G7 part 2, Eletronics Boogaloo

[garfield]

58 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

  I don't care. You are entitled to be as misinformed as you choose, Stu. You can believe that Hopkins/ Gibbs offered permanent status for life to the Corps that chose to join their cabal, and I wouldn't bat an eye.... lol. As a matter of fact, DCI offered better written protection for DCI World Class status maintenance, then the G7 cockamamie, ill conceived plan offered the prospective 5 Corps that were duped into signing on to the Hopkins/ Gibbs scheme.... lol. It was a couple of non invited Corps at the time that found out later about the plot that specifically asked what guarantees did Hopkins ( especially ) tell them that Hopkins was giving them in writing for G7 status permanency for signing on with his ill conceived scheme. They sheepishly were forced to reply to that inquiry..... "none "...... lol!... haha!!

I presume you're talking about the DCI 5-year plan that was ratified by all the corps and was in place at the time of the G7 event.  Is that correct?

 

[cixelsyd]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

I was responding and I couldn't figure out where you got 75.  Then I looked at my quote and see I typed 75.  Sorry, fat fingers.  55 members, a "full bus", plus an org that has been performing in some way for three years minimum.  Orgs must be "seasoned", with a mature board and a proven model.  Very rigorous and correct IMO.  OC corps are bigger, better, more professional and less "mom & pop", because of the G7 experience, IMO, and because of their experience with failed corps.

The requirements you just described are completely insane.  A 55 member minimum is two buses.  No one can assure a completely full, modern large capacity bus,  where not a single member is ever injured, sick or absent.  And requiring new corps to have been performing for three years prior to letting them into open class?  Performing where?  If SoundSport was not intended to provide those performance opportunities, it will have to be now under this craziness.

Impulse, Incognito and Les Stentors competed this season with less than that number.

SoundSport is capped at 50.  What happens to a corps in between 50 and 55?  Must they bench five people to be eligible for their DCI performance?

Are you pulling my leg?  This sounds like the open class version of the G7 proposal.  

Quote

It was reaffirmed to me as recently as in the last 30 days, as it has been since it's genesis four years ago, that SoundSport was never intended to be a platform for budding corps.  It's a platform to perform WITHOUT the boundaries or budget of an actual corps.  It's lived up to that by producing the SoundSport and Drumline battle shows in Indy and other venues.  It's a different type of performance, and don't forget it's all-age.  SS teams with 40 members, 10 of whom are over DCI-age, and another 5 or so of them don't have the chops to be OC (or can make the commitment), and a SS team that looks like a success may have a hard time making the jump to moving a bus and all of the equipment down the road for 5, 8, or 10 shows.  As the OC improves itself, and restrictions and qualifications are placed on those with "dreams", it's reasonable to expect "the bar" of minimum requirements to reach OC to be moved up with time.

The issue is, and the reason the point is made, is because the gulf between a SoundSport team and qualifying for DCI Open Class is very wide, and it has gotten significantly wider since the SS program was developed those years ago.  The jump to OC just gets one a license to spend money proving a concept and ability.  That takes depth that many SS teams don't have, and don't need to be a SS team.

Well, it does not really matter what the original intent of SoundSport was.  Clearly, some corps are using it as an intermediate step toward open class.  Guardians and Southwind made no secret about using SoundSport as a step toward fielding in open class the following year.  Others currently in SoundSport have already announced their intent to move to open class in the future.

Quote

Stepping into my little world, I suspect, without any accreditation at all, that one motivating factor for DCI keeping control of what SS actually IS in the activity is because it doesn't see any benefit in have another "class" of corps.  Another might be to provide a platform for any international SS teams to perform if/when they come to the US for DCI finals week.

For clarity, and to be true to what was explained to me, it's not actually accurate to suggest that "...DCI has WC, OC, and SoundSport..." as if SS is a class, too.  They do have SS, thanksverymuch, but it shouldn't be lumped into the drum corps class structure...(EDIT: I don't think).

Admittedly, I may be taking liberties in characterizing SoundSport as a third division of corps.  I was just hoping to satisfy those few people hell bent on making a third class.

However, if you are correct about the 55 member minimum, then the number of corps trapped beneath that bar will look at SoundSport as an alternative drum corps class.

[Stu]

3 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

But that is not a contradiction.  Here, follow the sequence of events:

1.  They see the proposal.

2.  Then GH sneaks something else into it.

3.  GH presents the modified proposal at the DCI meeting, this being the first time anyone else sees the changes.

But Jeff, over multiple threads, has stated two different contradictory sequences: 1) They talk to each other, notes are taken, one of them sneaks something into the PowerPoint doc as it is constructed, it gets leaked without the other six seeing the doc, the six are totally surprised by the content but publically support it. 2) They talk to each other, notes are taken that they agree on, they meet and actually see the PowerPoint in person, it gets leaked, the are surprised by the leak but not the content and then publically support it.  That is the conundrum.

[George Dixon]

21 hours ago, MikeN said:

It'd probably make more sense to go with A, Open and World, a la WGI.  Otherwise, I agree.

Mike

Another option. My "labels" just better (more obviously) define the touring model

Regional Class - our current Open, do not tour nationally

National Class - our current World Class, tour nationally

World Class - our current "G7" - tour nationally but cannot compete at the National Class Championships (on Friday night of Championship Week)

The Top 3 from National Class Championships (Friday) advance to Saturday

When it comes to "labels" I like mine obvious. lol 

[garfield]

16 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

The requirements you just described are completely insane.  A 55 member minimum is two buses.  No one can assure a completely full, modern large capacity bus,  where not a single member is ever injured, sick or absent.  And requiring new corps to have been performing for three years prior to letting them into open class?  Performing where?  If SoundSport was not intended to provide those performance opportunities, it will have to be now under this craziness.

Impulse, Incognito and Les Stentors competed this season with less than that number.

SoundSport is capped at 50.  What happens to a corps in between 50 and 55?  Must they bench five people to be eligible for their DCI performance?

Are you pulling my leg?  This sounds like the open class version of the G7 proposal.  

Well, it does not really matter what the original intent of SoundSport was.  Clearly, some corps are using it as an intermediate step toward open class.  Guardians and Southwind made no secret about using SoundSport as a step toward fielding in open class the following year.  Others currently in SoundSport have already announced their intent to move to open class in the future.

Admittedly, I may be taking liberties in characterizing SoundSport as a third division of corps.  I was just hoping to satisfy those few people hell bent on making a third class.

However, if you are correct about the 55 member minimum, then the number of corps trapped beneath that bar will look at SoundSport as an alternative drum corps class.

Nope, not pulling.  And you're still conflating SS as a stepping stone to OC with your thoughts about 50 to 55 members.  The two don't relate.

This is not an OC G7, seriously.  It's a tightening of the requirements to be considered for OC, and a clarification of the SS role in the activity.

Surely, a group that has shown a SS history and can get 55 kids to commit to a season (with paid dues, BTW) can be reviewed for OC admittance.  Heck, I think a group that has done SS, DCA, or even local (state) events and festivals can show the kind of org that would qualify as having performed for 3 years.  And so long as they have the infrastructure, governance, volunteer base, etc to ask for OC review, they'd be reviewed, AFAIK.

Groups who are "trapped" (your word) simply need to step up the game to meet the requirements of the OC review committee.

 

[George Dixon]

18 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

The requirements you just described are completely insane.  A 55 member minimum is two buses.  No one can assure a completely full, modern large capacity bus,  where not a single member is ever injured, sick or absent.  And requiring new corps to have been performing for three years prior to letting them into open class?  Performing where?  If SoundSport was not intended to provide those performance opportunities, it will have to be now under this craziness.

Impulse, Incognito and Les Stentors competed this season with less than that number.

SoundSport is capped at 50.  What happens to a corps in between 50 and 55?  Must they bench five people to be eligible for their DCI performance?

Are you pulling my leg?  This sounds like the open class version of the G7 proposal.  

Well, it does not really matter what the original intent of SoundSport was.  Clearly, some corps are using it as an intermediate step toward open class.  Guardians and Southwind made no secret about using SoundSport as a step toward fielding in open class the following year.  Others currently in SoundSport have already announced their intent to move to open class in the future.

Admittedly, I may be taking liberties in characterizing SoundSport as a third division of corps.  I was just hoping to satisfy those few people hell bent on making a third class.

However, if you are correct about the 55 member minimum, then the number of corps trapped beneath that bar will look at SoundSport as an alternative drum corps class.

I agree the "minimum" number of 55 is insane, around 40 or below should be a "soundsport" group - say 16-22 brass, 12-22 percussion and 6-12 guard depending on how they break out their numbers. It's a "one bus" realistic corps

Yes - SoundSport is effectively a "new class" (sometimes) comprised for rookie corps moving toward our current "open class" (which I redefine as "Regional Class")

Yes - it doesn't matter "what the original intent" was, it is what it is. 

The need for an "additional class" does exist. Especially for the 25th-8th ranked corps IMO

[George Dixon]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

Nope, not pulling.  And you're still conflating SS as a stepping stone to OC with your thoughts about 50 to 55 members.  The two don't relate.

This is not an OC G7, seriously.  It's a tightening of the requirements to be considered for OC, and a clarification of the SS role in the activity.

Surely, a group that has shown a SS history and can get 55 kids to commit to a season (with paid dues, BTW) can be reviewed for OC admittance.  Heck, I think a group that has done SS, DCA, or even local (state) events and festivals can show the kind of org that would qualify as having performed for 3 years.  And so long as they have the infrastructure, governance, volunteer base, etc to ask for OC review, they'd be reviewed, AFAIK.

Groups who are "trapped" (your word) simply need to step up the game to meet the requirements of the OC review committee.

 

That's a recipe for FOLDING. 

[Stu]

4 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Stu is technically correct about there being no automatic loss of AAA status for missing top 7 any number of times.  However...

And the proposal provided the mechanism for the G7 to control who stays in, or who gets thrown out.  

"The board of DCI can by 2/3 vote relocate a corps to a different class for performance or other reasons. Participation within the organization can be granted or withdrawn by the board by a vote of 2/3."

Bear in mind that "the board", as defined on the preceding slide, was the G7 corps directors and three "outside" directors, no one else.

So if Stu became the director of a G7 corps, the board could vote to move his fiscally responsible corps out of AAA status simply out of annoyance.

Could 'in theory' a G7 corps get removed via vote, yes. Likely, no. Why? Least ye forget that each G7 corps would have 2-votes each whereas the 3 others would only have 1-vote each. That is a 14 to 3 voting power ratio given to the almighty 7. So for 2/3 it would have taken 5 of the G7 to vote one of their own out of power. Possible, yes. Likely, h*** no.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Stu

[garfield]

4 minutes ago, George Dixon said:

That's a recipe for FOLDING. 

I'll just paraphrase your comments about short responses lacking discussion efficacy.

I'll just ask you to consider how a 40-member OC program would fare against the average OC membership of 110 or so.

It seems incongruous to be aware of the razor's-edge on which corps such as Legends worked this year, and yet be surprised when the governing bodies tighten the requirements to play in the OC sandbox.

 

[Stu]

1 hour ago, BRASSO said:

  I don't care. You are entitled to be as misinformed as you choose, Stu. You can believe that Hopkins/ Gibbs offered permanent status for life to the Corps that chose to join their cabal, and I wouldn't bat an eye.... lol. As a matter of fact, DCI offered better written protection for DCI World Class status maintenance, then the G7 cockamamie, ill conceived plan offered the prospective 5 Corps that were duped into signing on to the Hopkins/ Gibbs scheme.... lol. It was a couple of non invited Corps at the time that found out later about the plot that specifically asked what guarantees did Hopkins ( especially ) tell them that Hopkins was giving them in writing for G7 status permanency for signing on with his ill conceived scheme. They sheepishly were forced to reply to that inquiry..... "none "...... lol!... haha!!

Show documented proof, not just 'you say so', that two years out of the top seven would have caused removal. That is all I seek.