Jump to content

G7 part 2, Eletronics Boogaloo


Stu

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stu said:

There was one sentence on page 9 that stated: “Three years in top 8 equals permanent status.” However, the way the voting power was going to be doubled ‘for just the G7’, the way weekend contests were going to be reserved ‘for just the G7’, the way most DCI revenue, even most DCI revenue generated by other corps, was going ‘for just the G7’, it made that three year in a row stipulation, in all realistic means, unattainable for any corps already outside the G7.

Maybe. Those things would make it harder for a corps to be in the top eight repeatedly, I'm sure.

When did the G7 plan leak? Early 2010, was it? When the Blue Stars were in the midst of making the top eight for three years running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MikeRapp said:

It's ironic that Boston, who was not included in the G7 and has made a pretty huge statement about it, is now a top 7 corps. 

 

13 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Maybe. Those things would make it harder for a corps to be in the top eight repeatedly, I'm sure.

When did the G7 plan leak? Early 2010, was it? When the Blue Stars were in the midst of making the top eight for three years running?

From the report:

“In the opinion of these corps… it is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current World Class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. Those who sell tickets, those who generate sales, those who are most marketable [G7] need to also control a larger portion of the vote on business and adjudication issues… A reclassification to AAA [G7], AA, and A will also play into governance, fascial remuneration, and overall control of the future”

If that had actually been implemented, do you really think that Boston would be where they are at today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

From the report:

“In the opinion of these corps… it is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current World Class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. Those who sell tickets, those who generate sales, those who are most marketable [G7] need to also control a larger portion of the vote on business and adjudication issues… A reclassification to AAA [G7], AA, and A will also play into governance, fascial remuneration, and overall control of the future”

If that had actually been implemented, do you really think that Boston would be where they are at today?

Yes, it was a despicable little scheme. And it would make it much more difficult for anyone to crack the top eight, seven, six, what have you.

But not impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Yes, it was a despicable little scheme. And it would make it much more difficult for anyone to crack the top eight, seven, six, what have you.

But not impossible.

When the seven got majority vote control, majority revenue control, and all others corps religated to inferior class structures, (oh sure), they would have voted in competitive rules and financial benefits to help Boston, Blue Stars, Crossmen, Madison, Troopers, Colts, et al to actually make it into the same class, with the same revenue share, with the same voting power, as them! NOT!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MikeRapp said:

It's ironic that Boston, who was not included in the G7 and has made a pretty huge statement about it, is now a top 7 corps. 

Well, again considering that the G7 claimed to be willing to reevaluate corps based on their achievement over a three-year period, I think this would be the current top fifteen for 2015-2017:

1. Blue Devils (1st, 2nd, 1st)

2. Carolina Crown (2nd, 3rd, 3rd)

3. Bluecoats (3rd, 1st, 5th)

4. Santa Clara Vanguard (5th, 4th, 2nd)

5. Cadets (4th, 6th, 7th)

6. Cavaliers (9th, 5th, 4th)

7. Blue Knights (6th, 7th, 8th)

8. Phantom Regiment (7th, 8th, 9th)

9. Boston Crusaders (10th, 12th, 6th)

10. Blue Stars (11th, 9th, 10th)

11. Crossmen (12th, 10th, 11th)

11. Madison Scouts (8th, 13th, 12th)

13. Academy (15th, 11th, 14th)

14. Troopers (13th, 14th, 17th)

15. Colts (14th, 16th, 15th)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Well, again considering that the G7 claimed to be willing to reevaluate corps based on their achievement over a three-year period, I think this would be the current top fifteen for 2015-2017:

1. Blue Devils (1st, 2nd, 1st)

2. Carolina Crown (2nd, 3rd, 3rd)

3. Bluecoats (3rd, 1st, 5th)

4. Santa Clara Vanguard (5th, 4th, 2nd)

5. Cadets (4th, 6th, 7th)

6. Cavaliers (9th, 5th, 4th)

7. Blue Knights (6th, 7th, 8th)

8. Phantom Regiment (7th, 8th, 9th)

9. Boston Crusaders (10th, 12th, 6th)

10. Blue Stars (11th, 9th, 10th)

11. Crossmen (12th, 10th, 11th)

11. Madison Scouts (8th, 13th, 12th)

13. Academy (15th, 11th, 14th)

14. Troopers (13th, 14th, 17th)

15. Colts (14th, 16th, 15th)

Please cite the page and paragraph in the proposal which would reevaluate the top 15 in order for them to be placed in their AAA classification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MikeRapp said:

I have a somewhat related question.

How is it determined which dates, and how many dates, world class corps will play? Obviously some corps can't afford to tour the whole country, but others may want to but not be able to because of slots on shows. Just curious. As we add more legit world class corps, it seems this is going to become a challenge, because you can't have shows that last beyond a certain time frame. And, the more corps you have, the more the money has to be split both in honorariums, gate and merchandise.

Good questions. For starters, your second question is why regional touring is so important.  In a perfect world DCI would be able to grow enough regional competitions to satisfy both fans and corps until the groups break for the national part of the tour and the TOC shows and major Regional Championships.  The problem with TOC is even though they allow a few non-TOC units to take part, I believe a half and half model may be needed as more corps compete WC.  As I said earlier, perhaps the TOC shows could include 4 top 8 groups, 2 other finalist units, and 2 non-finalist units. Now we can double the number of TOC shows with the random performance draw and still give some non-finalists a chance to perform under the lights in front of a lot more fans. It's still a win win for all, and I have to imagine that these shows would still draw a very large crowd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jwillis35 said:

Good questions. For starters, your second question is why regional touring is so important.  In a perfect world DCI would be able to grow enough regional competitions to satisfy both fans and corps until the groups break for the national part of the tour and the TOC shows and major Regional Championships.  The problem with TOC is even though they allow a few non-TOC units to take part, I believe a half and half model may be needed as more corps compete WC.  As I said earlier, perhaps the TOC shows could include 4 top 8 groups, 2 other finalist units, and 2 non-finalist units. Now we can double the number of TOC shows with the random performance draw and still give some non-finalists a chance to perform under the lights in front of a lot more fans. It's still a win win for all, and I have to imagine that these shows would still draw a very large crowd. 

This is funny!!! Nothing new, but certainly old and thrown out!!! DCI had regional touring then national; DCI had shows all across the nation every week that were structured as lower corps, int, upper corps; but DCI, the corps, voted to get rid of those aspects!! Again, this is funny!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Please cite the page and paragraph in the proposal which would reevaluate the top 15 in order for them to be placed in their AAA classification.

Gee. Sea lions again. I don't think there is any such citation to be made. This is just me extrapolating from the "three years in top eight" quote you already cited, as I've probably done a half-dozen or more times on these forums since the proposal first came to light. Previously I've run the numbers for a variety of years going back to at least the 1990s, to show how ridiculous the idea of the G7 is. This time it was to show that Boston would not yet qualify for "G" status. (I don't think you're claiming otherwise.)

 

Edited by N.E. Brigand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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