nemesiscorps Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I'd find it inconceivable if this has not been previously discussed over the years, and I admit that it has been months since I've even bothered to check in on DCP. I'm just curious on how this topic will play this time around. The topic/issue/facts... 42 years of DCI In those 42 years, 9 separate corps have been crowned champion (at the highest competitive level) Of those 9 separate corps, 5 have won the title 2 times or less, accounting for 7 of the 42 years, which means that... For 35 years, 4 corps have been trading the DCI Founders Trophy Even among those 4 corps, the trophy trading is wildly imbalanced The point... From a raw numbers standpoint, if you isolate 7 calendar years from DCI's 42-year history, and isolate only 5 corps to trade the championship title 2 times or less over those 7 years, one can reasonably describe DCI as being a competitive circuit where its champions have a likely chance of emerging from anywhere within the competitive ranks. Not bad, but also not reality. Conversely, (from a raw numbers standpoint) if you pull out 35 calendar years from DCI's 42-year history, and select 4 separate corps to trade the title 3 or more times over those 35 years, one can reasonably describe DCI as being a competitive circuit where its champions have a likely chance of emerging from primarily 4 organizations within the competitive ranks. Terrible on many levels, and an unfortunate reality check. This clearly contrasting disparity is even more shocking if one considers the sheer number of corps that have competed for that trophy for over four decades. 42 years ??? # of competitors 9 winners The questions... What does this reality in raw numbers reasonably say about DCI as a competitive circuit? Should DCI even be concerned about this? What, if anything, should DCI do about this? It would be nice if this discussion would focus solely on DCI as a 42-year old competitive circuit (meaning an entity that operates, in part, with an objective of facilitating a series of ticketed competitions employing a credible mechanism to crown a single champion from among a variety of performing groups, worthy of "world class" designation), and not on Adjudication Issues; individual Corps; Executive, Design, or Instructional Personnel; Artistic or Competitive Design Aspects; or Cultural, Social, or Economic Issues that impact virtually every facet of society. More succinctly... Is it reasonable to associate DCI as a legitimate competitive circuit (a.k.a. Marching Music's Major League) where a champion is determined by means of a valid, reliable system (conceptually akin to the likes of a champion as understood within other major league competitive activities or events), or is DCI an unsustainable, quasi-competitive, mostly minor league model that has (to its own demise) failed to effectively address parity among its ranks as a fundamental aspect of organizational credibility, structure and strength? This entire topic always comes to my mind as those attending the DCI annual meetings gather year after year. What do these people discuss? It's pretty obvious that this topic isn't on the agenda... again. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I think DCI is doing just fine 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) And here I was, thinking that my Cadevaliers creation was about to fall victim to amnesia and/ or neglect. DCI changes fresh blood Champions less than Bill Belichick changes hoodies. For an activity that allegedly is filled with people who like " change" there is less " change" in placements as Champions of. DCI than in any other sport or competitive endeavor in the entire world .My guess,nobody here could name any other competitive sport or endeavor in the world that has had less numbers of new Champions crowned in its sport the last 35 years. I don't see that changing much over the next 35 years either, as the conditions and environment for such change are not present as near as I can tell . So it is what it is, and that's that. Edited February 6, 2015 by BRASSO 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Did a quick n dirty count of DCA winners for their 50 years (1965-2014). massage away.... Note: Total is 52 as there were two ties from the source I used. Reading Buccaneers 13Hawthorne Caballeros 9 Sunrisers 6Bushwackers 6Empire Statesmen 5Syracuse Brigadiers 5New York Skyliners 3Connecticut Hurricanes 3 Westshoremen 1Minnesota Brass 1 Edited February 6, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I'd find it inconceivable if this has not been previously discussed over the years, and I admit that it has been months since I've even bothered to check in on DCP. I'm just curious on how this topic will play this time around. The topic/issue/facts... 42 years of DCI In those 42 years, 9 separate corps have been crowned champion (at the highest competitive level) Of those 9 separate corps, 5 have won the title 2 times or less, accounting for 7 of the 42 years, which means that... For 35 years, 4 corps have been trading the DCI Founders Trophy Even among those 4 corps, the trophy trading is wildly imbalanced I can answer your first question. Yes, this has been discussed here before. The questions... What does this reality in raw numbers reasonably say about DCI as a competitive circuit? That competition has stagnated. Should DCI even be concerned about this? I think so. DCI is in the business of selling competitive events. If the events are not truly competitive, they do not sell as well. What, if anything, should DCI do about this? That is where it gets sticky. You mention the key word below - parity. That is a dirty word in some circles. There will be considerable debate over what steps, if any, DCI should take to foster competitive parity. I would hope, though, that we could at least gain a reasonable consensus among us bystanders that DCI should not be adding to the disparity. More succinctly... Is it reasonable to associate DCI as a legitimate competitive circuit (a.k.a. Marching Music's Major League) where a champion is determined by means of a valid, reliable system (conceptually akin to the likes of a champion as understood within other major league competitive activities or events), or is DCI an unsustainable, quasi-competitive, mostly minor league model that has (to its own demise) failed to effectively address parity among its ranks as a fundamental aspect of organizational credibility, structure and strength? That is not a valid either/or. For instance, an entity can be quasi-competitive, minor league and disparate, yet still be sustainable. In any case, there is not much hope of groundbreaking progress on this front. Back in the day, top corps threatened to break away and boycott major drum corps institutions like VFW, American Legion, World Open, and so on if they did not get their way... much like the prevailing threat of the G7 today. (And as we know, BITD they were not bluffing.) DCI was created by top corps, for top corps. It is in their mission statement. If we want a "major league" drum corps operation, one that is dedicated to a major league sized roster of corps like the 32 team NFL, it would most likely require redefinition of the mission. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Detweiler Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) This whole thing sounds like the Socialist Drum Corps Association or something. I don't know what you are suggesting from this post. Should we take from those that have excelled merely for the benefit of those that have not just because we think it is unfair? Should we penalize the organizations that have made wise choices consistently over many years because of some perceived unfair advantage over those that haven't? To put it another way, should we spot weak sports teams a certain number of runs/points when they are playing better teams just to "even the playing field"? Come on people, this is, like it or not, a competitive arena. We can like or dislike the results of any given contest but what the statistics stated in the original post tell me is that, year in and year out, there is a percentage of organizations that find a way to be at the very forefront of design and performance. There is also a percentage that, year in and year out, don't. That my friends is life. Don't mean to sound uncaring or unfeeling (I guess I sound like a conservative!). It is what it is. We all have our favorites and we are disappointed when they don't succeed. Believe me, I can relate. I have been a Buffalo Bills fan for 40 years! That being said we can't boost our favorite by somehow willing it to be different. Until the Bills find a way to compete, they are doomed to where they are. Just sayin' Dan Edited February 7, 2015 by Dan Detweiler 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibexpercussion Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 While yes, every corps would like to win, or believe they had a realistic chance to win, but that's not all it is about. Of course, in the end, only one group gets to do an encore run (which are never as good as the championship run), and all of us here on DCP rant and rave about this and that, and what we want to see, etc, etc, etc. But I believe all of us who have done this activity can attest to is that it is not all about winning. I would argue the fact that the Bluecoats felt like they had a wildly successful season in 2014, and that other corps making finals for the first time, or again for the first time in a while would their season a success. Also, what about those that crack the top 6 for the first time (Crossmen '92, Glassmen '98, Boston '00) I believe that would be a great season. All this to be said, too many times we get caught up in the who's winning, and competitive balance, and forget about the other "victories" and what the activity is really about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 As a comparison - 49 years of Super Bowls. 19 different champions. the most recent 42 years of World Series 20 different champions. Yeah, I'd say DCI has a "staleness" problem. To me it's more like a figure skating championship, where there are favorites going in who will always get the benefit of the doubt. But, I have the performances I like, and it doesn't really matter to me anymore if they came in first or tenth. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 But, I have the performances I like, and it doesn't really matter to me anymore if they came in first or tenth. And in an activity like drum corps, that is all that's important, right? Some years my favorite show is the DCI Champion, some year's my favorite show is no where near medaling. All the number of Champions tells us is that it is incredibly difficult to have sustained success. I find it interesting that this discussion pops up now, just 1.5 years removed from Crown winning their first WC Championship: i.e. we've had a brand-new DCI winner less than two calendar years before this post! And just last season Bluecoats came closer to ever contending for a Championship by taking silver for the first time: perhaps they will be the 10th DCI Championship sooner rather than later 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) This whole thing sounds like the Socialist Drum Corps Association or something. I don't know what you are suggesting from this post. Should we take from those that have excelled merely for the benefit of those that have not just because we think it is unfair? Should we penalize the organizations that have made wise choices consistently over many years because of some perceived unfair advantage over those that haven't? disappointed when they don't succeed. Believe me, I can relate. I have been a Buffalo Bills fan for 40 years! Dan . We'll , bringing in the NFL into the thread discussion is naturally a curious one . As we are aware, the NFL has long had a policy of seeing to it that teams that finish low in the standings get the advantage of drafting higher than those that finished ahead of them . As such, the NFL and all the Pro teams do in fact "penalize" success .... In so far as the order for their drafting of future talent is concerned anyway. I'm not suggesting here that we have a draft , but just wanted to point out what the NFL does, since you brought up an NFL team to this discussion . Edited February 6, 2015 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.