Jump to content

Time for NO size limit in WC (or at least up it from 150)


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, George Dixon said:

huh?

thought i was on ignore again. oops

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

after watching most of BOA finals tonight, with the amount of bodies and the props craziness, 150 is more than enough

 lol!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2017 at 6:55 AM, cixelsyd said:

Because every time the bar is raised, more corps trip over it.  We went from 400 corps to 40 corps over the DCI era.  What we should be doing is looking at ways to reverse that trend.

And if we adopted your philosophy, expanding from local/regional to national/international tours improved the overall appeal and visibility of DCI.  Why stop there?  Expand the DCI tour to other continents.

The idea is to layer in more options for corps at the various competitive/financial/time commitment levels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what drum corps needs, more layering that they can’t afford. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about limiting staff sizes. Top 12 staffs out-number the size of corps in the 60's and 70's. Ratio of staff to members is getting insane. Staff transport, food, logistics, etc. is crazy and all those salaries increase costs also!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, George Dixon said:

The idea is to layer in more options for corps at the various competitive/financial/time commitment levels

Corps already have plenty of options for which shows/how many shows to do, where to tour, WC/OC/SoundSport - the full variety of competitive, financial and time-commitment levels are served.  And what does raising the 150-member limit have to do with that, anyway?

On 11/11/2017 at 9:23 AM, George Dixon said:

it's interesting. I agree AND I disagree based on different factors

When I watch BOA Nats (which I'm currently doing right now) I feel the WC corps should go larger. DCI at 150 is somewhat visually "constrained" - these BOA programs are really pushing the edge of what DCI puts on the field, and for the non-DCI savvy person - could be considered "more impressive"

Combine that 200 or so folks with DCI rehearsal schedules and talent level and you'd have some extremely impressive displays on the field touring our nation. 

I also really believe MORE total members would march. Which would mean MORE seats in the stands IMO

Now - on the flip side there is a slight "dilution" that takes place. Our lead folks and soloists become a slightly smaller part of the overall %

Then costs - do they drop per member but go up overall? What is better? I'm thinking the % of overall corps revenue from dues would go up?

Regarding division of classes - what I've always proposed:

WC = unlimited size, at all regionals and tours extensively nationally

NC = National Class (our current WC) = tours nationally, hits all "full" regionals and a National Class Champion is awarded at regionals plus on Friday night of finals. Top 4 or so advance to Saturdays WC finals at Indy and also compete for WC championship if they outscore the WC corps. This is approximately the 10th or so place corps downward. 150 size limit

RC = Regionally touring corps (current open class) with a 150 size limit and may or may not attend finals in Indy. Championships Monday/Tuesday 

So an additional "class" and an additional opportunity for a championship

Not sure we were seeing the same webcast.  I tuned in for most of the Grand National semifinals.  Generally speaking, designs were constrained by the same prop excesses that characterize the current DCI top-16, then further constrained by slower movement and (for the bigger bands) more people crowded into the remaining space.

If you find BOA more impressive than DCI simply because they are bigger ensembles, good for you.  BOA could use the fan support.

The rest of this post looks like a recycled G7 presentation.  That debate has already been had.  I am of the opinion that less corps, even if they are bigger, will lead to less people marching overall.  And taken too far, less corps creates an untenable business model - then you have no corps.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

more competitive LAYERS - ie: a third championship division

it allows corps other than the very top bunch to compete for a championship

even fully expanded the USA can really only support around 6 top tier organizations - the rest just compete for 7th or 8th place

anyway - the idea of expansion to 200 or so allowed is to allow more creative freedom, increase the product's impressiveness and scale and finally - most importantly - encourage greater participation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George Dixon said:

even fully expanded the USA can really only support around 6 top tier organizations - the rest just compete for 7th or 8th place

Great idea! You finally have a point! The Cadets have dropped from 1st to 7th; they are part of the rest now competing for 7th to 8th place just like you said. The USA can only support the 6 top tier organizations, again just like you stated, above the Cadets. So let's take the current top 6, put them in the top class which the USA can support, and put the Cadets in the lower tier. Is that acceptable to you?

  • Like 1
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...