Liam

Tough call -- I think I could come up with examples that support each view. I guess the best bet is to develop some sort of blended formula (maybe some sort of a weighted average based on some minimum # of appearances). I guess it all depends on what you're trying to value and then being sure that your viewing the results with that valuation in mind. I'm not dismissing longevity, but if you asked me subjectively who had a better decade between Southwind and Blue Stars, I'd have a hard time justifying Southwind just becuase they showed up more years. No offense intended -- if we're talking about the organization, not just the on-field stuff, then I might agree -- Pioneer's longevity, for example, makes them a very successful corp in the 2000's. But if were talking about on-field rankings, I'd have a hard time justifying some of your results just because of more appearances. These kinds of things are always tough -- trying to apply cold numbers to differing criteria -- just ask the BCS !!! Thanks for the analysis -- just offering a little tweaking advice that's all -- and again, no offense intended -- all corps should be proud of their accomplishments during the decade. Rankings are always going to make someone feel worse than they should and someone else feel better than they should -- just trying to view this with some objectivity, that's all

But shouldn't you still then take the average of each corps. To say that Pioneer is ahead of Academy or Sothwind over Blue Stars (no disrepect intended) simply because of number of appearances I think skews the spirit of the exercise a little, dontcha think?

Well, of course, the obvious reply is that scores are not comparable year-over-year, blah, blah, blah. However, I particularly like this line:

But they're not in a concert hall -- geez, next you're gonna claim that the horn players should sit in chairs like in a concert hall and ..... oh, wait .... nevermind

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I kinda (just kinda) agree with cow. Not so much that Mr. Acheson is to blame, but I do think that DCI as a whole has been on a bit of a bad streak, management-decisions-wise. Maybe no single decision was entirely their fault, but when you look at totally of things that go against you, you have to thinking that there needs to be a change in management. This kind of thing happens all the time in business -- when a series of decisions go bad (even when some of it is "out of your control"), changes get made. Now, I'm not necessarily agreeing that Mr. Acheson should be fired -- I don't know enough about how the DCI BOD structure works. But I do think that there have been enough issues to warrant a shake-up and some new-blood, as they say. to wit: 2008 Finals -- sure, not their fault -- but could have been avoided by not cutting the deal knowing that construction was going to be completed so close at best -- would one more year out West or somewhere else have been so bad. 2009 Finals -- stuff everywhere on DCP about this -- with a whole year to prepare after 2008 and knowing that everyone was going to judge them based on the 10-year contract knowledge equals major letdown. Marketing -- BIG announcement 2 years ago in Atlanta about new partnership with high-falutin' marketing firm to expand DCI's image -- then ... nothing. No explanation as to what happened with the partnership and no further attempts along these lines. Just not handled well TV -- this has been discussed to death, but the end result is that this was a priority on the DCI strategic plan list and now is nowhere. Maybe that turned out to be the best decision, but lots of execs have lost jobs in the business world for less when the strategic plan is altered such. I do like cow's quote "thought it was wrong to bail on the art crowd in favor of the sports crowd" -- that may ultimately be the path decison that did the most damage. Notice, I've said nothing about on-field stuff as that is mostly a matter of taste. So, hyperbole and anger aside, I do think that DCI has some management failures that are in danger of sending the organization down a tougher path, esp in this economy. It's not for me to say if someone should be fired or not, but lots of execs in business have been fired for less (whether or not "in their control") and I do think that DCI should consider re-organizing a bit to seperate and boosting the business/marketing side aside from the on-field/creative side, JMHO.

Okay -- byline was right -- the line was "I can play the notes, but I cannot make the music"

Thought this was an interesting little dichotomy ...

Personally, this is why I don't think they should tally any scores until the end. Judges should be allowed to go over the "maximum" if that's the way the numbers fall and then adjust back down to scale after all the corps have been scored. For example, let's say a judge finds he hasn't left enough room because the middle corps were significantly better than the lower corps and now he doesn't have enough room left if the top corps are significantly better than he has anticipated. In this scenario, he can continue to score based on his percieved spread, even if that means going over 10 (or 20, or whatever his "limit" is). So if the top corps ends up with a 21, so be it, and then when all corps are done, he simply readjusts all his scores down 1 point or 1.2 points or wherever he wants to top to be, before turning them in for tabulation. This of course won't work if scores are announced throughout the performance as is the case in some contests. I just think that we put too much emphasis on the number, when it's really the spread that matters. The number is meaningless, as we could choose any scale we want instead of 0-100; it's the spread that matters no matter the scale, so I think it would be better if judges could judge spread first and apply numbers later.

Well, there's also different levels of "entertaining" (even aside from personal preference, of course). Sure there are some shows that get you up out your seat screaming and yelling -- which I assume is the definition of what you're calling entertaining. But there's other shows that I find entertaining is a more subtle way -- maybe not as exciting, but still entertaining to me. Honestly, I don't want them all to hoot-and-holler-fests. I also like the well-done mellower show and find it entertaining on a different level. In other words, I'm entertained by both classic Madison and classic BK, just in different ways, and so I don't think it's fair to equate audience excitement with entertainment, necessarily.

I did. Maybe not for the same reasons as others, and maybe not for the reasons you might guess, but I stayed home nonetheless. And will likely stay home next year as well. And the next. I'm just curious if I have to state my reasons for staying home and somehow get them approved before you will allow me to stay home without criticism. Supersop doesn't like the sound in the dome. That's his reason. His reason apparantley isn't acceptable to you for him to not spend his money, so again, I'm curious what is an acceptable reason to you to see if my reasons pass.

Exactly -- that is what it's about. And if someone no longer enjoys what is going on on the field (or, I suppose, how what's going on on the field translates to them up in the stands) then it may no longer be worth it to them, that's all. Look, there are lots of activities "for the kids" -- drum corps is just one. If one person supports cheerleading and another supports youth soccer and another supports scouting and another supports drum corps, they all do it for some enjoyment that they and/or their kids get out of it. When that enjoyment for the participant or the fan goes away, then they are likely no longer going to support it and might support something else "for the kids". Or not. No one can say what stops the enjoyment for someone else and to attempt to do so is pretty arrogant, imo. If supersop doesn't like the sound in the dome to an extent that it makes the whole event unenjoyable to him, then that's it. Doesn't mean you or I can't enjoy it as we see fit, but certainly doesn't give us a right to say that his reason for not wanting to go back to Finals isn't good enough.

Jeff -- you're missing the point ... Because once in your life you $upported DCI, you must now continue in perpetuity because otherwise, you are just being mean to THE KIDS!!! Who are you to claim that you no longer enjoy the product?? That's no excuse. A certain portion of your time and money belongs to DCI until they decree otherwise, so you better find something to like in that dome, because not going is just being selfish.

Although some have walked away for each of those reasons -- fans and participants alike. Not enough to doom the activity, but that doesn't mean that those who did walk away were wrong. They just didn't find sufficient enjoyment anymore to justify their support. If enough people hit that point, then drum corps will suffer -- if not, then not. But what irks me is when someone feels the right to criticize another for what they do with their own time and money. Just out of curiousity -- since it seems you are saying that none of those reasons you mentioned are sufficient reasons someone to choose to stop spending their own money on DCI -- what is an acceptable reason to you for someone to move on?

I think I know what you think he was saying ... but, no. Monkey drummng is the arms flaying, elbow up-wrist down-to-elbow down-wrist up, motion. Visual effect? Yes. Pecision required? Yes. Rudimentary? No. Just a style, that's all

Fair enough -- and thanks for your responses. You're probably right about the with/without toys scenario. I guess my point is to leave it up to the corps to decide what works for them and what's important to them. I do think that tweaking the one-year rule could still serve its purpose for DCA while allowing some of these OC and lower end WC corps to help themselves a little. I also agree that it would probably be difficult for an OC corps to compete long-term with DCA and still maintain their age restrictions. Again, those things I think would work themselves out over time if corps were allowed a little better flexibility to "test the waters". Anyway, this is a good discussion and I think there's been some good ideas and I'm satisfied that I've made my points clearly enough. If we disagree a little, that's cool

I understand, and I do get what you're going for here. I do believe that DCI could do much more in leveraging the premier WC event to increase marketing opportunities and exposure for OC corps -- I just think there are better ways to do it, that's all. JMO, and no offense -- all ideas are worth discussing

I don't know ... this sounds a little patronizing to me. Like that little kid in the neighborhood that you let play baseball with you and you let him hit and run around the bases so he feels involved, but you don't count his score becuase you big kids are playing a "real" game. I understand what you're getting at, but it just seems a little patronizing to me. JMO

I agree that OC corps need to take care of themselves. Does that mean that DCA can't offer a helping hand, especially one that offers a chance for DCA to grow? Why does everything have to be so all-or-nothing? OC corps need to help themselves, so therefore if DCA offers anything then that is "bailing them out" and should be shunned? No, all that I (and Sam, I think -- don't want to speak for you Sam ) am suggesting is that DCA offer another option for OC corps to help themselves out with, that's all. How is that a bad thing?

sigh I have specifically said I wasn't talking about DCA adding a seperate division, but rather these corps fitting in to DCA's existing divisions. So it's clear to me that you're arguing against an idea you haven't even really read. Nonsense. I have also specifically stated multiple solutions to this: 1) Design a show that uses electronics in a way that can be removed without destroying the show (i.e., not used to create voices that are cannot be removed). All corps were able to design such shows way, way back in 2008, so I'm sure someone still remembers how to do that. I understand that most corps are now using synths to replace low end voices .... so ... don't do that!!! Use amps, synths, narration to your hearts content for DCI shows and take the out for DCA shows. No biggie. I think you vastly underestimate corps ability to design a show that fits their specific purpose. And so .... 2) What is their purpose? Some of these corps are fighting for their very survival. So placement and score may not be be their #1 concern right now. If the show they design doesn't quite use synths,etc to the extent DCI wants to reward and isn't quite cohesive enough without the synths, etc for DCA jugding standards, then so be it. The goal is long-term survival and so any ability to test the waters and see what life would be like in another circuit has to be a positive experience. I agree. Isn't this exactly what I'm saying -- "let em compete in DCA"?? If you mistyped and meant to say "let em perform in exhibition if DCA" which is what you've been proposing, I say, that's a great idea, too!!! As is run some DCA shows -- another win-win. So you admit that there are multiple win-win scenarios. Your suggestions/ideas are great!! I'm not arguing against them, merely offering another, additonal option for OC corps to help themselves survive and thrive and for DCA to grow and thrive. To me, that sounds like a win-win, as well. Honestly, I think you're arguing against my suggestion when you don't even know what it is. You just said "let em compete in DCA", which is exactly what I've been saying all along. Geez. Yep -- and that's all that my point was originally before you started arguing against it. Maybe so. Maybe not. Again, if DCA relaxed the one-year off rule in a way that promoted inclusion of OC corps, then it would be up to each OC corps to determine if: 1) Their charter allowed competing in both DCI and DCA to some extent simultaneouosly and/or how to adjust it to make that so 2) Their show design was or could be mallable enough to make this feasible 3) Their long-term success benefits from what could be a difficult short-term (show design switches night to night, competitive struggles, etc) 4) This route, or the exhibition route you suggested, or committing to advancing to WC, or continuing status quo and hoping that DCI OC continues in some acceptable form is the best route for their organization to take. What's wrong with that? (Dang, you made me do the split-quote thing .... I HATE THAT!!!! )

Obviously you've never read the DCP Community Guidelines -- Where do you get off actually getting off your butt and investigating facts when idle speculation has suited us just fine for years ...

Unfortunately, don't think you'll know till you get there

Why are you arguing with me on this? Yes, OC corps can do exhibitions with DCA while remaining in DCI and get paid. That's great!!! All I was saying was in response to part of the conversation that premised that DCI OC's days were numbered, so how could DCA benefit. Then the rule was brought up about having to sit out a year. I asked why that rule was there and it's because DCA doesn't want a BD or Cadets jumping over to dominate at DCA finals. Okay. I get that. So then I said, maybe DCA should adjust that rule somehow to help encourage give DCI OC corps an ADDITIONAL option to help them transition if, in fact, their circuit is inadequate for their long-term viability. I just don't understand why you are so against another option to help DCI OC corps, to help DCA grow, and to expose more DCA fans to more shows in more parts of the country. Exhibition of OC corps is one way to do this. My suggestion is another. What's wrong with that?

Repeating my post from a couple of pages ago: Well if they were REALLY inventive, they could do an all-day festival style showcase. Maybe two or three sessions -- morning, afternoon, and evening. Each with a mix of lower, mid and upper tier WC corps performing in QF and OC corps performing in Finals or whatever round they're at. Split shows like Allentown = more revenue and more exposure both OC corps and lower end WC corps. Kinda like buying tix to different sessions of NCAA basketball tourney games. You want to see NC, but you also get tix to Xavier. If you want to go to multiple sessions in the same stadium to see all the games -- you buy more tix. Of course, this would require a desire and commitment from DCI to market and showcase the OC corps side-by-side with WC, so ....

Yep -- odds are that the ability to sell beer was factored into the cost of the stadium. If DCI demanded no alcohol sales, then probably the stadium would have charged more to compensate for the lost revenue from concessions. As adults, most of us can handle our liquor and are capable of still acting appropriately. Those that can't should be removed and/or held up to maximum amounts of humiliation.

Ah, yes ... But if you were an OC corps with an expiration date -- you'd be thrilled if your kids embraced a new opportunity. Again, most of this discussion is based on the premise that OC's days are numbered in DCI. So if you're an OC corps, your options are: 1) Try to go WC -- where we know most of them will fail because of the touring requirements, et al 2) Find another circuit -- where you hope that your members will still get the experience that you're trying to provide 3) Fold 4) Continue on with DCI OC and hope and pray that status quo remains -- which will more than likely lead to (3) above. Just trying to present an opportunity for DCA to better encourage/embrace option (2) here for everyone's benefit.