corpsband Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Are you saying that DCI rankings are arbitrary, and do not correlate to excellence and quality of performance? Not at all. My point is that ranking "1st" in a pool where the top score is a 75 is not the same as ranking 1st in a pool where the top score is a 95. Ranking is a relative value not a measure of excellence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 [/size] This is utter nonsense (and why these threads rapidly devolve into a theater of the absurd). The G7 have been doing TOC shows for a couple years already so obviously most fans who did NOT attend a TOC show have completely forgotten that BD,Crown,PR,Cadets,Bluecoats,SCV and Cavies exist. OH THAT'S definitely true. No one remembers these corps Again, they may have a few good years. BUT Check dci.org and then check blasttheshow.com. See which of the organizations have current tour dates scheduled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 So fans only care about arbitrary DCI rankings, not excellence and quality of performance? Theater of the absurd I believe fans care about 1) being entertained, and 2) supporting an activity and/or the ideals of an activity they love. 1) can happen in the MIM circuit 2) ...at least for me... can not 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBones Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 So fans only care about arbitrary DCI rankings, not excellence and quality of performance? Theater of the absurd As thousands of posts have said in the past still holds true today, most people go to the theater to be entertained. Doesn't matter if the theater is on Broadway, local community, the movies, or drum corps. Just for an example, Surf had one of the the most fun and entertaining shows last year and wasn't technically as good as the G7 corps. I bet if you asked anyone in the stands who watched their show, they didn't complain about them not being technically perfect. Why did so many people rave about Oregon? Pacific Crest not that bad either. Maybe not as absurd as you may think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Not at all. My point is that ranking "1st" in a pool where the top score is a 75 is not the same as ranking 1st in a pool where the top score is a 95. Ranking is a relative value not a measure of excellence. Is it crazy to think that at least some of the top talent (performers, teachers and designers) could end up on the DCI side of things? This split wouldn't happen in a G7 vacuum. Boston Crusaders post-split, could be a very different beast than Boston Crusaders 2011. Same for Madison. And so on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Again, 501c3 is simply a federal tax designation for a corporation. It is simply a corporation with a few additional requirements thrown in the mix. The board of a corporation has basically two responsibilities: 1 - Duty of care - act in an informed manner, considering all available information, and in the best interest of the corporation 2 - Duty of loyalty - to avoid conflicts of interest and act in the interest of the corporation above self-interest in guiding decisions Though a not-for-profit corporation is structured similar to a standard corporation, there isn't the same sort of ability for board member compensation. This bring in the question of both board competence and motivation. It is extremely hard for a non-profit to attract and retain competent board members and motivate them to be actively and regularly engaged. Those that are competent are generally very busy, those that are not busy are generally not all that competent (unless they are retired, etc.). What I am getting at, is that it makes little sense to give actual control of an organization to individuals not so actively engaged as an executive director. The board really exists to provide oversight, guidance, and support the strategic decision-making process in the direction of what is the best interest of the corporation (which sometimes means management changes). These best interest decisions are not related to the mission, as stated above, but to operations. Mission is generally meaningless from the standpoint of most organizations and exist to provide the IRS a general idea of which tax exempt category you are apply for. Most mission statements are extremely vague and fluffy. This is not a bad thing. To the issue of DCI specifically, the problem is that it is run like a consortia. It is extremely difficult to effectively run a consortia. I agree with 'everything' in your post here; the ED should have control of the ship with governance oversight and checks from the Board. HOWEVER, that is not what Bill Cook stated in his treatise. Cook in essence stated that the Dictator, not director, but the Dictator should choose the Board from his yes-men cronies, and The Dictator should have complete unchecked 100% autonomy decision making power along with 100% control of the entire Corporation with the cronies merely saying yes-sir, yes-sir. Even with a benevolent person at the helm, that totalitarian situation is very very dangerous; especially in a 501c3 corporation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Not to be too much of a downer, but can anyone honestly tell me that they believe that there would be just as many butts in seats for in a show with the following lineup, as there would be in a MIM show?: Colts Troopers Oregon Crusaders Pioneer Spirit of Atlanta Pacific Crest Crossmen Not a fair lineup comparison. A more fair comparison would be: Boston Crusaders Madison Scouts Blue Knights Spirit of Atlanta Crossmen Blue Stars The Academy Would the 'general' audience be just as, or possibly more, entertained by this lineup then the MiM corps? Yes!!! Would the 'general' audience really see the competitive quality difference between this lineup and the MiM corps? No!!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 My point is that ranking "1st" in a pool where the top score is a 75 is not the same as ranking 1st in a pool where the top score is a 95. Ranking is a relative value not a measure of excellence. So a G7 show in June would not draw like a G7 show in August, then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler C. Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 How about a compromise? The board could consist of 1.) The directors of the Top 6 of the previous season. Certain financial downfalls could exclude a corps (losses for x years in a row (regardless of net assets), maintaining more liabilities than assets x years in a row (regardless of net revenue), more than x amount of debt at any time, or other factors that I know very little about), and the next highest-scoring corps meeting the financial standards would be included. AND 2.) The directors of the 6 most financially stable corps of the previous season not already included in the BoD by Top 6 placement. The metric for that can be up to much more able financial minds than mine. AND 3.) A non-corps board member as a tie-breaker vote only. Possibly the chair of an advisory board to the BoD. After poring over garfield's excellent 990's thread (linked below; he provides an index in the first post, so don't be scared by the page count), I believe this could create an interesting mix. It would guarantee at least one G7 corps having to get in on financial stability alone each year, which looks like no guarantee for a few of them. It would also give very smart and effective directors of smaller/less competitively successful organizations a much louder voice. This would ensure that competitive standing isn't the only major factor and isn't even the most important factor. It could give a balance of competitive success, corps size, and organizational strength, which I believe to be valuable because of some of the perennial Friday-nighters that look very well-run to my untrained eye (and to garfield in his brief analysis of each corps). http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/index.php/topic/154521-the-990s/ No matter what happens, giving an instant majority to 7 corps that have already presented themselves as a single unit would be foolish. If we juxtaposed the 2012 Semis results with a hypothetical financial ranking (again, included factors and how to weight them are up for debate by people with much more experience with finances than I can claim), how different would it be? Where would each G7 group fall? Basically, I think the tax forms are more important than the recaps, and I believe that should be reflected in the composition of the BoD. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I say we give BOD spots to the top 12 corps ranked by net assets on the balance sheet. If you can get a corps through a DCI tour *and* make money, you are doing something right. Mike 2 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.