Sign in to follow this  
George Dixon

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

Recommended Posts

no

budgets are cumbersome already and will further divide the activity into the haves (bingoistas) and have nots (everyone else.)

housing of corps is already difficult. 150 layed out sleeping bags, mattresses, and cots is already pushing the limit where corps have been given permission to stay. Any increase in members will increase costs again (Not every school is a Texas mega-factory.)

those in favor have probably never actually written drill and visuals for actual competitive units particularly DCI or Grand Nationals contenders. While the bands have reverted to the pods of participants moving while the rest of the unit stands idly by, DCI scoring does not reward such unemployment even with those units who seem drill challenged for their retirements mid show, the park and barks, the stand and plays, etc.  DCI needs more movement to make the shows interesting not less like some huge humongous college band of wood winds. Increasing membership removes the demand of most of the performers while sections become soloists and those others await in lounge chairs their two minutes actually on the field.

The only ones benefiting from such increase are Yamaha and the fabric mfgrs. Is the OP a lobbyist for them now?

 

 

 

 

Edited by xandandl
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 If DCI adopted unlimited numbers of performers on the field, one needs to be prepared for a much wider gulf between the Corps in DCI regarding scores and placements that likely would take place, imo. It would seem likely that if we allowed ( for example ) the upper echelon of DCI ( top 6 or so ) to put on the field unlimited numbers of performers, then many more of the auditioneers that are  annually cut at winter tryouts with these Corps would be on the field. What happens at the moment with many of the auditiioneers that don't make the top 6 Corps ?. Do they go to lower placing Corps ? Nope. Some do, but a lot of them just decide not to march DCI. So... if we are in favor of 180-200, or unlimited numbers of performers that Corps can put on the field, just be prepared that the Top Corps in DCI would  most likely solidify even MORE their placement position at the top in DCI each and every season, imo.

If as you say members who audition who don't make an upper corps, most don't go to a lower corps then no matter what the number, would it make a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, xandandl said:

no

budgets are cumbersome already and will further divide the activity into the haves (bingoistas) and have nots (everyone else.)

housing of corps is already difficult. 150 layed out sleeping bags, mattresses, and cots is already pushing the limit where corps have been given permission to stay. Any increase in members will increase costs again (Not every school is a Texas mega-factory.)

those in favor have probably never actually written drill and visuals for actual competitive units particularly DCI or Grand Nationals contenders. While the bands have reverted to the pods of participants moving while the rest of the unit stands idly by, DCI scoring does not reward such unemployment even with those units who seem drill challenged for their retirements mid show, the park and barks, the stand and plays, etc.  DCI needs more movement to make the shows interesting not less like some huge humongous college band of wood winds. Increasing membership removes the demand of most of the performers while sections become soloists and those others await in lounge chairs their two minutes actually on the field.

The only ones benefiting from such increase are Yamaha and the fabric mfgrs. Is the OP a lobbyist for them now?

 

 

 

 

I would agree with some of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bluehull said:

!70 would be fine. at least ten more horns.  Lets not worry about the busses or personal corps logistics.  Its about the show, the presentation, the sound, that is appealing to the public that are paying to see a good product.  

Larger corps are not the regulators of smaller corps that struggle.  Hundreds of potential corps members do not march at all when they do not make a WC corps

When the rest of the world cleans up their act we will worry about the fourth bus.

agreed - it would improve the product by making it even more impressive and I believe it would INCREASE the total # of marching members

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

If as you say members who audition who don't make an upper corps, most don't go to a lower corps then no matter what the number, would it make a difference?

this is a big concern - most of those kids DO NOT trade down from the WC corps or two of their choice / seen it happen year after year

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LabMaster said:

Is something broken?  You get 150 and make do.  You mange costs better and drill has more dynamic movement. And increasing size diminishes overall quality if not for one unit then at least for another.  And those corps fighting to recruit and retain have a much more difficult go of it.  Why can't some things just be left alone?

I'll flip that around and ask "is the model perfected"? I think not. I believe that the jump to 150 improved the overall quality and appeal of DCI - why stop there?

Another factor is all the fixed costs of a corps remain the same - so the funding gap reduces as corps size increase per member - economics of scale so to speak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The activity is far too expensive for those who even think of participating.  Reduce the cost and then watch to see if applicants are only willing to try for corps that are in the upper echelons. 

The current costs are outrageous.  Yeah, I'm older.  Yeah it changes nothing for how I feel as to what it takes to participate in a corps from a financial perspective. 

Marching is quickly becoming a luxury.  

Edited by Invictus
Old age
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many corps at the top are struggling financially. 400 members @ $3,000 per member dues equates to a revenue stream of $1,200,000 per year. That is why some push for the massive amebia blob which would devour the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

If as you say members who audition who don't make an upper corps, most don't go to a lower corps then no matter what the number, would it make a difference?

 Yes, imo... allowing ( for example ) SCV to have the extra 30 or more of their audition people a spot in line that a 155 max  L]limit. would not, allows SCV to keep 30 or more talented marchers,.... more than half of whom probably would not march in DCI anywhere under the current 155 limit, imo.

 If the upper Corps could have 200 or unlimited numbers of marchers, the currently lower placing Corps in World Class would still have a daunting task  trying to fill even 125-140 spots... same as they do now.. But they would find themselves even FURTHER behind those Top 6 or so Corps that under the new rules in numbers could still easily fill out the 180-200, or 300, or 400, that they would be allowed.

 Corps that have 155 marchers in line, almost without exception finish much higher in scores and placements than Corps that have half their size. If DCI allows Corps to have ( say) 250-300 marchers, and other Corps have 140 or so, then that would require a 3rd DCI Division class in DCI, imo, as there is no way in the world, no matter how talented they might be, a Corps with half the size of another competitor, can fairly and effectively compete on the field in DCI  competition with that.

Edited by BRASSO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Invictus said:

Marching is quickly becoming a luxury.  

Participation in the Olympics, the Little League World Series, DCI, et. al. are privaliges and luxuries, they are, never have been, and never should be, 'rights'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.