|
Post by jgve1952 on Feb 4, 2024 9:18:54 GMT -5
Yes! I don't think they would do three consecutive years in a row, i.e., 1981, 1982 and then (NOT LIKELY AT ALL) 1983. So yes, 1986 should follow 1982, and then 1983. That would only leave 1985 and 1988 to complete all ten years from late 2023 into March 2024.
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Feb 5, 2024 2:35:06 GMT -5
There are (potentially) positive and (definitely) negative aspects to this unexpected change in the schedule: Negative: 1982, as noted, is being played by Premiere, making this already the second time this year we're experiencing this overlap. Also, the 2/13/82 chart would be a repeat from three years ago, whereas the anticipated 2/27/82 chart would have been new. Potentially Positive: If they resume the year cycle the following week, going with 1986 and then 1983, both of those would be new charts for the VJs. Are we placing odds on this actually happening? That is, if they resume that cycle. If they don't, then we might get 2/20/88 for the umpteenth time. I wouldn't place odds on anything given their frequent curveballs.
|
|
|
Post by Michael1973 on Feb 5, 2024 15:41:32 GMT -5
That is, if they resume that cycle. If they don't, then we might get 2/20/88 for the umpteenth time. I wouldn't place odds on anything given their frequent curveballs. Good point. Also, if they hold off one more week on 1986, we'll be all set up to get another dose of 12/6/86 much later in the year.
|
|
|
Post by lasvegaskid on Feb 9, 2024 23:46:37 GMT -5
Next week's not AT40...1986
|
|
|
Post by laura on Feb 9, 2024 23:49:00 GMT -5
Thank goodness they aren't doing any Presidents' Day shenanigans this year.
|
|
|
Post by jgve1952 on Feb 10, 2024 6:03:54 GMT -5
It looks like they are back in order with the year selection, and I am thinking that 2-23-24 should be 1983.
|
|
|
Post by Michael1973 on Feb 10, 2024 9:48:42 GMT -5
Thank goodness they aren't doing any Presidents' Day shenanigans this year. And that they didn't pick 1983 or 1988.
|
|
|
Post by jblues on Feb 10, 2024 9:53:23 GMT -5
Was the chart for this week for the Big 40 different than the one for actual Casey AT40 80s? Seems I listened to both (WWIS earlier and then this a bit last night.) I was working while listening to WWIS, so could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by laura on Feb 10, 2024 10:29:29 GMT -5
Was the chart for this week for the Big 40 different than the one for actual Casey AT40 80s? Seems I listened to both (WWIS earlier and then this a bit last night.) I was working while listening to WWIS, so could be wrong. The Big 40 featured the 13th while Premiere featured the 6th.
|
|
|
Post by jblues on Feb 10, 2024 10:33:28 GMT -5
Was the chart for this week for the Big 40 different than the one for actual Casey AT40 80s? Seems I listened to both (WWIS earlier and then this a bit last night.) I was working while listening to WWIS, so could be wrong. The Big 40 featured the 13th while Premiere featured the 6th. Thanks - thought so!
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Feb 10, 2024 11:09:18 GMT -5
For next week 2/15/86 would be the most fitting date, but their recent tendency to go forward rather than backwards means that 2/22 is probably more likely.
But as stated, either way that's better than 1983 (Casey duplicate) or 1988 (2/20 yet again.) If we get 1988 the following week, most likely it'll be 2/27.
|
|
|
Post by Michael1973 on Feb 10, 2024 16:21:24 GMT -5
For next week 2/15/86 would be the most fitting date, but their recent tendency to go forward rather than backwards means that 2/22 is probably more likely. Unfortunately, 2/15 would be new while 2/22 was played three years ago. As I stated last week, they only seem to shuffle with the year rotation when the end result is more repeats. Had they left things alone, 1982 would have been new at the end of the month instead of a 2021 repeat today. The same will hold true next time 1982 is scheduled to come up.
|
|
|
Post by jgve1952 on Feb 10, 2024 17:14:31 GMT -5
However, 1982 came up sooner, had they stayed with the rotation-- it would have been: 1986, 1983 then 1982. 1988 was done six times last year, so that definitely needed a rest. I assume you mean, Michael 1973, that 1982 should come up in ten weeks again? That was true until the curveball was thrown putting 1982 ahead of both 1986 and 1983.
|
|
|
Post by Michael1973 on Feb 12, 2024 23:04:15 GMT -5
However, 1982 came up sooner, had they stayed with the rotation-- it would have been: 1986, 1983 then 1982. 1988 was done six times last year, so that definitely needed a rest. I assume you mean, Michael 1973, that 1982 should come up in ten weeks again? That was true until the curveball was thrown putting 1982 ahead of both 1986 and 1983. Yes, sorry if I was unclear. My point was, if they hadn't messed with the rotation we'd have gotten 2/27/82 (new) and then potentially 5/8/82 (also new). But instead we got 2/13/82 (2021 repeat) and ten weeks later leads to 4/24/82 (2021 repeat). It remains to be seen whether the change ends up giving us 2/22/86 (2021 repeat) instead of 2/15/86 (new). Meanwhile, any time the ten-year rotation leads directly to a five-time repeat or a chart we got a year ago, no adjustments are ever made.
|
|
|
Post by jgve1952 on Feb 13, 2024 5:56:05 GMT -5
As some of us have pointed out, they just don't seem to care. I still would like to know who decides what year is played.
|
|