The 150 member increase.

[txpride]

First off, the phrase is "intents and purposes."

Secondly, yes, for all intents and purposes, 79 is the same as 80. No one cares about one spot one way or another - for any normal person, a 79 man or 81 man hornline would be considered "an 80 man hornline."

And like I said on my last post, when did we lower that standard. ONE hole used to be considered a serious problem.

And by the way, I was quoting the "intents and purposes" statement. Not my own. Though I may have mis-quoted. I'm having a hard time replying from my phone right now.

And lastly, I do apologize for the typos. I'm typing from my phone. Not the same as my full sized computer.

[NakedEye]

Actually a part of the reason why they increased to 150 was because modern buses have more seats than the older ones, so they were driving around with empty seats that could be filled with paying members. Not about "unobtainable hornline numbers," but economics. Remember how many corps suddenly appeared with 40+ member color guards right after the change? That was a quick way to fill the rosters and seats, that didn't involve the higher costs of regular corps uniforms and instruments.

[txpride]

Boston with 80 horns. Wow, not very long ago BAC had trouble fielding 80 total members. 79 or 80 horns, NO GAVA. That hornline rocked!

This I do agree with. I liked them too. ;-)

[txpride]

Actually a part of the reason why they increased to 150 was because modern buses have more seats than the older ones, so they were driving around with empty seats that could be filled with paying members. Not about "unobtainable hornline numbers," but economics. Remember how many corps suddenly appeared with 40+ member color guards right after the change? That was a quick way to fill the rosters and seats, that didn't involve the higher costs of regular corps uniforms and instruments.

Sigh! Yes, I know. If you read my whole post, you would have seen where I mentioned the "bus seat" reason. Then I said in the very next sentence that I did not intend for this to be another tired old discussion about why we changed the number max. This discussion is meant to be about the success of the change (or lack there of)

[Bruckner8]

Are you sure? We alreadt addressed Boston. Two of us on this thread agree that they had 79 with one hole (which further proves my point that corps are struggling to make it). As for Cavies and Coats, those were two of the corps that I'm almost certain had a hole or two.

Again, you can say 80 on paper but if you didn't make that number by August, it proves my point that corps are struggling to make the 150 goal.

Yes, I'm sure. Bloo marched 80 at finals. (and still had an alternate trumpet) I'd bet money that Cavies marched 80 at finals too. We don't know the situation around Boston...obviously, they were going for 80, and for some reason, didn't want to fill that hole when it opened. It's not like they had 79 all Spring and Summer. They had alternates too!

If anything, I claim your point is DIS-proved.

[Zeke]

128 was fine..like the old adage "Don't fix it if it ain't broken".

[NakedEye]

Sigh! Yes, I know. If you read my whole post, you would have seen where I mentioned the "bus seat" reason. Then I said in the very next sentence that I did not intend for this to be another tired old discussion about why we changed the number max. This discussion is meant to be about the success of the change (or lack there of)

So instead it's a discussion of how 80 is a success and 79 is a failure, even if it only became 79 two days before finals? Got ya. Sigh!

[txpride]

Yes, I'm sure. Bloo marched 80 at finals. (and still had an alternate trumpet) I'd bet money that Cavies marched 80 at finals too. We don't know the situation around Boston...obviously, they were going for 80, and for some reason, didn't want to fill that hole when it opened. It's not like they had 79 all Spring and Summer. They had alternates too!

If anything, I claim your point is DIS-proved.

Actually, no it is not. Even if everything you say is true, my MAIN point still stands true. There are no more than SIX corps marching a full 150 the week of finals, regardless of the number they were shooting for... Nor did more than 6 orps have 80 horns.

Fine, Boston, Cavies, Coats, Crown, Blue Stars and Scouts all had at least 80 horns. What about the rest. Devs had 75... 76 .maybe. Can't remember. Cadets were about the same. The rest had 72 or less? How about all of those 15 or so corps? Think they had 150? Oh sure. They had 60 guard, right? Or maybe they had 50 percussion? Right!

Trust me. I'd bet my last nickle that there are no more than 6...MAYBE 7 corps who had 150 the week of finals. Furthermore, I doubt more than 9 had even as many as 140.

Hey! I'll say it again. I'm NOT against 150. I just don't think that on the average we're hitting it. If we were, we would see WAY more corps with 80 or more horns.

Do you realize that corps could very easily march 100 horns with the 150 rule and still have enough percussion and guard to have a balanced corps? I'd give ANYTHING to see and hear 100 brass on the field. The fact that we aren't leads me to believe that our average size in world class DCI drum corps is still between 135 and 140. Yes, there are 5, 6, maybe 7 who are at 150 or at least in the ball park. They are the exception.

Which brings me back to my question (which NOBODY on this thread has even ATTEMPTED to answer... Is it FAIR that only 6 or 7 corps are capable of coming even close to 150?

[purenjoyment]

So you know are stating BD can't field 150 members?

[txpride]

So instead it's a discussion of how 80 is a success and 79 is a failure, even if it only became 79 two days before finals? Got ya. Sigh!

No, not at all my main point in this discussion. Fine, I'll repeat myself since you aren't reading my posts anyway.

There are no more than about 6 or 7 corps making it all the way to 150. Making it unfair to the other 15 or so trying just to maintain an average of 135. Therefore, some are not able to afford their membership the same success as the mighty few who can.