me.
Yeah, I know. My wife always tells me, “Too many words.” 🙄

“You’re entitled to your opinion.   I’m entitled to mine. Yours is informed by no better evidence than mine is..”
Objection. Facts not in evidence. This statement has no basis for support and is therefore purely speculative.
“But I will say that there is evidence.”
Anecdotal evidence is largely meaningless, only empirical evidence matters. Due to the nature of this forum and some participant’s preferences neither of us will be allowed to openly discuss the evidence and I have no desire to take this conversation outside the forum. I’ve been down this path enough times before. Hang on to your opinion if it helps you rationalize outcomes and enjoy competitions. It didn’t help me when I was getting started.
“I will say also that I have heard, with my own ears, directors communicating that the phenomena does occur.”
So have I, generally from Directors struggling to rationalize their programs difficulties breaking through to the next level. Saying something happens doesn’t make it true.
“I’ve heard judges say it does occur.”
No comment. Addressing this directly would require breaking our programs Code of Conduct. I’m not going to do that. However, I will add that I notice you didn’t indicate whether the judges you heard said they have personally made decisions based on reputation or if they were saying they know about others who admit to doing it.
 “So it’s not just my opinion.”
Correct. Unfortunately it’s a very widely held fallacy. Again, that doesn’t make it true.
“If you reread my original post, I don’t quibble with it.”
No need. I noted that the first time. I’m not convinced that bears any relevance on the subject.
“Your esoteric explanation really dances around the key word- it’s subjective.    Just like gymnastics and ice skating - and therefore it uses criterion that aren’t objective.”
This activity is a combination of science and art. Of course it’s subjective; I did not suggest otherwise. One of the issues in UIL judging is that the relative value of these subjective preferences are not well defined. For example, are musical and visual accuracy more or less valuable than demand? This example, to a certain extent, also falls on a sliding scale of subjectivity but that doesn’t mean it can’t be better defined through documented video training examples. The NFL and NCAA use this option to clarify pass interference rules changing from well defined objectivity in the ‘70’s to the highly subjective mess of today’s game. Another example would be whether music and drill demand have higher value when performed in combination versus being performed separately. This one is actually defined on the judging sheet but we routinely see some bands highly rewarded for what amounts to “park and play” even though this is clearly not in compliance with the current judging sheet. Adjudication based entirely, or even just heavily, on personal preferences is not sustainable. As for the esoteric nature of my comment, you seem to have missed the point. There are people on this forum who can, and will, learn when given the opportunity, simply because they want too.
“Like reputation.“
Where exactly is “reputation” on the judging sheet? I’m not saying there are no Judges that have ever been influenced by reputation. But I am saying that it is a very small minority and also highly inappropriate. All a Judge has is their own reputation which is why they don’t let a bands reputation influence the outcome of a competition. Each performance must speak for itself or integrity and credibility is lost.
“Boxing”
An interesting example. A few years ago I asked a Judge I’ve known for decades about his decision regarding First and Second place at DCI Finals in Indianapolis. He talked me through the details and then said, “If you want to beat the World Champion, you have to do it decisively and leave no question about it.” On the surface that statement might appear to support the idea of reputation influencing a Judge but further discussion revealed that’s not what he was talking about. If you want to break through to the next level, kick down the door. Win decisively. Leave no doubt.
“And that’s irrefutable.”
Hardly, but you have made it clear you have no intention of being persuaded which is why I originally indicated I was done with this conversation. I chose to reengage because of the possibility that someone else will be open to the information and learn a new perspective. Thereby giving up on a tired fallacy, while gaining a better understanding of the adjudication process and more satisfying enjoyment of the contests they attend. It worked for me.
Yeah, I know. My wife always tells me, “Too many words.” 🙄

That and it's awful for logistics. Getting stuff in and out of that stadium is a major pain.

Unfortunately that stadium is AWFUL for acoustics. As someone who has been to SA and GN in the same year, keep it in Lucas Oil. 

That day in 1999 Keller was the second band to take the field. At 7:15 am they set the high bar for preliminary competition and finished first. (So much for early runs being a problem.) I don’t remember Coppell’s preliminary performance time but I do remember they finished seventh in preliminary competition. Southlake Carrol, Fossil Ridge, and Colleyville Heritage were all in the mix. If I remember correctly, Grapevine was too. After an excruciating delay while the judges looked up the rules for breaking a three way tie in the middle of the pack the Finals announcements could begin. When they announced third place and Coppell’s name still hadn’t been called the atmosphere was electric. Then second place was announced and the Coppell Drum Major began to step forward before realizing it was Keller who had finished second. There was a brief silence and then the Coppell parents exploded in celebration.
The irony of that day was that Keller‘s Director had written Coppell’s drill. In retrospect it was a masterpiece that perfectly highlighted the transitory nature of the period. Core style drill was becoming popular in UIL competition but still faced some resistance as it was replacing military style drill. Coppell’s drill that year blended the two styles masterfully.
Mr. McGahey doesn’t write drill for the competition anymore. 😏 

That day in 1999 Keller was the second band to take the field. At 7:15 am they set the high bar for preliminary competition and finished first. (So much for early runs being a problem.) I don’t remember Coppell’s preliminary performance time but I do remember they finished seventh in preliminary competition. Southlake Carrol, Fossil Ridge, and Colleyville Heritage were all in the mix. If I remember correctly, Grapevine was too. After an excruciating delay while the judges looked up the rules for breaking a three way tie in the middle of the pack the Finals announcements could begin. When they announced third place and Coppell’s name still hadn’t been called the atmosphere was electric. Then second place was announced and the Coppell Drum Major began to step forward before realizing it was Keller who had finished second. There was a brief silence and then the Coppell parents exploded in celebration.
The irony of that day was that Keller‘s Director had written Coppell’s drill. In retrospect it was a masterpiece that perfectly highlighted the transitory nature of the period. Core style drill was becoming popular in UIL competition but still faced some resistance as it was replacing military style drill. Coppell’s drill that year blended the two styles masterfully.
Mr. McGahey doesn’t write drill for the competition anymore. 😏 

That day in 1999 Keller was the second band to take the field. At 7:15 am they set the high bar for preliminary competition and finished first. (So much for early runs being a problem.) I don’t remember Coppell’s preliminary performance time but I do remember they finished seventh in preliminary competition. Southlake Carrol, Fossil Ridge, and Colleyville Heritage were all in the mix. If I remember correctly, Grapevine was too. After an excruciating delay while the judges looked up the rules for breaking a three way tie in the middle of the pack the Finals announcements could begin. When they announced third place and Coppell’s name still hadn’t been called the atmosphere was electric. Then second place was announced and the Coppell Drum Major began to step forward before realizing it was Keller who had finished second. There was a brief silence and then the Coppell parents exploded in celebration.
The irony of that day was that Keller‘s Director had written Coppell’s drill. In retrospect it was a masterpiece that perfectly highlighted the transitory nature of the period. Core style drill was becoming popular in UIL competition but still faced some resistance as it was replacing military style drill. Coppell’s drill that year blended the two styles masterfully.
Mr. McGahey doesn’t write drill for the competition anymore. 😏 

That’s a bridge too far for me. Top programs are not propped up by the “scaffolding” of their prior achievements or reputation.
This is an extremely complex activity and excellence and judging is not always clearly understood by the crowd in the stands. However, it is earned and then demonstrated repeatedly, or not. It’s definitely difficult to attain, but once achieved, excellence also typically has a momentum that is not easily lost. But it has nothing to do with reputation. For example, an excellent program must get their freshman up to the level the other students have already achieved. Additionally the program has already cracked the code and established the environment necessary to accomplish this year after year. In contrast, an up and coming program may need to increase the performance level of many more students across the classes and is also still working to establish an environment that consistently produces excellence. This is what makes it so difficult to break into the next level. Not reputation “scaffolding”.
 I will agree the Judges know these programs, but I can assure you they have no respect for reputation once the actual performance and judging begins. Examples abound in the relatively recent history of both Area B (including this year) and the SMBC.
I’d like to be more specific but naming programs that may have come up short (past or present) can unpleasantly fire up forum participants so this is where I bow out and respectfully agree to disagree.
In closing I will say I suspect many people will find the process less frustrating if they embrace this explanation and let go of the belief that “It’s always the same bands…” due to anything other than just that day’s performance. It can make the long journey to sustained excellence more understandable and satisfying.

That’s a bridge too far for me. Top programs are not propped up by the “scaffolding” of their prior achievements or reputation.
This is an extremely complex activity and excellence and judging is not always clearly understood by the crowd in the stands. However, it is earned and then demonstrated repeatedly, or not. It’s definitely difficult to attain, but once achieved, excellence also typically has a momentum that is not easily lost. But it has nothing to do with reputation. For example, an excellent program must get their freshman up to the level the other students have already achieved. Additionally the program has already cracked the code and established the environment necessary to accomplish this year after year. In contrast, an up and coming program may need to increase the performance level of many more students across the classes and is also still working to establish an environment that consistently produces excellence. This is what makes it so difficult to break into the next level. Not reputation “scaffolding”.
 I will agree the Judges know these programs, but I can assure you they have no respect for reputation once the actual performance and judging begins. Examples abound in the relatively recent history of both Area B (including this year) and the SMBC.
I’d like to be more specific but naming programs that may have come up short (past or present) can unpleasantly fire up forum participants so this is where I bow out and respectfully agree to disagree.
In closing I will say I suspect many people will find the process less frustrating if they embrace this explanation and let go of the belief that “It’s always the same bands…” due to anything other than just that day’s performance. It can make the long journey to sustained excellence more understandable and satisfying.

Agreed. But they have been doing this dance with Waxahachie for several years now and after breaking through last year, Timber Creek has been playing with new found confidence this year. There is no longer anything tentative about their performances and it has made a huge difference.
I look forward to seeing all three in Finals at the SMBC. Yeah, Coppell too, so that makes four.

That’s a bridge too far for me. Top programs are not propped up by the “scaffolding” of their prior achievements or reputation.
This is an extremely complex activity and excellence and judging is not always clearly understood by the crowd in the stands. However, it is earned and then demonstrated repeatedly, or not. It’s definitely difficult to attain, but once achieved, excellence also typically has a momentum that is not easily lost. But it has nothing to do with reputation. For example, an excellent program must get their freshman up to the level the other students have already achieved. Additionally the program has already cracked the code and established the environment necessary to accomplish this year after year. In contrast, an up and coming program may need to increase the performance level of many more students across the classes and is also still working to establish an environment that consistently produces excellence. This is what makes it so difficult to break into the next level. Not reputation “scaffolding”.
 I will agree the Judges know these programs, but I can assure you they have no respect for reputation once the actual performance and judging begins. Examples abound in the relatively recent history of both Area B (including this year) and the SMBC.
I’d like to be more specific but naming programs that may have come up short (past or present) can unpleasantly fire up forum participants so this is where I bow out and respectfully agree to disagree.
In closing I will say I suspect many people will find the process less frustrating if they embrace this explanation and let go of the belief that “It’s always the same bands…” due to anything other than just that day’s performance. It can make the long journey to sustained excellence more understandable and satisfying.

TC has been chasing Keller for some time, they have a chance for finals I think after this past weekend.

I have a long term affiliation with the KISD band programs and have enjoyed watching Timber Creek performances and growing maturity since the school opened. I think the underlying issue in this case may be the specificity of your observation. While it is true that “TC became an area medalist their second appearance in the state qualifiers” this is not particularly surprising in comparison to other things that happened at the competition . It’s also kind of like saying “X  rarely happens on the third day of the seventh month of an odd numbered year.” The reality is Timber Creek has been the Area B runner up (6th place) five or six consecutive years before breaking through (5th place) and advancing to the SMBC last year. Timber Creek has already been a force within Area B for many years. They moved up one place last year. Two more places the next year is extremely satisfying for supporters of the program (like me) but not exactly unprecedented for an up and coming band in the activity. Especially when the band in question has been having such a strong year. Waxahachie’s recent trajectory has been similar.
Consequently more attention has been paid to the judges sheets and how the preliminary and final rankings for all the bands were actually determined.
Consensus, continuity, and consistency did not appear to rule the day.
Having said that I don’t have a problem with who is advancing, even if my personal selections would have been slightly different. I really just wish there was room for a couple more. 

I have a long term affiliation with the KISD band programs and have enjoyed watching Timber Creek performances and growing maturity since the school opened. I think the underlying issue in this case may be the specificity of your observation. While it is true that “TC became an area medalist their second appearance in the state qualifiers” this is not particularly surprising in comparison to other things that happened at the competition . It’s also kind of like saying “X  rarely happens on the third day of the seventh month of an odd numbered year.” The reality is Timber Creek has been the Area B runner up (6th place) five or six consecutive years before breaking through (5th place) and advancing to the SMBC last year. Timber Creek has already been a force within Area B for many years. They moved up one place last year. Two more places the next year is extremely satisfying for supporters of the program (like me) but not exactly unprecedented for an up and coming band in the activity. Especially when the band in question has been having such a strong year. Waxahachie’s recent trajectory has been similar.
Consequently more attention has been paid to the judges sheets and how the preliminary and final rankings for all the bands were actually determined.
Consensus, continuity, and consistency did not appear to rule the day.
Having said that I don’t have a problem with who is advancing, even if my personal selections would have been slightly different. I really just wish there was room for a couple more. 

I have a long term affiliation with the KISD band programs and have enjoyed watching Timber Creek performances and growing maturity since the school opened. I think the underlying issue in this case may be the specificity of your observation. While it is true that “TC became an area medalist their second appearance in the state qualifiers” this is not particularly surprising in comparison to other things that happened at the competition . It’s also kind of like saying “X  rarely happens on the third day of the seventh month of an odd numbered year.” The reality is Timber Creek has been the Area B runner up (6th place) five or six consecutive years before breaking through (5th place) and advancing to the SMBC last year. Timber Creek has already been a force within Area B for many years. They moved up one place last year. Two more places the next year is extremely satisfying for supporters of the program (like me) but not exactly unprecedented for an up and coming band in the activity. Especially when the band in question has been having such a strong year. Waxahachie’s recent trajectory has been similar.
Consequently more attention has been paid to the judges sheets and how the preliminary and final rankings for all the bands were actually determined.
Consensus, continuity, and consistency did not appear to rule the day.
Having said that I don’t have a problem with who is advancing, even if my personal selections would have been slightly different. I really just wish there was room for a couple more. 

I have a long term affiliation with the KISD band programs and have enjoyed watching Timber Creek performances and growing maturity since the school opened. I think the underlying issue in this case may be the specificity of your observation. While it is true that “TC became an area medalist their second appearance in the state qualifiers” this is not particularly surprising in comparison to other things that happened at the competition . It’s also kind of like saying “X  rarely happens on the third day of the seventh month of an odd numbered year.” The reality is Timber Creek has been the Area B runner up (6th place) five or six consecutive years before breaking through (5th place) and advancing to the SMBC last year. Timber Creek has already been a force within Area B for many years. They moved up one place last year. Two more places the next year is extremely satisfying for supporters of the program (like me) but not exactly unprecedented for an up and coming band in the activity. Especially when the band in question has been having such a strong year. Waxahachie’s recent trajectory has been similar.
Consequently more attention has been paid to the judges sheets and how the preliminary and final rankings for all the bands were actually determined.
Consensus, continuity, and consistency did not appear to rule the day.
Having said that I don’t have a problem with who is advancing, even if my personal selections would have been slightly different. I really just wish there was room for a couple more. 

I have a long term affiliation with the KISD band programs and have enjoyed watching Timber Creek performances and growing maturity since the school opened. I think the underlying issue in this case may be the specificity of your observation. While it is true that “TC became an area medalist their second appearance in the state qualifiers” this is not particularly surprising in comparison to other things that happened at the competition . It’s also kind of like saying “X  rarely happens on the third day of the seventh month of an odd numbered year.” The reality is Timber Creek has been the Area B runner up (6th place) five or six consecutive years before breaking through (5th place) and advancing to the SMBC last year. Timber Creek has already been a force within Area B for many years. They moved up one place last year. Two more places the next year is extremely satisfying for supporters of the program (like me) but not exactly unprecedented for an up and coming band in the activity. Especially when the band in question has been having such a strong year. Waxahachie’s recent trajectory has been similar.
Consequently more attention has been paid to the judges sheets and how the preliminary and final rankings for all the bands were actually determined.
Consensus, continuity, and consistency did not appear to rule the day.
Having said that I don’t have a problem with who is advancing, even if my personal selections would have been slightly different. I really just wish there was room for a couple more. 

I have a long term affiliation with the KISD band programs and have enjoyed watching Timber Creek performances and growing maturity since the school opened. I think the underlying issue in this case may be the specificity of your observation. While it is true that “TC became an area medalist their second appearance in the state qualifiers” this is not particularly surprising in comparison to other things that happened at the competition . It’s also kind of like saying “X  rarely happens on the third day of the seventh month of an odd numbered year.” The reality is Timber Creek has been the Area B runner up (6th place) five or six consecutive years before breaking through (5th place) and advancing to the SMBC last year. Timber Creek has already been a force within Area B for many years. They moved up one place last year. Two more places the next year is extremely satisfying for supporters of the program (like me) but not exactly unprecedented for an up and coming band in the activity. Especially when the band in question has been having such a strong year. Waxahachie’s recent trajectory has been similar.
Consequently more attention has been paid to the judges sheets and how the preliminary and final rankings for all the bands were actually determined.
Consensus, continuity, and consistency did not appear to rule the day.
Having said that I don’t have a problem with who is advancing, even if my personal selections would have been slightly different. I really just wish there was room for a couple more. 

Their recent history at this contest indicates they don’t need the break. I don’t understand all the early season doubt. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Keller has been extremely consistent over the years. 😁
It’s clearly another year in Area B where someone very deserving will not be making the trip to the SMBC. May everyone have a great Finals run!

Their recent history at this contest indicates they don’t need the break. I don’t understand all the early season doubt. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Keller has been extremely consistent over the years. 😁
It’s clearly another year in Area B where someone very deserving will not be making the trip to the SMBC. May everyone have a great Finals run!

Their recent history at this contest indicates they don’t need the break. I don’t understand all the early season doubt. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Keller has been extremely consistent over the years. 😁
It’s clearly another year in Area B where someone very deserving will not be making the trip to the SMBC. May everyone have a great Finals run!

3 KISD bands at state would be MASSIVE. Pulling for my friends at Keller, TC, and KC tonight! You guys got this!!

Wakeland is definitely not a park and bark band. They are pretty much always moving. 

And Keller has a clear history of pushing the limits of difficulty, sometimes paying a small price in cleanliness and scores. I think the price, for both cleanliness and score, in Waco, was unusually large.