2025 Changes to UIL Marching Competition, and Proposals

[utee94]

Didn't see a discussion on this, it was just posted to the txbands.com facebook page.  Sorry if already posted elsewhere or if it should go somewhere else.

 

The UIL Marching Band Rules Advisory Committee held their Fall Meeting this past December. Among the items discussed:

- The updated Five-Judge System (Caption Based) for Area Contests will be implemented for Conference 6A/5A/4A in 2025.

The rest of the items, old and new business, are proposals only:

- Proposal to add caption awards at the UIL State Marching Band Championships.

- Proposal to add a Guard Judge for 6A/5A State Marching Band Championships

- Proposal to allow “Area Amplification” of wind instruments (Currently, only ten members can be amplified at one time).

 

[TrenBS]

C. #1 was a long time coming honestly, the 5 judge system was dated even back in the mid-2000s, and with how robust BOA judging and even local contest judging has become, it has made area a very weird and almost random feeling competition at times (most of the time besides the state/area finals locked bands)
I hope C. #3 and #4 pass, color guard in Texas is growing and given how much shows are being designed with color guard in mind nowadays, we should absolutely have them be a very noticeable factor in the overall placements, and caption awards are always welcome

The new business is very interesting, I really like the concept of 5. if they make timing more lenient, and especially #3, given how consistent the past state winners have been (Hebron 24, Vandegrift 23, Vandegrift 22, Hebron 21), giving bands like Prosper, Wylie, and Brandeis better chances of making state without being monopolied out is a good change in my opinion

[JazzRun]

Too bad they didn’t have D #3 in place for Area J this year 😭

[zxrzxz]

I really hope D #3 Passes, there’s so many competitive areas that cut out way too many good bands. Area B 5A could have had 5 bands with Lebanon Trail being added in, and it’s likely all 5 would have made finals. Obviously it won’t be the case this year because wakeland not medalling.  

[Danpod]

Let's take a look at some of the New Business (Stuff that will be discussed in May)

D1:
Conference 1A proposal to make their Region Contests point based rather than, "You got a 1 rating, please advance to State." Unsure if this sets up a future Area Contest for 1A programs. Budgets and travel are a major deal for that, but the UIL has been consistent in giving programs these opportunities if they want them.

D2:
Proposal to eliminate "accomplishments" from field exit scripts. Logic here is that judges might be influenced when hearing about a band's accolades. Judges are usually waaaayyy too busy at the end of a show with writing comments and finishing up audio commentary to pay attention to that stuff. 

D3:
The adults on Facebook (also known as Nega TikTok) are extremely vocal about this one. This proposal would advance an additional program to State if your Area had a medalist at State Finals the previous year. The sentiment is felt. I'm sure there are some programs that feel like the cards are stacked against them because their Area has a lot of successful programs in it. If this passes (it won't), you can basically throw UIL/TMEA Realignment out the window. The whole purpose of creating an Area J for Conference 6A, and the reason for realignment as a whole, is to give equal representation to Areas across the State as possible. Creating rules for a few programs doesn't serve the activity as a whole. We have to think about an entire State.

D4:
Medals going out to State Finalists would mimic what Bands Of America does for their Grand National Finalists. I can tell you that the UIL has really upped the pageantry game on State Finals in recent years which I am very grateful for. Back when I was doing my State Finals thing, the retreat felt very transactional and sterile. Would giving every State Finalist participant a medal water down the experience of receiving a Bronze, Silver, or Gold one? Hard to say. I think caption awards at State Finals needs to be a thing first before considering this.

D5:
Changing the timing penalty at Region Contest has been a topic circulating for the past few years. Currently, the penalty for going over the eight minute performance time is a lowering of division rating (If you got a 1, the penalty would give you a 2 across the board). Some proponents feel that the penalty is too harsh and that a written reprimand is sufficient enough. However, the Eight Minute Rule in UIL will likely never change. There's a reason Halftime performances are only allotted so much time and why there are specific penalties in place when the band/spirit groups go over.

D6:
Moving to an indoor venue would be challenging to say the least. Not everyone has those facilities available on short notice. Area I last Fall was one of the most wild marching contests on record. Multiple weather delays, restarts, announcements during performances to pull students off the field, damage to set pieces, and much more. There's only so much that can be done during Area Saturday aside from moving the contest back a day or two. 

D7:
Fun Fact. UIL used to release full State Prelims rankings publicly right before State Finals. Those were some crazy times in the press box! One reason that this proposal may be on the table is to prevent State Finalist programs from knowing where they have placed before heading into the most stressful performance of their lives. With that being said, State Finals already has a top half/bottom half performance draw so you already have a ballpark of where you currently rank. Trust me. It's difficult to ignore those recaps when they start circulating throughout social media. 

[BandNerd07]

There was also a proposal to medal ALL state finalists, so if that and D3 pass, we could see an area like area J advance SEVEN bands to state, allowing Braswell, Wylie, and McKinney advance. I do think it would kinda be crazy to only send 3 area finalists home, but it does make sense considering that this is the toughest area in the state. Every state level band should be allowed to advance without getting the short end of the stick.

[utee94]

Yes D3 would obviously impact 5A Area H, with all three State medalists coming from the same Area.  But I tend to agree with Danpod, I don't really see it happening.

I'm also curious as to this forum's thoughts on C5, allowing broader amplification of instrumentation during the performance?

I'm pretty old-school and I already have my reservations about the amplification of front ensemble, soloists, duets, and group choirs, that is currently allowed.  This seems like a slippery slope to me (that we're already halfway down).  I've always felt like hearing the entire unamplified ensemble playing from the field, is one of the most important aspects of the marching band demonstrating its un-aided capability.  But I can tell this is a battle I've long since lost...

 

 

 

[lost]

I’m having a hard time seeing why providing opportunities to groups that are disadvantaged by no fault of their own is considered “doesn’t serve the activity as a whole” feels like an elitist take, maybe it’s just me.

[lost]

I also don’t see the issue with D5 as much as others on this forum. It’s kept out genuinely finals-level competent groups and a complete disqualification from the state track because of an early season timing penalty is absurdly harsh. 

[TrenBS]

  On 1/27/2025 at 1:04 PM, lost said:

I’m having a hard time seeing why providing opportunities to groups that are disadvantaged by no fault of their own is considered “doesn’t serve the activity as a whole” feels like an elitist take, maybe it’s just me.

Expand  

Yeah, and I don't see how adding an additional 3 slots that can be split between 3 of the 5-10 areas would be "throwing UIL/TMEA out of the window". If the rule were to be adding a slot for each state finalist in the area, making it 12-14 extra slots, yes it would be extremely excessive, but considering the winners since post-COVID have been the same 2 bands in notoriously difficult areas, bringing a little levity to those areas is not the worst idea since the whole concept of ignoring balance was already ignored with current area C, which is by far the weakest in regards to state rep between them, area B, and J (not a single finalist while the other 2 DFW areas had 2-3, could've been 3-4 if Prosper and Timber got 9-12 less points).

But I guess having balanced area contests isnt good for the activity, why dont we combine area A with J then so we can continue cutting down on state slots? Because obviously Texas band is going downhill in regards to skill and more representation would be harmful to advancing this little activity

[TubaBoi123]

D2: reasonable and wouldn't effect anyone negatively 

D3: in the case of someone from Area B 5A, It is THE hardest 5a area shown by 3/4 bands being 3/12 finalists but also that LT getting 5th in area not making state, but the year before making it shows the level of competition and this rule is very biased to certain areas. It's good to have competition but also would heavily effect the Austin area seeing how all 3 list schools medaled would that mean from Area they send 6-7 that just cant work. This rule is a cope to having competitive areas and the programs that might be one out of advancing to state need to meet a higher level if they want to advance. 

D4: I feel a finalist medal is a amazing concept but we have to think of this on the broad scale of UIL and how medals in different sports there is no finalists in other competitions just brackets. maybe a small pendent would be nice but the quality gold silver bronze UIL medals should be only medals handed out just due to the overall presentation in all UIL actives not just band.

D5: IMO I think time penalties in generally need a rework regarding things like instrument failures. the likelihood of electronics deciding to reboot on the field. I feel a list of parameters and what would be considered overtime rather than a delay. Things like not having shows up to tempo and going overtime should be a DQ, but things like electronic failures or possible equipment malfunctions should not as they are uncontrollable. more specific parameters should be put into effect for region dq's, great example is wakeland 2022 where they had a electronics reboot while on the field and the directors chose to not start thus digging into performance time then consequently having the buzzer going off mid performance. wakeland has gotten a division 1 rating since they first opened and that one year broke a 16 year division 1 sweepstakes streak and thus being the first year in over 2 decades wakeland didn't win area b. all because of a electronics reboot. penalties need a rework divided by controllable and uncontrollable events.

[Danpod]

  On 1/27/2025 at 1:07 PM, lost said:

I also don’t see the issue with D5 as much as others on this forum. It’s kept out genuinely finals-level competent groups and a complete disqualification from the state track because of an early season timing penalty is absurdly harsh. 

Expand  

Totally agree. I hate the Eight Minute Rule. But the Football people aren't going to allow the Music people to get away with shows longer than eight minutes because that would impact the football players' performance after Halftime. 

[Danpod]

  On 1/27/2025 at 11:56 PM, TrenBS said:

Yeah, and I don't see how adding an additional 3 slots that can be split between 3 of the 5-10 areas would be "throwing UIL/TMEA out of the window". If the rule were to be adding a slot for each state finalist in the area, making it 12-14 extra slots, yes it would be extremely excessive, but considering the winners since post-COVID have been the same 2 bands in notoriously difficult areas, bringing a little levity to those areas is not the worst idea since the whole concept of ignoring balance was already ignored with current area C, which is by far the weakest in regards to state rep between them, area B, and J (not a single finalist while the other 2 DFW areas had 2-3, could've been 3-4 if Prosper and Timber got 9-12 less points).

But I guess having balanced area contests isnt good for the activity, why dont we combine area A with J then so we can continue cutting down on state slots? Because obviously Texas band is going downhill in regards to skill and more representation would be harmful to advancing this little activity

Expand  

Texas has a very unique situation. There are tons of really great bands spread out over the whole State. It's almost impossible to create a system that will allow every single "deserving" program to advance to the State Marching Contest. Having as close to equal representation across the Areas is about as fair as you can get without going down the rabbit hole of suggesting that certain Areas deserve more opportunity than others. Again, it's a very unique situation. I promise you that other states don't have to deal with this. 

I do think that the changing of the Area judging system has the potential to reward some programs we haven't seen at State yet. I'm excited for the changes!

[ndndbfjfj]

I don't know if this is just me, but I feel like when they announce results at area finals, they should 1st through 5th first, and then 10th through 6th after so there isn't as much awkward silence before 6th being announced.

[Tubalord11]

  On 3/25/2025 at 4:13 AM, ndndbfjfj said:

I don't know if this is just me, but I feel like when they announce results at area finals, they should 1st through 5th first, and then 10th through 6th after so there isn't as much awkward silence before 6th being announced.

Expand  

Correct me someone if I’m wrong someone, but I think they used to do something like this and would only announce those going to state.

Definitely don’t think this could hurt, but I think it makes it more exciting for the kids, especially if they jump up in finals to a state spot, but I do get your point. 

[J-Mike16]

  On 3/25/2025 at 4:29 AM, Tubalord11 said:

Correct me someone if I’m wrong someone, but I think they used to do something like this and would only announce those going to state.

Expand  

Yes, you are correct. UIL did used to only announce State advancers. I really dont think it was until 2020 that Areas started giving out all placements.

[Tubalord11]

  On 3/25/2025 at 5:21 AM, J-Mike16 said:

Yes, you are correct. UIL did used to only announce State advancers. I really dont think it was until 2020 that Areas started giving out all placements.

Expand  

Around that time I think, I know they did at Area B in 5A in 2019 when I was there, but that was my first area so idk if they changed it sooner. 

[Dave609]

  On 3/25/2025 at 2:07 PM, Tubalord11 said:

Around that time I think, I know they did at Area B in 5A in 2019 when I was there, but that was my first area so idk if they changed it sooner. 

Expand  

from what I remember, at least in 4A area b, they announced the bands advancing to state only, in alphabetical order, until 2018 where they switched to announcing the full results. I know most areas, through 2014 at least, would announce the state bands in random order to not give away the results.

[J-Mike16]

  19 hours ago, Dave609 said:

from what I remember, at least in 4A area b, they announced the bands advancing to state only, in alphabetical order, until 2018 where they switched to announcing the full results. I know most areas, through 2014 at least, would announce the state bands in random order to not give away the results.

Expand  

That's how it was for 5A Area F (Pre-2017) and then 5A Area E in 2017.