Jump to content

Future MiM/ToC Events


Recommended Posts

I'm trying really hard to stay on this side of the fence with you, but even I'm having a hard time swallowing this explanation.

:tongue:/>/>

Yeah, that's kinda reaching. I'm 100% all for giving Crown credit where credit's due when it comes to their 1993 Div. 2 Championship; I made the same argument for Blue Stars when it came to their 1989, '93, 2001 & 2003 Div. 3 Championships. But arguing "because they won shows" is stretching it a bit :tongue:

(FWIW I have no problems with the obvious marketing strategy of naming the tour 'Tour of Champions,' even if Bluecoats have never won a DCI title)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's kinda reaching. I'm 100% all for giving Crown credit where credit's due when it comes to their 1993 Div. 2 Championship; I made the same argument for Blue Stars when it came to their 1989, '93, 2001 & 2003 Div. 3 Championships. But arguing "because they won shows" is stretching it a bit :tongue:/>/>/>

(FWIW I have no problems with the obvious marketing strategy of naming the tour 'Tour of Champions,' even if Bluecoats have never won a DCI title)

.

I was responding in the context of people saying, essentially, that Crown and Bluecoats have never won anything, and also the insistence that the word 'champion' has such a narrowly defined meaning that 'false advertising' can be claimed.

From dictionary.com, definitions of 'champion' include 'a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition' and similar definitions for entities in general.

I am not defending G7 at all, I just don't think it is necessary to slam individual corps by calling them 'wannabes' and who 'haven't won jack squat' to fight that battle, or that making silly pseudo-legal allegations about the title is the best way to get taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I was responding in the context of people saying, essentially, that Crown and Bluecoats have never won anything, and also the insistence that the word 'champion' has such a narrowly defined meaning that 'false advertising' can be claimed.

From dictionary.com, definitions of 'champion' include 'a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition' and similar definitions for entities in general.

I am not defending G7 at all, I just don't think it is necessary to slam individual corps by calling them 'wannabes' and who 'haven't won jack squat' to fight that battle, or that making silly pseudo-legal allegations about the title is the best way to get taken seriously.

Yet, the alleged TOC is an exclusionary "group". Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I was responding in the context of people saying, essentially, that Crown and Bluecoats have never won anything, and also the insistence that the word 'champion' has such a narrowly defined meaning that 'false advertising' can be claimed.

From dictionary.com, definitions of 'champion' include 'a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition' and similar definitions for entities in general.

I am not defending G7 at all, I just don't think it is necessary to slam individual corps by calling them 'wannabes' and who 'haven't won jack squat' to fight that battle, or that making silly pseudo-legal allegations about the title is the best way to get taken seriously.

Yep, I went over the line with my previous comments. The question remains as to why two non (world) champions are in this exclusionary group and one (world) champion is not. Why?

Edited by Plankton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I went over the line with my previous comments. The question remains as to why two non (world) champions are in this exclusionary group and one (world) champion is not. Why?

Because the G7 aren't trying to be fair or correct. They are trying to lock in their current advantage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See what you caused, Mike! I'm sure this was the conversation you were expecting...

I like your ideas.

I'd like to see the top 7 groups not take themselves so seriously and truly try to promote music. I think Hopkins preaches this regularly and believes it, but naturally at the end of the day, he cares about winning. I'd guess that in his eyes, a TOC that wasn't essentially a "show with a great lineup" would be pointless from a competitive perspective. And all the 7 directors would probably dismiss the "fan perspective" voting idea, though I like it a lot - they'd worry about getting a different read.

And I also concur that the TOC shows are a missed opportunity. I was really hoping for something like a "music festival" - awesome corps performances, some auditioned local talent, some I&E. I think drumlins and the new minicorps could add to this. With this concept spreading, to some extent, to all shows. Though I suspect that many of those complaining about the focus of these shows on only the top 7 would bemoan any of these additional performances as a waste of time (and they probably show up late for shows and miss some open class corps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the G7 aren't trying to be fair or correct. They are trying to lock in their current advantage.

I really didn't want to get off topic from Mike's original message, but I'll comment on your second statement. I don't think they are trying to lock in their current advantage - that just happens to be a by-product. They think (frankly, realize) that most audience members come to see them, and as a result, they think DCI should be marketing them. And while I don't like the outcome (the 1% continuing to get richer) and while I don't think the answer to DCI's worries of relevance is to focus primarily on 7 corps, they have a great point.

I guess my point is... I don't think the TOC shows are as disingenuous as they're made out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really didn't want to get off topic from Mike's original message, but I'll comment on your second statement. I don't think they are trying to lock in their current advantage - that just happens to be a by-product. They think (frankly, realize) that most audience members come to see them, and as a result, they think DCI should be marketing them. And while I don't like the outcome (the 1% continuing to get richer) and while I don't think the answer to DCI's worries of relevance is to focus primarily on 7 corps, they have a great point.

I guess my point is... I don't think the TOC shows are as disingenuous as they're made out to be.

Well, I guess my point is that if this were really the case, that the G7 believes they are The Show, and that DCI would benefit by marketing them as such, then the correct strategy would be to spread them out and try (to the extent possible) to ensure that every show on the schedule (other than regionals and finals) has one or two of them but no more. Then on every show ad, you could say "Featuring class AAA corps SCV and Bluecoats!" or whatever name they wanted to give themselves.

By "correct strategy" I mean "best for DCI as a whole". Every additional TOC show means 3-4 shows that don't have (in your words) a name corps on the bill. So if the idea that these seven corps are The Draw is correct, then how is the TOC a good idea? I think the goal of the original G7 proposal and the real effect of the TOC so far has been to give a bigger slice of the overall revenue to these seven corps. So, mission accomplished I suppose.

The real question is how many TOC shows will be on the schedule for 2014. It's already grown from 6 to 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...