Liam

Tough call -- I think I could come up with examples that support each view. I guess the best bet is to develop some sort of blended formula (maybe some sort of a weighted average based on some minimum # of appearances). I guess it all depends on what you're trying to value and then being sure that your viewing the results with that valuation in mind. I'm not dismissing longevity, but if you asked me subjectively who had a better decade between Southwind and Blue Stars, I'd have a hard time justifying Southwind just becuase they showed up more years. No offense intended -- if we're talking about the organization, not just the on-field stuff, then I might agree -- Pioneer's longevity, for example, makes them a very successful corp in the 2000's. But if were talking about on-field rankings, I'd have a hard time justifying some of your results just because of more appearances. These kinds of things are always tough -- trying to apply cold numbers to differing criteria -- just ask the BCS !!! Thanks for the analysis -- just offering a little tweaking advice that's all -- and again, no offense intended -- all corps should be proud of their accomplishments during the decade. Rankings are always going to make someone feel worse than they should and someone else feel better than they should -- just trying to view this with some objectivity, that's all

But shouldn't you still then take the average of each corps. To say that Pioneer is ahead of Academy or Sothwind over Blue Stars (no disrepect intended) simply because of number of appearances I think skews the spirit of the exercise a little, dontcha think?

Well, of course, the obvious reply is that scores are not comparable year-over-year, blah, blah, blah. However, I particularly like this line:

But they're not in a concert hall -- geez, next you're gonna claim that the horn players should sit in chairs like in a concert hall and ..... oh, wait .... nevermind

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I kinda (just kinda) agree with cow. Not so much that Mr. Acheson is to blame, but I do think that DCI as a whole has been on a bit of a bad streak, management-decisions-wise. Maybe no single decision was entirely their fault, but when you look at totally of things that go against you, you have to thinking that there needs to be a change in management. This kind of thing happens all the time in business -- when a series of decisions go bad (even when some of it is "out of your control"), changes get made. Now, I'm not necessarily agreeing that Mr. Acheson should be fired -- I don't know enough about how the DCI BOD structure works. But I do think that there have been enough issues to warrant a shake-up and some new-blood, as they say. to wit: 2008 Finals -- sure, not their fault -- but could have been avoided by not cutting the deal knowing that construction was going to be completed so close at best -- would one more year out West or somewhere else have been so bad. 2009 Finals -- stuff everywhere on DCP about this -- with a whole year to prepare after 2008 and knowing that everyone was going to judge them based on the 10-year contract knowledge equals major letdown. Marketing -- BIG announcement 2 years ago in Atlanta about new partnership with high-falutin' marketing firm to expand DCI's image -- then ... nothing. No explanation as to what happened with the partnership and no further attempts along these lines. Just not handled well TV -- this has been discussed to death, but the end result is that this was a priority on the DCI strategic plan list and now is nowhere. Maybe that turned out to be the best decision, but lots of execs have lost jobs in the business world for less when the strategic plan is altered such. I do like cow's quote "thought it was wrong to bail on the art crowd in favor of the sports crowd" -- that may ultimately be the path decison that did the most damage. Notice, I've said nothing about on-field stuff as that is mostly a matter of taste. So, hyperbole and anger aside, I do think that DCI has some management failures that are in danger of sending the organization down a tougher path, esp in this economy. It's not for me to say if someone should be fired or not, but lots of execs in business have been fired for less (whether or not "in their control") and I do think that DCI should consider re-organizing a bit to seperate and boosting the business/marketing side aside from the on-field/creative side, JMHO.

Okay -- byline was right -- the line was "I can play the notes, but I cannot make the music"

Thought this was an interesting little dichotomy ...

Personally, this is why I don't think they should tally any scores until the end. Judges should be allowed to go over the "maximum" if that's the way the numbers fall and then adjust back down to scale after all the corps have been scored. For example, let's say a judge finds he hasn't left enough room because the middle corps were significantly better than the lower corps and now he doesn't have enough room left if the top corps are significantly better than he has anticipated. In this scenario, he can continue to score based on his percieved spread, even if that means going over 10 (or 20, or whatever his "limit" is). So if the top corps ends up with a 21, so be it, and then when all corps are done, he simply readjusts all his scores down 1 point or 1.2 points or wherever he wants to top to be, before turning them in for tabulation. This of course won't work if scores are announced throughout the performance as is the case in some contests. I just think that we put too much emphasis on the number, when it's really the spread that matters. The number is meaningless, as we could choose any scale we want instead of 0-100; it's the spread that matters no matter the scale, so I think it would be better if judges could judge spread first and apply numbers later.

Well, there's also different levels of "entertaining" (even aside from personal preference, of course). Sure there are some shows that get you up out your seat screaming and yelling -- which I assume is the definition of what you're calling entertaining. But there's other shows that I find entertaining is a more subtle way -- maybe not as exciting, but still entertaining to me. Honestly, I don't want them all to hoot-and-holler-fests. I also like the well-done mellower show and find it entertaining on a different level. In other words, I'm entertained by both classic Madison and classic BK, just in different ways, and so I don't think it's fair to equate audience excitement with entertainment, necessarily.

I did. Maybe not for the same reasons as others, and maybe not for the reasons you might guess, but I stayed home nonetheless. And will likely stay home next year as well. And the next. I'm just curious if I have to state my reasons for staying home and somehow get them approved before you will allow me to stay home without criticism. Supersop doesn't like the sound in the dome. That's his reason. His reason apparantley isn't acceptable to you for him to not spend his money, so again, I'm curious what is an acceptable reason to you to see if my reasons pass.

Exactly -- that is what it's about. And if someone no longer enjoys what is going on on the field (or, I suppose, how what's going on on the field translates to them up in the stands) then it may no longer be worth it to them, that's all. Look, there are lots of activities "for the kids" -- drum corps is just one. If one person supports cheerleading and another supports youth soccer and another supports scouting and another supports drum corps, they all do it for some enjoyment that they and/or their kids get out of it. When that enjoyment for the participant or the fan goes away, then they are likely no longer going to support it and might support something else "for the kids". Or not. No one can say what stops the enjoyment for someone else and to attempt to do so is pretty arrogant, imo. If supersop doesn't like the sound in the dome to an extent that it makes the whole event unenjoyable to him, then that's it. Doesn't mean you or I can't enjoy it as we see fit, but certainly doesn't give us a right to say that his reason for not wanting to go back to Finals isn't good enough.

Jeff -- you're missing the point ... Because once in your life you $upported DCI, you must now continue in perpetuity because otherwise, you are just being mean to THE KIDS!!! Who are you to claim that you no longer enjoy the product?? That's no excuse. A certain portion of your time and money belongs to DCI until they decree otherwise, so you better find something to like in that dome, because not going is just being selfish.

Although some have walked away for each of those reasons -- fans and participants alike. Not enough to doom the activity, but that doesn't mean that those who did walk away were wrong. They just didn't find sufficient enjoyment anymore to justify their support. If enough people hit that point, then drum corps will suffer -- if not, then not. But what irks me is when someone feels the right to criticize another for what they do with their own time and money. Just out of curiousity -- since it seems you are saying that none of those reasons you mentioned are sufficient reasons someone to choose to stop spending their own money on DCI -- what is an acceptable reason to you for someone to move on?

I think I know what you think he was saying ... but, no. Monkey drummng is the arms flaying, elbow up-wrist down-to-elbow down-wrist up, motion. Visual effect? Yes. Pecision required? Yes. Rudimentary? No. Just a style, that's all

Fair enough -- and thanks for your responses. You're probably right about the with/without toys scenario. I guess my point is to leave it up to the corps to decide what works for them and what's important to them. I do think that tweaking the one-year rule could still serve its purpose for DCA while allowing some of these OC and lower end WC corps to help themselves a little. I also agree that it would probably be difficult for an OC corps to compete long-term with DCA and still maintain their age restrictions. Again, those things I think would work themselves out over time if corps were allowed a little better flexibility to "test the waters". Anyway, this is a good discussion and I think there's been some good ideas and I'm satisfied that I've made my points clearly enough. If we disagree a little, that's cool