NCC 2011

[Ron1319]

I'm all for keeping color guard for the NCO's only but I'd put a 1-time limit on participation at a region or higher level competition.  I suspect NCC participation was better prior to the color guard competition and even a dozen cadets staying c/CMSgt's for an extra year just to have another shot at NCC on the color guard when they could be captains in that time is way too many. If 6 of those 12 pulled together drill teams instead, drill team participation would be much higher.

Pulling the group together with drill team I see as a huge benefit and I'd halt NCC participation if the cadets were abandoning their home units for drill team. 

[Ron1319]

Ned, I really want to know what you think about my suggestion to provide guidelines to make group and wing competitions more accessible.  Since the goal isn't to get more cadets at NCC, how about opening up lower levels to fewer cadet teams, or competitions with fewer events?

I also really want to say that pushing more color guard cadets to drill teams and allowing more spots for new cadets in the color guard competition would probably go a long way towards improving the number of participants.  I'd also like guidelines for lower competitions to allow for group and wing competitions to potentially allow for more teams to enter.  In other words, if I want to compose three color guard teams from the group, with cadets from 6 units, can I send all three teams to wing comp, or can my group only send one team?  One options has 4 or 5 cadets at wing comp and the other has 12-15.  Remember I believe I already have my 13 cadet officers lined up for the drill team.

[Ned]

SDWG has 9 squadrons, with active cadet participation ranging from 2-15 cadets.  Two squadrons in the state have 10 or more active cadets.

Yeah, that's kinda my point.

Those two cadet "squadrons" need to devote their time and effort to improving their own programs to get theri units up to size and speed rather than farming out their best and brightest cadets to some sort of SD Superteam.  Every hour spend transporting a cadet to/from and participating in the superteam is an hour spent not improving the two cadet "squadron."  If that means that those two cadets do not participate in wing, region, or NCC this year, they are in good company.  They will be just like the other 95% of all cadets in CAP who do not participate in one of the most expensive cadet activities we put on.

If I could change anything about the NCC rules, I would allow cadet officers to participate in color guard competition, and remove the requirement for the accompanying senior member to be 25. 
CAP goes through great lengths ensuring that it is grade that matters, and not age, but they put in regulatory dribble like that.

I agree that the age thing at first blush seems a little out of place, but it is one of those rules "written in blood" in the sense that is solidly based on a number of negative experiences at NCC when younger seniors displayed a marked inability to disengage themselves from the cadets and maintain a professional distance.

We are open, of course, to other ways to accomplish the solve the same problem, but the age thing has worked pretty well.  And we do it in other places in the program like IACE escort for pretty much the same reason.

And Ron, regions, wings, and groups are already free to conduct their competitions however they would like.  They can add any events they would like.  I think it would be interesting to see innovention and experimentation in the field.

THe flip side is that many competition project officers try to make the compeitition as much like NCC as possible to help their teams better prepare for higher level competition.

Ned

[Ron1319]

My point is that many groups and wings may be more likely to have more participation if holding a competition that was less complicated and more easy to pull off as a one day event.  My suggestion has been to drop innovative and volleyball at competitions with three or fewer teams competing.  GLR competition used to be 4-5 teams.  Does that just not happen anymore?  How many groups have competitions?  I'm still amazed that PCR had no other drill team competitors. 

I don't have any visibility into Nevada, Washington and Oregon, but I'd rather have a five event competition at region with 4 teams than not even have to show up. 

[Ned]

I'm still amazed that PCR had no other drill team competitors. 

Disappointing, surely, but understandable.

The logistics of moving a drill team around PCR are considerable.  The Region DCP does her best to move the competition aournd while keeping it near major APOEs and cheap quarters, but it is never going to be cheap or easy to move a couple of dozen folks a thousand miles or so and arrive in time for a competition. 

We' re probably talking a hundreds if not thousands of dollars for everyone except the home team, even using corporate vans.  And California being what it is, even the home team may need to move 500 miles.

This year's comp was in Nevada; last year was Washington, next year looks like California.  PCR is  big place.

Now let's talk about poor Hawaii and Alaska . . . .

We're not the only geograph9ically large region, of course, but the reality is that there is far too heavy a cost for an average squadron to participate in wing and region competitions.

That's a big part of what we need to fix to make NCC more accessible and supportive of local units.

We've talked about saving money by flying the judges to the wings or having a head to head YouTube competition, but each of those presents their own challenges.

Ned Lee

[Ron1319]

Let's talk real numbers.

I get $160/van round trip from Portland to Reno.  Figuring two vans for a drill team, we're looking at $320 or $30/cadet for the gas portion of the expense.  I've driven from Seattle to Portland in an afternoon's drive.  It's another 180 miles or approximately $60 round trip.  That would bring two wings in for under $35/cadet to Reno which is in Nevada and happens to be two hours away from Sac.

I don't think anybody reasonable can't raise $60/cadet or even $100/cadet to participate with an entire year to plan for it.  Our squadron makes that on each of at least 2-3 fund raisers a year.  I believe two of those involve parking lots and donations, but that's not really my department.

[jimmydeanno]

...and if you're in HI or AK wing you're looking at ~600.00/participant just to get to Reno.  So, there's ~$1200.00 * 15 = ~$18,000.  Now add meals, lodging and van support while they are there.

Do you really expect a squadron, wing, or even a region to shell out 20K, multiple times, to get cadets to competitions?  If HIWG were to go to PCR, that's what they'd expect to have to spend in one way or another.  Then, if they were to win PCR competition, there's another 20K-ish to get them to National Competition.  So, CAP is going to shell out 40K for ONE TEAM participate in NCC?  Even with a split between national funding and local funding support it is an unreasonable cost, especially considering the low number of cadets it supports.  In many situations, 40K can fully fund multiple wing encampments, servicing hundreds of cadets, not 12.

Those are the real numbers. 

[a2capt]

Thats two vans, and the time off for the senior members to drive them, and the food for three days for those cadets, and the hotel rooms. Jamming them all into 1 or 2 rooms encampment style perhaps.. but thats not a healthy competition either.

You certainly don't want to arrive the morning of, and perhaps leave the afternoon of finishing? IF you go all that way, to where there is usually *something* to see, why not use that day for AE activities and go to a museum that might be nearby.

I agree that the age thing at first blush seems a little out of place, but it is one of those rules "written in blood" in the sense that is solidly based on a number of negative experiences at NCC when younger seniors displayed a marked inability to disengage themselves from the cadets and maintain a professional distance.

... yeah. Lots of shenanigans have definitely happened when the only thing that crossed the line of membership classification is the wording on the membership card.

[BillB]

The biggest cost is for the Wing teams to get to Region. When Drill Comp was first organized, every CAP-USAF Region Laision Officer had a C-47 assigned and could move teams around. USAF picked up the tab. Also housing on Air Force Bases was at no charge for cadets (seniors pais $10. for a BOQ.
Times have obviously changed. USAF no longer has the airlift capability to support CAP due to other committments. But at the same time, Air Guard, AFReserve might be able to fill in the gap if USAF gave the go ahead. That might be an area for HQ CAP-USAF to look into.

[Ned]

I don't think anybody reasonable can't raise $60/cadet or even $100/cadet to participate with an entire year to plan for it.  Our squadron makes that on each of at least 2-3 fund raisers a year.  I believe two of those involve parking lots and donations, but that's not really my department.

I can't argue with your van numbers, they seem reasonable enough.

Now let's add the cost of new uniforms, insignia, and shoes for each cadet (call it a $13 shirt, $35 trousers, $5 tie, $10 cap, and $46 dollar shoes for $109 (Aafes prices) plus insignia, say $20)

And some sort of cool, flashy PT uniform.  (Obviously can vary, but let's say a conservative $30)

And the costs of subsistence and lodging. (A night or two in cheap quarters plus a couple of day's worth of meals.  Make it easy and call it a barracks and a dining hall for $25)

And we are starting to get close to the costs that competitive teams pay each year.

Something on the order of $200-$300 dollars per troop.  For the drill team and a couple of alternates, thats a cool couple of thousand a year.


We survey the NCC teams most years, and these are the minimum costs.  Some teams pay a lot more for things like custom embroidered warm up suits, matching athletic shoes, team polos, tailoring, etc.

I'm not suggesting that anyone is putting a gun to their heads.  As you suggest, they raise the funds themselves and seem to have a genuine good time, win or lose. 


But if the burden to be competitive is thousands of dollars, then your average and even most above-average squadrons don't even bother to try.  Which may account for why it is more likely for a cadet to earn an Earhart than it is for them to even compete once at the wing, region, or national levels, statistically speaking.

One of the primary purposes of the proposals is to reduce the entry barriers to the competition by reducing costs and not requiring specialized skills not normally used in local squadrons.

Seriously, CP has always been run on a shoestring at the local and national levels.  Are we getting the appropriate value for all the money we spend on NCC?

[Spaceman3750]

Here's an idea for the PCR folks...

What if, instead of all teams coming together to compete, over a period of a couple of months (or a few weekends) the judging team moves from place to place in a CAP vehicle to judge each team individually. Sure, it doesn't have quite the feel to it, but numbers are numbers whether they're gathered in one day or over several weekends. Obviously, this places much more burden on the organizers/judges but wouldn't they do it to have a real competition to decide who goes to NCC?

[Ned]

Here's an idea for the PCR folks...

What if, instead of all teams coming together to compete, over a period of a couple of months (or a few weekends) the judging team moves from place to place in a CAP vehicle to judge each team individually. Sure, it doesn't have quite the feel to it, but numbers are numbers whether they're gathered in one day or over several weekends. Obviously, this places much more burden on the organizers/judges but wouldn't they do it to have a real competition to decide who goes to NCC?

We have considered doing exactly that.

The issues we ran into included:

1. The cost of sending 2/3/(pick an number) of judges to the four CONUS states plus Alaska and Hawaii exceeded the entire CP budget for PCR, and we were unable to resource it.

2.  By definition, that means the "competition" is spread over a month or so, and that in turn means the last team gets a lot more practice than the first one.  How do we factor that in?

3.  What happens if a judge gets sick or becomes unavailable week to week?

4.  Things like weather and surface conditions will vary considerably between teams, which can have an effect.

5.  In my experience, teams really like to watch the other teams perform to ensure that the other team is judged "correctly".   That does tend to add to transparency and the appearance of fairness.

6.  and a few more.

We have really given this some serious time and attention.  As I mentioned, we considered another option - having the teams simultaneously videotape a single performance on a given date and immediately post the video on YouTube where they would be judged by AF HG types.

Again, the devil is in the details.  Integrity issues (ensuring only one "take"/performance, team members depicted are the actual competing members, etc.), technical issues (what happens if there is an inadvertant technical problem with the taping or upload), and trying to figure out how to do a detailed and comprehensive uniform inspection via video, etc.

I keep hoping we can figure ways around these kinds of problems . . .

[Ron1319]

We took fifth in in-ranks inspection at NCC with only purchasing selected new items and not purchasing new shoes.  I'd estimate an average of $40/cadet was spent on uniform items.  All of the items that we replaced were items that the cadets should have replaced to wear the uniform properly anyway, such as very dirty hats, pants that really needed replacing, etc.  Yes, the bar to win is high, but the bar to do respectably well at NCC is not unattainable.  We are coming with new uniforms this year.  We spent about 30 minutes of the practice discussing fund raising and we have 4 cadets who are going to go look into it by the end of the month.  I think it's a great experience for them to get involved in finances and budgeting.



We had preparation problems.  Ties were not consistent lengths, strings, ironing that wasn't quite right when they marched on, and some tailoring that we didn't go quite far enough with so we have a wrinkled appearance.  We'll do better next year.  You left out tailoring costs in your analysis.  We're including that in our budget for this year.  We spent $5/each on T-shirts and they wore the shorts they had.  I believe it cost them less than an encampment.  They want to spend a lot more money this year and they're going to figure out how to raise it.  I think that's about one of the greatest learning experiences they could hope for.

Now, again, if more groups had competitions and if wing competitions were more accessible it would likely be easier.  We had two seniors in the cadet programs meeting last year (you were there) who said that innovative was their sticking point.  It was me who said, "Show up, report in, report out, and move onto the next event.  You don't have to do innovative to compete or to win."

I will say that our team had a lot of fun working on innovative today.  It was raining so no volleyball. 

Most important question -- would Hawaii and Alaska even field a team if there were options like Youtube to compete?  I don't personally like the Youtube idea, but I'd do it if it was required.  I think it'd be a nightmare to judge and especially for transparency, like you said.  I can't imagine what the spouse of anyone asked to run around the region for 5-6 weeks in a row judging different teams would say.  I think that the four teams that are here could compete in person.  Are we doing the easy job of reaching out to WA and OR and seeing if their cadet programs people are working on encouraging a team to come compete?  Our team is itching for competition.  They say that they have another team coming to wing comp.

[Ned]

Ron,

Forgive me, but I don't think I can aggressively market NCC with a slogan like:

"Come to NCC where the bar to do respectably well is not unattainable!"

[tsrup]

SDWG has 9 squadrons, with active cadet participation ranging from 2-15 cadets.  Two squadrons in the state have 10 or more active cadets.

Yeah, that's kinda my point.

Those two cadet "squadrons" need to devote their time and effort to improving their own programs to get theri units up to size and speed rather than farming out their best and brightest cadets to some sort of SD Superteam.  Every hour spend transporting a cadet to/from and participating in the superteam is an hour spent not improving the two cadet "squadron."  If that means that those two cadets do not participate in wing, region, or NCC this year, they are in good company.  They will be just like the other 95% of all cadets in CAP who do not participate in one of the most expensive cadet activities we put on.

and I think you missed my point.   The point is that in order to field enough cadets for a Drill team competition we have work with other squadrons to do so.  There is no "farming out" occurring, more like scrounging up what we can.  Ideally Sioux Falls and Rapid City squadrons would be able to use every single one of their cadets to form a drill team, but the reality that some cadets can make the extra commitment and some cant is a reality that everyone in Cadet Programs has to deal with. 

and what do you mean by

"squadron"

are you implying that because our numbers are lower than what you may be used to that we aren't up to par?  I'd like to hear your stance on that.  Our system is small, but it is definitely not broken, and we are proud to have the cadets that we do, they're as hard working as anyone else around as well as the people that run those programs. 

I'm not disputing the intentions of this regulation which are definitely good.  Level and fair competition should be the goal of NCC, however in the process of trying to make the competition more accessible to some, you may be hindering the access of others.

If I could change anything about the NCC rules, I would allow cadet officers to participate in color guard competition, and remove the requirement for the accompanying senior member to be 25. 
CAP goes through great lengths ensuring that it is grade that matters, and not age, but they put in regulatory dribble like that.

I agree that the age thing at first blush seems a little out of place, but it is one of those rules "written in blood" in the sense that is solidly based on a number of negative experiences at NCC when younger seniors displayed a marked inability to disengage themselves from the cadets and maintain a professional distance.

We are open, of course, to other ways to accomplish the solve the same problem, but the age thing has worked pretty well.  And we do it in other places in the program like IACE escort for pretty much the same reason.

Ned

So should I be issued a different ID card, since I am apparently in a lower membership class then a full on CAP officer.
Maybe we should also have an "age cap" for escorts as well, I think maybe 55, that way you don't end up with a senile CAP officer forgetting their cadets somewhere.  If you want to make sure that your escorts are mature enough for being a chaperone, then make it mandatory that an escort have wing approval.  A simple "do you think this person could do this job without seriously screwing it up for the rest of us?" check would be all that's needed. 

The age thing seems like a cheap reaction dealing with a few isolated cases that someone should have dealt with directly rather than making a sweeping judgement that creates new membership "castes". 

[Ned]

Capt Rup,

I may have caused some miscommunication by omitting a hyphen.  When I wrote:

(. . .)Those two cadet "squadrons" need to devote their time and effort to improving their own programs to get theri units up to size and speed (. . .).

should have read "two-cadet" squadrons, reacting to your post where you indicated that you had squadrons with two cadets.  I had  not intended to refer to a two different chartered units, but to single units with two cadets.  I regret omitting the hyphen to make that clear.

That said,

and what do you mean by

"squadron"

I meant that a total of two cadets is far below the legal minimum for a squadron or even a flight.  As you know, squadrons require a minimum of 15 members, 3 of whom must be seniors.  And flights reguire a minimum of 8 members, 3 of whom must be seniors.  Your wing commander is required to review all charterd units annually to ensure that (among other things) the meet the minimums.

I suppose it is technically possible to have a composite unit with a bunch of seniors and only two cadets, but those two cadets are not experiencing the CAP cadet program as it was designed.  And in any event, those two cadets have far more immediate and pressing concerns than NCC.  Like recruiting, for instance.

are you implying that because our numbers are lower than what you may be used to that we aren't up to par?  I'd like to hear your stance on that. 

Yes, any unit below the legal minimums is, by definition, "not up to par."  Obviously there are a lot of small and struggling units out there, and there is no "magic number" for a unit size where learning automatically stops.  But all things being equal, less than 10-13 cadets makes it very, very difficult to run a quality cadet program.

Our system is small, but it is definitely not broken, and we are proud to have the cadets that we do, they're as hard working as anyone else around as well as the people that run those programs. 

There is not a doubt in my mind that the cadets work as hard or harder than any others in the program.  After all, unit administration is not primarily a cadet responsibility.  Unit size is primarily the resonsibility of the senior staff.

So should I be issued a different ID card, since I am apparently in a lower membership class then a full on CAP officer.
Maybe we should also have an "age cap" for escorts as well, I think maybe 55, that way you don't end up with a senile CAP officer forgetting their cadets somewhere.  (. . .) The age thing seems like a cheap reaction dealing with a few isolated cases that someone should have dealt with directly rather than making a sweeping judgement that creates new membership "castes".

Gosh, you make it seem like age restrictions are found nowhere else in nature.  I hate to break it to you, but one must obtain the age of 21 to buy a drink or a handgun in most states.  Most rental car companies won't rent to you unitl age 25.  And you have to be 35 to be elected President of the United States.

We won't make you a CAP second lieutenant unitl you are 21.  There are all sort of age restridtions for ES specialties like GTL, etc.

And if we ever begin to experience serious operational issues with elderly drill team escorts, we'd be happy to make a rule about that, too.

Sorry about the hyphen.

Ned Lee

[Ron1319]

I like the longer format for NCC as it was less stressful, but the event was still pretty intense even as a senior escort.  I'm not sure which side of the age argument I'm on.

I do know that nobody's going to take a team of new cadets to NCC for the first time and win.  Therefore, you have to start somewhere and you don't have to spend $3-4k to make that happen.  I think respectable is a perfectly fine goal for the first year.  The cadets just aren't going to understand until they get there.

If we don't have seniors that can't figure out the benefits without being assured a win, then we have a big problem.  99% of what comes from NCC isn't about winning.  That said, if the cadets can figure out how, they're going to give it a go this year.

[SKI304]

Skipping back to the original question, I was on the NCC Working Group that was evaluating the proposed changes, and we came up with some great ideas to make every echelon of the competition more appealing and accessible.  Keep in mind this was a very diverse group of CP Seniors and Cadets with very strong opinions in every direction that has been mentioned here, and we all seemed to be happy with the results.  However, I haven't heard any updates since our report was sent to the NEC, so I'm not sure if I can divulge any of the specifics of what we came up with.

That doesn't mean I can't voice my views on the matters though.     This may be a little repetitious to what I've posted prior, but I still think they're good points to keep bringing up. 

One of the biggest things outside of the "Change Proposal" that would help would be to use Air Force TI's as judges in Standard Drill instead of Honor Guard.  Honor Guard may be "drill experts", but they are Honor Guard Drill experts, and this has created a set of double standards in that they only care about what looks the most flashy and not what is IAW AFMAN 36-2203.  TI's are probably the true experts in standard drill since they are teaching it by the book day in and day out.  This would put every unit in the country on the same playing field for success since they wouldn't need to be attuned to the judges secret style preferences.  Leave the flash for innovative.

Now to the proposal.  The NCC by its very nature allows itself to be an outstanding metric to gauge the effectiveness of the Cadet Program at various echelons. That said, there's no reason why it can't also be used as a tool to develop the Cadet Program at those various echelons.  In response to the previously proposed changes, here are my thoughts.

"Super Team" Reduction While I think it should actually be one squadron, I'd be comfortable with at least two squadrons forming joint drill teams.  Here's why: imagine if the energy and effort that went into building quality wing level teams was focused into building local squadrons.  Cadets would be required to recruit, train, and develop their own fellow cadets instead of just joining up with other like minded individuals across the state.  The talent could then be spread out beyond a central 13 cadets, to lets say a conservative average estimate of 65 per wing.  Think of the leadership development that could build across the wing.  Think of the great encampment cadet staff you could have.  Think of the outstanding groups of basic cadets that you could graduate as a result of the training provided by that cadet staff.  The benefits that could be reaped are endless, and the great part is: it is not impossible.  My squadron did this ten years ago and we went from being a unit that barely had enough cadets to form a team, let alone be considered a more than mediocre cadet program, to a five time Squadron of Merit winner, one time Squadron of Distinction winner, nine times competing at Region Competition and three times at NCC while rising to become one of the largest cadet units in the country (#11 as of the beginning of the month).   I say this not to toot my own horn, but to illustrate the benefits that I largely attribute to involvement in NCC as a single-squadron entity.  And to dispel the idea that squadron teams are not viable at the NCC level, I'd like to remind everyone that four of the eight drill teams at NCC 2009 were single squadron teams, as were recent champion teams from NYWG and PRWG.  It is possible, but it is difficult like anything else that is a worthwhile pursuit.  Those of you in small wings can do it, I believe in you.   Remember, the rubber meets the road at the squadron - not the group or wing - and that's where we need our quality focused.

Elimination of Innovative Drill   While many people love Innovative Drill, I would seriously like to know: what benefit does it provide to the Cadet Program? Don't get me wrong, as a guy who makes his living in architecture, I live and breathe creativity and relish any opportunity that people have to express it, but we need to be cognizant of when that pursuit is at the detriment to some of our core tenants of the program. In ten years of being on and coaching drill teams, I know just how much time and energy goes into preparing for Innovative Drill. I posit that said energy would be much better invested into training younger cadets, planning great non-NCC activities, and generally improving our Cadet Program as a whole. Refocusing the expertise of those on the teams into helping the other 20,000 some cadets.  However, a good compromise may be just reducing the time frame to around two minutes.  This way it removes the notion that squadrons have to come up with five minutes of material while at the same time making the routines more exciting.  Less filler - more thriller.

Uniforms  In recent years it HAS become a contest of who has the newest stuff, not who has the most correct stuff.  There is no reason why a team should be penalized for wearing used uniforms and having insignia in good repair. Teams should not have to buy brand new shoes for competition that come out of the boxes in the staging area and only get worn out on the floor for inspection.  When we have so many cadets across the country who cannot wear the uniform properly, why shouldn't we instead be focusing on training drill teams at each squadron to be uniform experts that could help their fellow cadets get on board with their own uniform wear?  Imagine if the thousands of dollars spent on new uniforms, warm up uniforms, travel uniforms, casual uniforms, etc. were instead spent on subsidizing cadet activity fees and providing scholarships.  Fiscal responsibility is a good thing when we are in an organization of limited fiscal resources.  I'll admit it - I have done the buying all new uniforms thing in the past, but the cost benefit just wasn't there.  That's why last year we sent our cadets to NCC in their normal everyday uniforms.  Did it hurt?  Yes.  Was it worth taking funds away from other endeavors just to place higher in one event?  No.

Removal of Volleyball   I totally disagree with that one. A TLP probably won't ever be as effective on challenging teamwork in a fluid environment the way that Volleyball can  and opens up another avenue of cadets just memorizing a solution.   Additionally, it works well to balance out the NCC events by having two drill events, two academic events, and two physical events (in addition to inspection, of course.) Expert coaches aren't necessary either.  Last year my cadets did rather well just on what we taught ourselves and practicing in hallways, parking lots, and lawns.  Heck, we almost beat PRWG.  I know from talking with staffers that this event is also one of the most expensive single expenditures in the competition just to rent facilities and hire judges.  This is definitely not anything that can't be solved with CAP judges and $20 WalMart Volleyball nets.

Now I know many units have real obstacles in their way preventing conformance with those proposed changes, but please, lets look beyond those obstacles. Many of those obstacles are the same ones impeding our Cadet Program in general, so if we can find creative ways to knock these down, not only will we be ensuring our continued participation in NCC, we will be ensuring a vibrant, well oiled Cadet Program machine nationwide for years to come. 

Sincerely,

An adamant NCC believer.

[Ron1319]

Well thought out and very good post. 

The impression I got from talking to the PRWG team was that if you wanted to be on drill team, you transferred to that squadron.  The actual implementation would involve sucking cadets away from other units.  Further, I want to grow all of the squadrons in the group, not just my own. 

I watched the cadets work on innovative on Sunday at practice and it sure seemed like a great leadership laboratory to me.  I had to direct a bit but they were group problem solving way better than I've ever seen in a made up classroom setting at a meeting.

3 minutes for innovative sounds like an improvement to me.

[Bluelakes 13]

While I disagree with many things said about the drill team competition, I will refrain to commenting only about the color guard competition - because they are two very different animals.

There is no reason - other than excuses - why EVERY unit doesn't participate in the color guard competition.  It's a totally win/win scenario, even if you do not win Wing.  The competition is the epitome of the Cadet Programs elements: leadership (drill events), knowledge (test and panel quiz) and PT (mile run).  Having cadets study, drill and run will make them better cadets and better guardsmen.  They will be a huge asset to the unit when asked to provide CG services.  They will be excellent mentors for the rest of the cadets.

So as I tell every team I mentor and CG Clinics I teach, saying that the [color guard] competition is too much money spent on a few cadets is pure poppycock.  It's a substantial amount of money spent on every unit that choses to participate.  If you chose not to participate, do not complain.