Does MiM/G7 violate antitrust law?

[corpsband]

There is one huge stick DCI wields over them... most of the members get their skills and work ethic in O-15 corps. If O-15 members contracts were modified by DCI such that they extend to 22 years old and are only transferable freely within DCI ("Other corps" would have to negotiate a yearly payment for use of the kid, or a larger amount to buy out the member's contract - we're talking several thousand dollars not chargeable to the kid.). I believe that the seven wouldn't be so elite after a year or two of recruitment only outside of DCI. Bye-bye really means bye-bye.

while i agree that all these corps are interconnected (for some in ways they don't like to admit) the idea that players in the top corps learned all their skill and work ethic in the some other corps first is ridiculous. in fact what SEPARATES top corps from lower corps is the training and work ethic that they teach their members. i always find it amusing that some claim that lower tier corps do all the work and the upper corps reap the rewards. no -- if those lower corps were training kids as well as the upper tier corps, THEY'D BE BEATING THE UPPER TIER CORPS ! guess what -- that ain't happening out in the real world. top tier corps win not because of talent but because of teaching (well...and design and admin too but not relevant here) . do they get more talent ? heck yeah -- because the really talented kids want to perform there. they want to learn there. but do they win because of that talent? obviously not -- as you point out much of that very same talent marched a lower tier corps first and their talent did not boost those corps to the top. and how does that experience help them make upper tier corps? simple -- they didn't wash out. investing time and training in a drum corps rookie is VERY risky. asking for members to have experience eliminates much of that risk because they've survived a season of drum corps. but they didn't learn to march and play and spin and work like a Crown/BD/Cadets member at Jersey Surf -- they learned that at Cadets/BD/Crown.

[Ghost]

no -- if those lower corps were training kids as well as the upper tier corps, THEY'D BE BEATING THE UPPER TIER CORPS ! guess what -- that ain't happening out in the real world. top tier corps win not because of talent but because of teaching (well...and design and admin too but not relevant here) . do they get more talent ? heck yeah -- because the really talented kids want to perform there. they want to learn there.

I disagree CB. Many of the lower placing WC mm joined those corps younger than the average age of much higher placing WC corps. They may have never marched DC style, most have skills that are still rough around the edges, etc. Those lower placing corps/band instructors make them better and they improve even more. In most cases, before they audition with the top corps, they are much more skilled than their first Winter camp with their first corps do to a few DCI years under their belt. And once with a top corps, they continue to improve.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ghost

[CCorps]

while i agree that all these corps are interconnected (for some in ways they don't like to admit) the idea that players in the top corps learned all their skill and work ethic in the some other corps first is ridiculous. in fact what SEPARATES top corps from lower corps is the training and work ethic that they teach their members. i always find it amusing that some claim that lower tier corps do all the work and the upper corps reap the rewards. no -- if those lower corps were training kids as well as the upper tier corps, THEY'D BE BEATING THE UPPER TIER CORPS ! guess what -- that ain't happening out in the real world. top tier corps win not because of talent but because of teaching (well...and design and admin too but not relevant here) . do they get more talent ? heck yeah -- because the really talented kids want to perform there. they want to learn there. but do they win because of that talent? obviously not -- as you point out much of that very same talent marched a lower tier corps first and their talent did not boost those corps to the top. and how does that experience help them make upper tier corps? simple -- they didn't wash out. investing time and training in a drum corps rookie is VERY risky. asking for members to have experience eliminates much of that risk because they've survived a season of drum corps. but they didn't learn to march and play and spin and work like a Crown/BD/Cadets member at Jersey Surf -- they learned that at Cadets/BD/Crown.

When you have a stronger baseline of ability, it allows you to teach at a higher/different level. So yes, it is about the talent level. It's also about the experience level; the DCI tour experience is a learned skill as much as playing/marching/spinning/etc. In fact, it's more important than those skills. A lower-placing corps teaches that experience if they're running a full tour. Even if they're not, that member who then leaps to a higher placing corps is in a position to be taught more. This is just basic Education 101 and, frankly, common sense.

Are the top-tier corps taught better? Of course. But it's as much because they are ABLE to as it is because they are better at it.

C'mon, now. You're smarter than that post.

[Pete Freedman]

while i agree that all these corps are interconnected (for some in ways they don't like to admit) the idea that players in the top corps learned all their skill and work ethic in the some other corps first is ridiculous. in fact what SEPARATES top corps from lower corps is the training and work ethic that they teach their members. i always find it amusing that some claim that lower tier corps do all the work and the upper corps reap the rewards. no -- if those lower corps were training kids as well as the upper tier corps, THEY'D BE BEATING THE UPPER TIER CORPS ! guess what -- that ain't happening out in the real world. top tier corps win not because of talent but because of teaching (well...and design and admin too but not relevant here) . do they get more talent ? heck yeah -- because the really talented kids want to perform there. they want to learn there. but do they win because of that talent? obviously not -- as you point out much of that very same talent marched a lower tier corps first and their talent did not boost those corps to the top. and how does that experience help them make upper tier corps? simple -- they didn't wash out. investing time and training in a drum corps rookie is VERY risky. asking for members to have experience eliminates much of that risk because they've survived a season of drum corps. but they didn't learn to march and play and spin and work like a Crown/BD/Cadets member at Jersey Surf -- they learned that at Cadets/BD/Crown.

You do realize that you are basically suggesting that drum corps (lower tier at least) is not a particularly valuable educational experience, right?

Others have said what I was going to say, but I'll put it my way. It's a common misconception that Harvard must be a better school (in the sense of better teachers) than, say, community colleges, because their students score higher on standardized tests.

But there are two factors at work: the skill of the teacher and the knowledge and work ethic of the kid coming in to the school.

It's true that the Harvard teacher will be teaching at a much higher level, and will likely be more knowledgeable about the cutting edge in the field (and even involved in it as a researcher), but the community college teacher may have much better teaching skills geared toward the skill level of their students, and may in fact have better teaching skills overall by focusing more on teaching than research.

This confusion causes us to enact policies that punish teachers whose students score poorly on tests, even though those particular kids may have improved under that teacher. Under No Child Left Behind entire schools had their budgets cut for no reason other than the kids in those neighborhoods don't do their homework. Is there a difference between a kid who doesn't want to learn and a kid who does? A vast difference. Is that a reason to punish the teacher or the school? No.

</rant>

So, referring to your bolded statement above, those lower corps instructors could be teaching those kids just as well, but those kids are obviously younger and less experienced in music, dance and drum corps. Innumerable bios and sig files listing a sequence of drum corps climbing the DCI hierarchy attest to this.

And even if you are right that the service provided by the lower corps is limited to culling the weak, well, so what? The seven would still suffer without that service. They need the lower corps to be as good as they are. An independent elite MiM league would be starved for talent if DCI fought back appropriately. I'm just saying you've got to know the tools in your toolbox.

[GUARDLING]

You do realize that you are basically suggesting that drum corps (lower tier at least) is not a particularly valuable educational experience, right?

Others have said what I was going to say, but I'll put it my way. It's a common misconception that Harvard must be a better school (in the sense of better teachers) than, say, community colleges, because their students score higher on standardized tests.

But there are two factors at work: the skill of the teacher and the knowledge and work ethic of the kid coming in to the school.

It's true that the Harvard teacher will be teaching at a much higher level, and will likely be more knowledgeable about the cutting edge in the field (and even involved in it as a researcher), but the community college teacher may have much better teaching skills geared toward the skill level of their students, and may in fact have better teaching skills overall by focusing more on teaching than research.

This confusion causes us to enact policies that punish teachers whose students score poorly on tests, even though those particular kids may have improved under that teacher. Under No Child Left Behind entire schools had their budgets cut for no reason other than the kids in those neighborhoods don't do their homework. Is there a difference between a kid who doesn't want to learn and a kid who does? A vast difference. Is that a reason to punish the teacher or the school? No.

</rant>

So, referring to your bolded statement above, those lower corps instructors could be teaching those kids just as well, but those kids are obviously younger and less experienced in music, dance and drum corps. Innumerable bios and sig files listing a sequence of drum corps climbing the DCI hierarchy attest to this.

And even if you are right that the service provided by the lower corps is limited to culling the weak, well, so what? The seven would still suffer without that service. They need the lower corps to be as good as they are. An independent elite MiM league would be starved for talent if DCI fought back appropriately. I'm just saying you've got to know the tools in your toolbox.

The service that lower corps provide IS valuable BUT lower placing corps usually ( not always ) provide a place for newer less experienced staff. It does provide training BUT can be very different from the training provided by some of the upper tier corps. Now , this can also be for many reasons , not just less experienced members and staff but time available, starting times, available staff and YES even money. This doesn't make anyone less valuable but does make it a very different experience.

Now also depending on the corps personally I have experienced some really great times watching a kid grow from nothing BUT have also watched a kid with some good BASIC skills blossom into greatness.

and have also had to completely re- teach someone.

You also talk about DCI fighting back, are you forgetting DCI is the corps?

I think the topic strayed I guess. Back to, whatever it was..lol

Edited November 23, 2014 by GUARDLING

[MikeD]

So as it stand now, if they wanted to break from DCI they'd have to create their own league with all their own shows. This wouldn't be hard, and frankly I can't think of much that would stop them.

There is one huge stick DCI wields over them... most of the members get their skills and work ethic in O-15 corps. If O-15 members contracts were modified by DCI such that they extend to 22 years old and are only transferable freely within DCI ("Other corps" would have to negotiate a yearly payment for use of the kid, or a larger amount to buy out the member's contract - we're talking several thousand dollars not chargeable to the kid.). I believe that the seven wouldn't be so elite after a year or two of recruitment only outside of DCI. Bye-bye really means bye-bye.

Of course this would be bad for DCI too because some kids wouldn't audition for DCI in hopes of getting into the G7 some day, but it would hurt the G7 enough to prevent them from bolting, so it wouldn't be necessary to actually implement.

Some of the members in the G7 corps come from lower DCI corps...some come from DCA corps...and some come from no corps at all. If the G7 corps created their own organization, what is to stop a member of a DCI corps to move over to a G7-circuit corps? Nothing. The contract a member of a DCI corps signs is between that member and the corps. it has no bearing on a corps in a different circuit. Am I missing what you are saying?

[Pete Freedman]

Some of the members in the G7 corps come from lower DCI corps...some come from DCA corps...and some come from no corps at all. If the G7 corps created their own organization, what is to stop a member of a DCI corps to move over to a G7-circuit corps? Nothing. The contract a member of a DCI corps signs is between that member and the corps. it has no bearing on a corps in a different circuit. Am I missing what you are saying?

A contract can prohibit a member from marching in a competing league (MiM "for example") for x years. And DCI could partner with DCA to allow transfers there.

Such clauses are legal between teams in a league - the NCAA used them in certain sports in the past although I believe they are now moving away from them (because of course it wasn't just the team you couldn't leave - it was in effect the college).

But I can't see anything preventing DCI from barring transfers to a competing league. It's hardball, yes. And DCI wouldn't play hardball in all likelihood. But it's a strategy they could employ in theory if the G7 were to really split off. Which apparently they won't. So it's moot. It's a woulda -coulda more than a shoulda.

[Pete Freedman]

The service that lower corps provide IS valuable BUT lower placing corps usually ( not always ) provide a place for newer less experienced staff. It does provide training BUT can be very different from the training provided by some of the upper tier corps. Now , this can also be for many reasons , not just less experienced members and staff but time available, starting times, available staff and YES even money. This doesn't make anyone less valuable but does make it a very different experience.

Now also depending on the corps personally I have experienced some really great times watching a kid grow from nothing BUT have also watched a kid with some good BASIC skills blossom into greatness.

and have also had to completely re- teach someone.

You also talk about DCI fighting back, are you forgetting DCI is the corps?

I think the topic strayed I guess. Back to, whatever it was..lol

... and Congress is the People...

Good insights otherwise.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Pete Freedman

[MikeD]

A contract can prohibit a member from marching in a competing league (MiM "for example") for x years. And DCI could partner with DCA to allow transfers there.

Such clauses are legal between teams in a league - the NCAA used them in certain sports in the past although I believe they are now moving away from them (because of course it wasn't just the team you couldn't leave - it was in effect the college).

But I can't see anything preventing DCI from barring transfers to a competing league. It's hardball, yes. And DCI wouldn't play hardball in all likelihood. But it's a strategy they could employ in theory if the G7 were to really split off. Which apparently they won't. So it's moot. It's a woulda -coulda more than a shoulda.

The NCAA can only do that what it does if the schools are all under the umbrella of the NCAA. And, as you say, 1) the rules only apply to a couple of sports and 2) even with those they are changing with the times.

If the G7 were to form their own 'league', this statement would no longer apply. They would be a totally different league, not "within" a single league.

But...as you say, this is a moot point, thankfully.

[Jeff Ream]

A contract can prohibit a member from marching in a competing league (MiM "for example") for x years. And DCI could partner with DCA to allow transfers there.

Such clauses are legal between teams in a league - the NCAA used them in certain sports in the past although I believe they are now moving away from them (because of course it wasn't just the team you couldn't leave - it was in effect the college).

But I can't see anything preventing DCI from barring transfers to a competing league. It's hardball, yes. And DCI wouldn't play hardball in all likelihood. But it's a strategy they could employ in theory if the G7 were to really split off. Which apparently they won't. So it's moot. It's a woulda -coulda more than a shoulda.

DCI owns all of the past video and cd's. it in many ways owns a corps history. that, more than any contract about marching members keeps them there.