New staff biennially

[Elmo Blatch]

The off season staff moves this year really have people talking. Although many would disagree, I think it could bring some parity to the activity and it got me thinking:

What about a rule proposal that a corps' staff could only work with a particular corps for two years? Corps management staff (Executive Director, etc.) would remain the same but design staff, caption heads, techs, etc. could only be permitted to stay with a corps for two years. DCI would be the governing body for developing instructors/educators and would hire their instructors/educators through a formal hiring process and assign each instructor/designer to a corps based on a random draw for each instructor/designer every two years. Member corps would pay into DCI a set amount to cover the cost of instruction. DCI would in turn pay each instructor (a way that would ensure that every instructor is paid, which is sadly not always the case). If a particular staff member wanted to leave a corps at the end of the year, that particular staff member would go back into the drawing pool. Each corps would have a set number of staff members.

There are obviously some issues to be worked out, but what are your thoughts?

[dbc03]

No. It would go more towards destroying some corps unique identities and traditions than parity.

Also instead of trying to even the playing field by bringing the top corps down why not try to bring the bottom corps up?

[audiodb]

No. When we trim down to only having six supercorps left, staffers won't be able to work for more than 12 years total.

Edited September 7, 2008 by audiodb

[JDWEX1117]

It would break certain corps traditions/identities, but it could also break the observation that competitions aren't "Corps VS. Corps" but rather "Design Staff VS. Design Staff".

[jstdrumn]

Interesting but,

How would we feel if MLB, NFL, NHL etc implemented that kind of rule? Your favorite team (corps) just made a bad hire and now you’re stuck with him for two years. In the real world this doesn't work - and I guess the follow up question is what would this accomplish again? Having some groups consistently do well is not all about who's on staff. Lot's of factors determine this. It's no different than any other dynasty's that exist. While you may always have your top competitors - Yankees, Red Sox, etc. There is opportunity that exists, and in DCI we see it almost every year when a new corps breaks into the top six. Carolina Crown....a few years ago it was Boston... again because of many factors....

Interesting topic I just think there are bigger fish to fry for DCI.....

[Elmo Blatch]

Interesting but,

How would we feel if MLB, NFL, NHL etc implemented that kind of rule? Free agency has slowly but surely turned team loyalty into player loyalty/idolism (thanks Curt Flood). If shared a marketing scheme or ending free agency would stop the Yankees stranglehold on baseball, I would be all in favor of it.

Your favorite team (corps) just made a bad hire and now you’re stuck with him (or her) for two years. Nah. The individual corps management could inform DCI of the "bad hire" and DCI could issue a replacement if there is merit to it, regardless of the time spent with the corps up to that point. Like the marching members, a staff member can leave the group at the end of the season with pay and is free to go to another corps for the next season or two. A staff member that leaves a corps during tour would not be paid--just like a real job.

In the real world this doesn't work - and I guess the follow up question is what would this accomplish again?

1. While it wouldn't stop it completely, it would help lessen the trend of corps folding. How many have we lost in the last seven years?

2. When the human resource side of each corps is handled by one entity (DCI) each individual Executive Director can focus on the true business task at hand--recruiting for the corps and getting the corps on the road.

3. Championship shows are a result of the design process more than any other factor. Once the tic system went away, the focus has increasingly moved toward the adjudication of programming and design. Because of this, one can't neglect the importance of the design team.

4. An activity that regulates the number/quality of staff for each corps (remember, these people would have to be screened by DCI) would be good for those on bottom. Immediately, someone will likely say "how does decreasing the size of the staff of a top 6 corps help the activity?" to which I would counter, "who said anything about decreasing? Why can't DCI ensure that all corps have an equal footing with regard to staff? Many corps who wish to become World Class organizations (coming from Open Class status or coming back from a year off) have to prove their financial stability. Why not mandate that DCI also looks at their educational stability?

Having some groups consistently do well is not all about who's on staff. If that's the case, then then there shouldn't be an argument whether or not this would be a bad decision. Top marching bands in the country have dynasties. Do you think it has more to do with the genetics of a kid in a particular area or the teachers/staff members who are designing the show? I don't know of many kids that convince their parents to move to Texas in order to march at L.D. Bell high school. Let's be honest, the staff of a corps has more to do with winning than any other factor. We can't make this kind of comparison to a sports team, as marching members are not paid. Lot's of factors determine this. It's no different than any other dynasty's that exist. While you may always have your top competitors - Yankees, Red Sox, etc. There is opportunity that exists, and in DCI we see it almost every year when a new corps breaks into the top six. Carolina Crown....a few years ago it was Boston... again because of many factors....

Interesting topic I just think there are bigger fish to fry for DCI.....

Not trying to say this is something DCI should do, I just thought it might open up some dialogue.

[silvertrombone]

No. It would go more towards destroying some corps unique identities and traditions than parity.

Also instead of trying to even the playing field by bringing the top corps down why not try to bring the bottom corps up?

Well, first of all, individual corps have done quite the effective job of destroying themselves financially and such. I don't see how this will do any worse.

Also, consider the professional league analogy. Yes, yes--I know how much you all love comparing DC to pro sports and DCI to the big leagues. Spare me the "this ain't pro sports" line, k? People pay for their tickets in both. People cheer for all participants in both. And to some extent or another, each has experienced the total lack of parity that now plagues DCI. So give me a little bit of leeway in this line of thought.

Consider NFL football, the NCAA Bball tourney, BCS football and MLB. NFL used to have a really, really great system if you were a 49'ers or Cowboys fan, so I kind of lost out with the whole free agent system. But by the league now having relative parity, meaning that ANY team can, within 3-4 years, build a world champion, the entire league has more interest which translates into the most enviable TV broadcast deal in pro sports. Teams like Carolina, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Baltimore, St Louis and New England--perennial door mats or expansion teams when the Cowboys were in their prime in the 90's, have either won or challenged for a Super Bowl title since.

NCAA basketball tourney. Granted, we are talking about "amateur" athletics, in that student-athletes aren't paid (officially). And the excitement that is generated by the annual conference and national tournaments generate BIG $$$'s for everyone involved. Just MAKING the NCAA tournament is big bucks, just for the right to get your teeth kicked in by Memphis or Duke, etc. Key point--big interest. Secondary is the big bucks.

BCS/Bowl/NCAA football system by comparison. EVERYONE acknowledges that there would be more interest and more bucks for a football playoff. There was a special article a couple years back about one of the Big 10 big-name guys (conference, not one of the schools) who opposed a playoff b/c it did not serve the best interests of the Big 10. Makes sense if you're, say, Dave Gibbs, George Hopkins, etc. If you're the DCI "BIG 3," you don't want parity--you want your championships about every three years, statistically speaking. If you're tired of the failed DCI model (40 corps vs. 475?), parity looks pretty good.

If you're the Kansas City Chiefs or the Toronto Maple Leafs, you wish there was some kind of parity in your league. I think with the strike/lockout a couple years back, the NHL is headed in the right direction. If you are the NYYankees who are paying 1st place Tampa Bay's payroll from last place, things are just screwed up. A system that needs work.

The tired, old argument of "we want change in DCI--we want Phantom, Crown, Bluecoats, Crossmen, etc, etc, etc to win" doesn't work unless something changes at the top. OP, I like the idea--move staffs around. Members go where they want, but a BIG, BIG consideration for an entire drumline is, "Where is Paul Rennick going?" I mean, that's the difference between PR in 1st and PR in 3rd, Crown in 4th and Crown in 2nd, maybe 1st this year just completed if Paul were in Carolina.

Tell me that BD maintains its position if its phenomenal staff is limited to remain there permanently? If Cavies phenomenal 2000's success is due to their staff, what happens if they go to, say, Blue Knights in 2010? Everyone who wants to march in Cavies, good luck! They'll draw in a phenomenal staff. And Blue Knights benefit because they get a bump in staff levels for a few years. Same with Cadets and Blue Devils--if you want to march "THAT" corps, whichever "THAT" corps is for you--then march there! I'll admit, wearing "THAT" uniform is pretty cool. Working with a phenomenal staff, well I've not done that. How cool would it be to see Blue Knights and Crossmen with World Class staffs? Just picking a couple names--replace with others if offended--not intended.

Nothing changes if nothing changes, guys. The draw will still be there for the traditional "Top 6." But enhancing the staff levels outside the top 6 might shake up the ending placements. And the argument of, "Don't bring everyone down, bring everyone else up" doesn't hold up with current talent and achievement levels in the top 6 and top 12. Performance achievement used to be a big difference from 1st to 12th. Is there still a difference? Obviously. But a lot less so than from even 2000.

I like the thought if not the details, OP. And I like your signature, too. I was watching that a while back and a certain name stood out!

[jwillis35]

OK, I can see a lot of good points here, and in theory they could work, except for one very important aspect: funding!

Drum and Bugle Corps are locally operated and funded. Yes, the member base has shifted from being local to regional to national, and even international, but at the root of the FUNDING is a local-based organization that deals with everything from raising the funds, to hiring management and staff, to providing services and promoting the corps and its performances.

Certainly DCI helps, and they promote the national tour, but it is the individual corps that raises the cash and deals with all other aspects of facilitating the year and competitive season.

This being the case, we as board members and management, as well as volunteers, have a say in which direction the corps moves, who we hire, what our goals are, how much we can tour, and so forth. The only way the OP's theory works is if DCI controls everything and we take a more socialistic and complete revenue-sharing approach to the whole activity. But if this were the case, then what reasons do we in, Canton, OH for instance, have for staying if DCI is going to tell us how to run our corps, who we can hire, and then, I assume, we will be told what to pay and how much we can tour, etc, etc, etc.

You see, our job as a local organization is to run the corps. We decide who to hire, and it is our job, if things are going well, to try and keep staff on board. It is our job to raise the funds. It is our job to decide what the fees are, how we will travel, by what means, and how much tour we can afford. And it will continue to be OUR job to do this as long as it is WE who are raising the funds. If DCI wishes to raise the funds for our corps, then great, they can spend the money, but they should also not be surprised when the local help leaves. After all, why would we stay if we are not needed or if we have no control, or if we are told that the most important decisions that clearly effect the health of a franchise, one that we once controlled locally, is now in the hands of another organization?

You see, each local organization has a vested interest in doing the best for their corps. Our job is to hire the best staff we can find, to provide the best experience possible, and to raise funds in order to keep alive an important part of our communities, even if the members come from all over. We don't want to be told how or when we can hire staff, and we certainly don't want to be told who to hire. After all, it's not DCI's money that pays for this, it's our money. Yes, there is some revenue sharing today, and that is a good thing to a point. But at the heart of what we do, the bulk of the funds are locally raised and also come from the members who join the corps.

I understand that people dislike the lack of parity in drum corps (the Big 3). And yes, Phantom won this year and many were thrilled because of it. However, my take on this is a bit different. One of the reasons I think the activity is still in this state is largely due to an unwillingness to look for the new designers, the new educators, in other words the unknowns. Too many corps tend to try and steal each other's staff from time to time, and the same people just keep moving from one corps to another, as if there are no other talents out there that can do great things. Additionally, many on here flaunt the names of these popular instructors as if there are no other people in the world qualified to do what they do. This alone perpetuates the notion that in order to win, or to be top 5, one must go to a certain corps with a certain staff member.

Now add to this the fact that traditional powers have a style and reputation that has been burnt into the minds of many aspiring marchers, and one can see why such change is difficult.

The activity actually needs more designers and teachers who can grow and develop into the new legends of the activity, and in doing so they help new corps compete at higher levels. Eventually this will attract very talented people to their corps, much in the way Carolina Crown has managed. The trick, however, is to put a young staff together, or perhaps a staff made up of youth and experience, and then keep them together as long as you can (which isn't always easy). But if you can, they grow as a team, they work better together, they develop ideas and learn to implement them in the most productive ways, and this can help a corps compete. But this also goes against the OP's thinking, for time is of the essence, and it takes years for a staff to fully learn to work together and develop as a total team. The 2-year approach would ultimately prove fatal for many corps, and it would ignite a sort of "free-agency" aspect to staff (more so than we have now), and it would not allow the LOCAL organization to do what it can to keep people on board.

In the long run, it is the local community, where the corps is from, the BOD, administration, and volunteers who have the final say in these things. Not DCI!

JW

[Elmo Blatch]

OK, I can see a lot of good points here, and in theory they could work, except for one very important aspect: funding!

Drum and Bugle Corps are locally operated and funded. Yes, the member base has shifted from being local to regional to national, and even international, but at the root of the FUNDING is a local-based organization that deals with everything from raising the funds, to hiring management and staff, to providing services and promoting the corps and its performances.

Certainly DCI helps, and they promote the national tour, but it is the individual corps that raises the cash and deals with all other aspects of facilitating the year and competitive season.

This being the case, we as board members and management, as well as volunteers, have a say in which direction the corps moves, who we hire, what our goals are, how much we can tour, and so forth. The only way the OP's theory works is if DCI controls everything (nah, just regulating the staff used) and we take a more socialistic and complete revenue-sharing approach to the whole activity. Very good, now you are getting it. But if this were the case, then what reasons do we in, Canton, OH for instance, have for staying if DCI is going to tell us how to run our corps, who we can hire, and then, I assume, we will be told what to pay and how much we can tour, etc, etc, etc. Nah. This topic was just about the design and teaching staff. Moreover its not so much about the staff that a corps can hire but about the staff that a corps can't hire.

You see, our job as a local organization is to run the corps. I think everybody understands that. We decide who to hire, and it is our job, if things are going well, to try and keep staff on board. Ditto. It is our job to raise the funds. Ditto. It is our job to decide what the fees are, how we will travel, by what means, and how much tour we can afford. And it will continue to be OUR job to do this as long as it is WE who are raising the funds. The original post didn't mention anything of increasing costs to member corps. If DCI wishes to raise the funds for our corps, then great, they can spend the money, but they should also not be surprised when the local help leaves. After all, why would we stay if we are not needed (who isn't needed?) or if we have no control, (plenty of local control) or if we are told that the most important decisions that clearly effect the health of a franchise (the leader of an organization has more of an effect on the health or climate of that organization than any other factor in an organization), one that we once controlled locally, is now in the hands of another organization? How many corps have been affected by DCI policies in such a way that they are no longer active or no longer competitive? How many corps were upset when the tic system was replaced? What corps benefited the most from that change? Have we noticed a difference in quality after the removal of the tic system? I feel the same effect would occur with a change like this: every corps staff would have to really cooperate in order to be competitive.

You see, each local organization has a vested interest in doing the best for their corps. Our job is to hire the best staff we can find, to provide the best experience possible, and to raise funds in order to keep alive an important part of our communities, even if the members come from all over. We don't want to be told how or when we can hire staff, and we certainly don't want to be told who to hire. Again, it wasn't so much who you could hire but who you couldn't hire. After all, it's not DCI's money that pays for this, it's our money. Yes, there is some revenue sharing today, and that is a good thing to a point. But at the heart of what we do, the bulk of the funds are locally raised and also come from the members who join the corps.

I understand that people dislike the lack of parity in drum corps (the Big 3). And yes, Phantom won this year and many were thrilled because of it. However, my take on this is a bit different. One of the reasons I think the activity is still in this state is largely due to an unwillingness to look for the new designers, the new educators, in other words the unknowns. I can agree with this. Too many corps tend to try and steal each other's staff from time to time, and the same people just keep moving from one corps to another, as if there are no other talents out there that can do great things. Additionally, many on here flaunt the names of these popular instructors as if there are no other people in the world qualified to do what they do. This alone perpetuates the notion that in order to win, or to be top 5, one must go to a certain corps with a certain staff member.

Now add to this the fact that traditional powers have a style and reputation that has been burnt into the minds of many aspiring marchers, and one can see why such change is difficult.

The activity actually needs more designers and teachers who can grow and develop into the new legends of the activity, and in doing so they help new corps compete at higher levels. Eventually this will attract very talented people to their corps, much in the way Carolina Crown has managed. The trick, however, is to put a young staff together, or perhaps a staff made up of youth and experience, and then keep them together as long as you can (which isn't always easy). But if you can, they grow as a team, they work better together, they develop ideas and learn to implement them in the most productive ways, and this can help a corps compete. But this also goes against the OP's thinking, for time is of the essence, and it takes years for a staff to fully learn to work together and develop as a total team. The 2-year approach would ultimately prove fatal for many corps, and it would ignite a sort of "free-agency" aspect to staff (more so than we have now), and it would not allow the LOCAL organization to do what it can to keep people on board. See, I understand this completely and this is why I posed the idea. I fully realize that staffs tend to meld together over time. In fact, how often do you see a corps come out at the first show with the end of the year product? (blink) The problem becomes one of familiarity.

In the long run, it is the local community, where the corps is from, the BOD, administration, and volunteers who have the final say in these things. Not DCI! Most communities with a drum corps don't even realize they have one in town, sadly.

JW

[Elmo Blatch]

Well, first of all, individual corps have done quite the effective job of destroying themselves financially and such. I don't see how this will do any worse.

Nothing changes if nothing changes, guys. The draw will still be there for the traditional "Top 6." But enhancing the staff levels outside the top 6 might shake up the ending placements. And the argument of, "Don't bring everyone down, bring everyone else up" doesn't hold up with current talent and achievement levels in the top 6 and top 12. Performance achievement used to be a big difference from 1st to 12th. Is there still a difference? Obviously. But a lot less so than from even 2000.

I like the thought if not the details, OP. And I like your signature, too. I was watching that a while back and a certain name stood out!

Thank you!