The best staff money can buy?

[corpsband]

1. BD dominance is not forever. Their "newness of design" is no longer new.

2. Crown is not an underdog at this point. They have remained in the top 4 since 2008 including 2 silver medals and 1 gold.

3. Cadets have placed out of the top 5 once or twice since 1982.

4. I agree it would be nice to see someone new in the top 3 like Bluecoats or SCV but I would rather it be Bluecoats. I just don't like the

fact that one corps may have tons of money and is buying up the best staff money can buy to win. I know life is unfair but I like corps that

succeed by sheer talent, emotion and drive.

hmmm interesting #4..don't you think those top corps succeed by talent, emotion and drive?. As far as staff. No one has ever won just on those things you mentioned . Corps have needed a good staff in combination with all those things to succeed. One goes with the other. IMO

It's an interesting propostion.

Do all corps "purchase" the best staff they can buy? (or.. They can afford?)

Is this budget allocation directly and consistently reflected in finals placement?

Or is there more to a competitively successful program than deep pockets for a staff?

[GUARDLING]

It's an interesting propostion.

Do all corps "purchase" the best staff they can buy? (or.. They can afford?)

Is this budget allocation directly and consistently reflected in finals placement?

Or is there more to a competitively successful program than deep pockets for a staff?

maybe all of the above., although I have often seen a corps thinking they hired the best in the biz and it didnt really do very much..you need to have it all I think, good staff and talented,determined and hard working kids.

Edited March 31, 2014 by GUARDLING

[old skool drmmr]

Generic Star of Indiana reference.

[garfield]

I think buying "the best staff" (however you define it) is only part of the success model. The other big part of it is staff stickiness and developing a consistent model approach to teaching both pre-season and when cleaning starts.

In the investment world it's widely known that a money manager will more likely consistently repeat his performance, good or bad, over many successive years. If a manager under-performs it's likely that he'll continue to under-perform until something dramatic happens.

Would seem to me that the human nature part of that analogy (resistance to change) would make a winning corps staff more valuable over time because of consistency, and would hamper a corps using the same staff that does not produce winners.

In that regard, paying up for the top staff is only the starting point. Keeping them happy and excited to stay around is an equal investment that may be harder than simply writing a check.

[garfield]

EDIT to above:

But, of course, the consistency of the staff can be washed out or bolstered by the group of kids chosen to march.

Hence, SCV (for example) may start off with the advantage of a "top performing, sticky staff", and 'Coats (for example) may not, but the likelihood of either recruiting the MM's that will fully utilize that sticky-staff is probably close to dead even in November.

Would be an interesting statistical study...

PP = [(SaS x (1+ASY)) + (MaM x (1 + AmYe))] / AGCR

where:

PP = Performance Placement

SaS = average Staff Salary

ASY = average staff years of experience

MaM = average Marching member age

AmYe = Average Member Years of Experience

AGCR = Average Gross Corps Revenue

...or some such....

and even then there's the wild card of having a high-paid, long experience staff and a mature marching membership (seemingly all the right ingredients) where the two parties simply don't see eye-to-eye and don't work well together. Such a condition would be a "black swan" (or at least unlikely) but would throw all the other calculations out the window.

Edited April 3, 2014 by garfield

[Stu]

I think buying "the best staff" (however you define it) is only part of the success model. The other big part of it is staff stickiness and developing a consistent model approach to teaching both pre-season and when cleaning starts.

Revenue is needed to pay staff, but simply throwing money at something is never the answer. For example: Some of the highest expenditure public school systems in the nation are also some of the worst performing systems in the nation. Success is derived from a combination of wise use of resources, a unified coordination of function, and not having a staff full of all-stars with their own agendas but a staff which is extremely competent in working well together along with loyalty to stick around during bad times as well as good to accomplish long-term goals. That is why, while I thoroughly despise the G7 proposal, I still have very high respect for the way the Blue Devils organization is ran. While they have gone through some hiccups with a few staff changes over the years, the corps as a whole has consistently upheld the combinations listed herein. And to me that is the ‘main’ reason they have so many DCI rings.

[MGCpimpOtimp]

I came here looking for a fantasy football type staff list. I am disappoint.

[exitmusic]

We can say "throwing money at the staff" doesn't work, but there's one very solid exception -- Magic of Orlando 2002. They went from not existing to finals when the governing org threw a bunch of money at Gino, Jeff, etc.

[BozzlyB]

maybe all of the above., although I have often seen a corps thinking they hired the best in the biz and it didnt really do very much..you need to have it all I think, good staff and talented,determined and hard working kids.

I agree. I remember when Tom Aungst came to Blue Stars thinking this would propel their drumline into the top 5. Aaaaaaaaand no.

[bluesman]

Let's take the 2 most popular sports in the United States..... Football and Baseball. Football has seen it's popularity skyrocket while the other is not close to what it once was and we no longer say things are as "American as Baseball and Apple Pie". Football's system of revenue sharing has made the field more even so teams from cities as small as Green-bay are just as likely to win the Super-bowl as are teams from San Francisco or New York. Baseball is not like that and that's one of the reasons they have lost so much audience. It's not much fun for the fans of the Royals or the Pirates see the Yankees and their massive payroll win over and over again because they are from larger markets and refuse to share the money from TV revenue with any other team The same Baseball teams win over and over again because they are able to go out and pay to get the best coaches and players. With the same teams making the playoffs and winning year after year fans in cities whose teams get beat badly over and over again lose interest which is why Baseball is no longer considered Americas Pastime.

I am not suggesting a revenue sharing system for DCI exactly like what football has, but we have to admit that we see the same corps winning or in approximately the same order year after year. The corps that stay on or near the top are for the most part the ones with the money and too many of the corps without the financial resources die every year with little being done.

Edited April 2, 2014 by bluesman