mobrien

Are tennis players told how much they can pay their personal coaches? If you're a sprinter in the Olympic trials, do they set limits on how much you can spend on your shoes (if you don't have an endorsement?) Do most state high school athletic leagues put limits on how much the coaches are paid? Rarely. You can set limits on size and gear, and standardize the competitive rules, but in many other forms of competitive sport, individual competitors or teams are allowed to spend as they see fit.

Maybe (Corps X - fill in your own blanks) isn't a destination stop for A-list instructors not because Corps X doesn't have enough money to pay them, but because most better quality instructors and designers, the ones who have proven track records designing and teaching shows that win, look at the mangement of Corps X and think 'these guys don't have a ____ing clue as to how to properly run a drum corps." Spending caps on staffs as a means of leveling the field down the lowest common denominator is a bad idea, when the more obvious problem isn't people at the top who succeed too much, but some (note "some") directors in the bottom half of the WC rankings who don't seem to be able to move the ball past their own 45 yard line.

Years ago I would have been in favor of looking at budget caps, but on further review, that idea is just dancing around two issues that no one really wants to address, but are probably more to blame for the current competitive stasis. 1. A judging system where so much of the score relies on totally subjective evaluation of designers' work, compounded by a calcified group of judges in those captions, and too many past working relationships between certain judges and some staff members to pass the neutrality sniff test.. 2. A certain number of lower-ranked corps whose managers don't seem to be able to lead them up the ladder competitively, despite years of trying. For my money, I'd prefer to see the standards change so that GE, as a caption, goes away completely, replaced by a catchall Design, Effect, & Coordination caption (which considers how well the music and visual programs work together and how well they connect with the audience), with two judges in the box averaging scores to reach a 25 point total. The other 75 points would all be execution, technique, and uniformity driven, putting more of the score directly in the hands of the performers. As for the second...it might be harsh, but if World Class Corp X has had a director in place for more than 5 years, and he has yet to find a way to move his kids up into the Top 18 at least once in that time, then his corps should be told that it's time to make a change and bring in someone new to try and revitalize the program. That seems to be a more direct solution to the problem of competitive inertia than trying to handcuff the corps directors and programs that are the most successful in raising money, selling t-shirts, etc, etc.

How many ballet dancers have you seen moving about the stage at 180 bpm for extended periods of time with straight legs? I'm at dance events all the time, seeing major companies from around the world, and have yet to witness that. ( I know, I know, some folks are determined to see drum corps as a fine art, but it's really still just band on grass, and as such, more sports than art.) Stu, I'd posit that with the knee and ankle turned out (both of them positions that the hip flexor is designed to allow), the motion of crabwalking, while unusual, isn't unnatural. The lower joints are flexing in a totally natural fashion to allow the crossover step. That being said, it strikes me that talking about the two schools of thought on this topic is probably right up there with discussing religion and politics, with all of the participants being fervent in their beliefs. I doubt any of us would convince anyone else to change positions.

Turn the feet out, and moving the heel over and across the planted foot to take a step isn't particular stressful on the joints. Harder work for the muscles, but that's true of any athletic activity. I'll start to believe that there's any real physiological advantage to straight leg when I start see football players, basketball players, or sprinters running with straight legs. Until then, it's just a product of the Drum Corps Ministry of Silly Walks. YMMV, of course.

I use the snowboarding terminology instead: regular vs goofy. "Regular" means you're using your body the way nature intended, with your knees and joints doing the jobs they were designed to do. "Goofy" is its own self-explanatory adjective.

Ok. Listened to the first one. Feels like you should be holding a video game controller in your hand while it's playing.

Uh huh. So in other words, those whose work allowed them to improve their lot should be punished. Perhaps some corps sell more t-shirts than others because their product selection is more interesting and because people like their organization more. So they should find themselves told to .....what? Don't sell as many t-shirts? Stop rehearsing? I mean, at what point do we find the equilibrium that lets some corps whose directors simply aren't that good at what they do "catch up" to those whose managers understand how this thing works? Let's take the exact inverse of the "success penalty" route. How about DCI institute a rule that any member corps who has failed to make top 16 for more than 5 years in a row be required to hire a new director? Wouldn't that do more to shake up the competition?

Part of the logic behind salary caps in pro sports is the fact that teams that operate in the largest media markets have the most money at their disposal to use in purchasing players. The Yankees or Cubs could bid up the price of talent because they have local audiences of between 8 and 30 million people to use as their fan base, and so have an inherent advantage in financial resources when compared to markets like Minneapolis and Kansas City, who are a fraction of the size. There's no data to indicate that any disparities in staff salaries, as they exist now, have any correlation to the area where a corps is from. They only have to do with managerial skill - corps directors who hire or nurture good instructional talent, then hold on to it. That being the case, the proposed cap here really would be handicapping based on success, and nothing else. If people want to shake up the competitive field, you'd have better luck working with the corps themselves to revise the judging system in such a way that more emphasis was placed on execution and measurable audience effect, and less on 'design.' But I think we all know that the top corps will still be able to work with that system too, so the challenge, even then, would be for the corps in the lower tiers to find a way to improve their programming ideas and instructional capabilities.

Can I plus 10 that? If you want the most competitive members to come to your corps, do a better job of creating a unique identity that they think they'd like to be a part of. While there are ring-chasers aplenty out there, there are also a lot of potential members who understand that the likelihood of NOT winning it all is much greater than the chance to win, and that what they really want is the experience in marching in Corps X, because Corps X has the attitude and approach they like.

There were and are a number of non-Finalist corps who spent almost as much (or more) than those who finished in the top 8. Kinda kills the "some corps win because they spend more" argument right out of the box. And if that argument is gone...then the purpose of a budget cap would be......?

I see some value in Daniel's thinking, but I don't think there's enough upside there to make anyone put down the money necessary. The only way investors would want to own DCI would be if they had a lot more control of the day-to-day operations of the corps themselves - and there are any number of corps who'd likely be shut down at the worst, or be required to hire different corps directors, at the minimum, which would be a house cleaning of fairly epic scale. However, there might be a split-the-difference approach: a Board made up of 7 to 9 outsiders with prior business experience (preferably in the fields of events or sports production and marketing), all of them compensated for their Board time and effort, said compensation being determined by DCI's relative profitability. In this situation, the Board members would still have a financial interest in what happens with DCI, but it would be through profitability of the WHOLE operation that they would see cash, not through just "their part" doing well. The corps themselves would have to be willing to submit to an all-outside Board, and live with whatever decisions they make. I could all but guarantee you that if DCI went this way, the new Board would likely want to change many of the things traditionalists prize about drum corps. Traditional uniform styles would be sacrificed in favor of costumes (which uniforms are, in a way, anyway), any number of smaller or less-competitive corps in the lower tiers of performance would be told to figure it out or find themselves off the tour, and the use of lights, electronics, and other non-traditional elements would likely increase, rather than subside. Being competitive would become more expensive, not less expensive, but there's every possibility that ramping up the entertainment elements of the activity could also increase the overall revenues such that those who were able to make the cut at a Top 16 corps could march without fees, and Finals could actually be a big enough draw (on the road, since I don't think Indy will ever have the excitement factor) that you could get 30,000 people to show up, since the Finals event was enough of a "Super Bowl" type extravaganza that it was fun to go to even if you were in the end zones. The activity would probably find itself looking a lot different to the traditionalists, and the likelihood is that the top corps will STILL be the top corps, since they're the ones who've shown themselves the most adaptable over the years. But it also might provide enough revenue to the lower-ranked corps that they could put more of their focus on creating better products, via hiring more experienced or more innovative arrangers, instructors, and designers, rather than spending inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out how to stretch $100k into $120k worth of goods and services.

Semis are already available via FanNetwork. It's the Quarterfinals (or Prelims, whatever they're calling it now) that are at the movie theaters.

I'd be surprised if you'll find that many people willing to go $50 on it. Harcore fans, yes, but for folks who might be curious, or legacy fans who are on the fence about how they feel about the new style shows, it might be a stretch. $39 sounds more realistic, and $29 sounds like it'd be a golden mean. After all, it's still just sitting in front of the computer or tv. They could also offer two streams - a high cam for $20 something or a multi-cam for an increased price ($49 for multi?). DVDs are dead. Physical audio/video media is a 20th century concept, and there's no point putting much energy into creating DVDs anymore, unless the DVD contains a lot of bonus material that isn't available anywhere else. People who want to attend Finals will still go, since a live event is always better than watching it on the tube. I've gone to a few Super Bowls, and even if you have less than great seats, you go for the party, not just to watch the game. (Speaking of that, can someone hire DCI an "event specialist" who can try and make the Finals event more interesting than it is? Right now, it has all the ancillary excitement of waiting around for a 10 minute oil change. As Johnny Carson once described the Oscars, "two hours of sparkling entertainment dragged out into a four hour extravaganza.")

The first half of the show music is already learned (along with encore pieces from both "Niagara Falls" and "007"), and reports are that the staff is trying to have most, if not all, of the second half of the book in the members' hands within the next few weeks. That's a pretty aggressive start to the year, imho.

Each NFL team is separately owned, but NFL itself is a joint business created to set the rules, manage and market their games and squeeze every dollar it can out of their media coverage. They weren't always the juggernaut they are now; at one point, college football was considered the real draw for fans, and the NFL was a poor stepchild of a pro sports league. What changed is that they brought in Pete Rozelle, who convinced the team owners that they needed to modernize their presentation if they hoped to grow their market. Changing the messaging about their game created a new audience for the game, and in the process, saved minor market teams like Green Bay. So in answer to your question, DCI is the business, and the corps directors are the "owners." But the business of creating audiences by superior messaging is DCI's, since selling tickets is what they were set up to do.

They aren't the same. At all. It does no one any good to try and hold up the fiction that all drum corps are equals when it comes to financial capacity or audience appeal. They're not. It's not to say that the smaller, local corps are failing because they're not Phantom Regiment or BD - it's to say that's not what they're there to accomplish. They're about the experience of learning drum corps, not trying to win Finals. Baseball has a farm system. The major teams support those farm leagues, but they don't promote their games as being 'the same' as major league games, or the players at the AAA level as being the equals of major league all stars. It doesn't mean that the majors are dissing the farm teams, it means that they're simply recognizing that most competitive endeavors that require specific training and skills have pecking orders, and that those who are just learning shouldn't be competing with those who are already veterans at the game. Run drum corps like a business, rather than a pee wee soccer league, and perhaps they can find a way to grow the overall pool of dollars available, at every level of the activity.

Well now that's the challenge facing DCI, ain't it? :cool:/>/> There are two drum corps worlds out there, something that is marginally reflected in the Open Class and World Class categorization. One world is a national touring model that, at its top reaches, really is "the best of the best", to use DCI's own language describing WC. The performers are the best at what they do, the shows have a scale and volume (literally) that is impressive. The other world is geared toward younger performers, working with material that is designed to challenge them at their own level, but really isn't as difficult or (generally) as impressive to the average man on the street. The needs and interests of those two types of drum corps are very different from each other, yet both are being managed by the same organization. I admire that DCI goes to pains to make sure the that smaller units feel included as part of the family, but at the same time, DCI is tasked with trying to tell potential audiences and sponsors that what drum corps has to offer is something really special, unlike anything they're ever going to see from any marching band, something that (if we're honest with each other) most first-time viewers wouldn't necessarily see when viewing a smaller, regional drum corps. Again, just my opinion, but my guess is that the needs of emerging and regional drum corps would be better suited to a league that was designed just for them, with their own Board of Directors and their own rules committees. I don't think it's realistic or fair to expect the leaders of some of the largest corps to be able to try and operate DCI with both 'worlds' in mind, for the same reason that I can't imagine the NFL offices would be in good position to know how best to manage competitions at the high school level. The second league could still operate as a division of DCI, with some funding provided via the major corps' events and media sales, but without the DCI staff having to try and manage the second league's affairs on a day to day basis. Perhaps this is what would eventually happen with the Sound Sport competition, where it'd become a separate division with its own governance, but for now, DCI is pretty far behind schedule with regards to audience growth, and the sooner they can give the smaller corps the freedom to make their own choices and rules, the sooner they can get back to looking at more effectively promoting their college-aged corps to a wider swath of the public. And the better they do that, the more money there would be available for funding the activities of the second league. All of this imho, of course.

Who only has historical importance because of Hitler. Otherwise, he'd be one of several totally forgettable British PMs. Godwin by proxy.

None of the previous outside directors fit that description. I'm sure they were and are great folks, but the organization needs a strong outside voice with experience doing the SPECIFIC thing that DCI is set up to do - produce and market events - but on an even bigger scale that what DCI currently does. The world is a world of connections. When you're shopping for outside directors for any company, profit or non-profit, it's the personal connections they bring to the table, along with their real-world experience and judgement, that make a candidate valuable.

Whoever they bring in should have experience producing major sporting events, festivals, or concerts, with the private phone number of the Marketing and Sponsorship decision maker at every major consumer brand in America, and who has the time and energy to sit down with DCI's staff and the other Board members and convince them that they need to focus on mainstreaming the product while pushing the boundaries of performance. They need someone who is willing to look each of them in the eye and ask "what are you willing to do in order to change yourselves, change your position in the market, and change the negative perceptions that stands between your activity and a much bigger audience?" No armchair quarterbacks. No PTO chairs. No "nice guys with a good head on his shoulders." Only a real business person with real experience working at a much bigger, much more visible level than anything DCI has yet attained.

Drummers at a titty bar? Nah, Not possible.

The crowd at Pasadena five years ago was on par with the best of the mid-80s Madison years, which would lead me to believe that location is a bigger factor than audience sentiment over the product. Keep the location interesting, and you add an incentive to make Finals week part of your summer vacation. In Indy's defense, even in its worst year, it still drew better than Miami in '83. There were more corps then, but fewer butts in the seats.

I don't buy DVD or CDs of anything anymore, since there aren't really that many songs, films or books I want to own in physical media if I have the option of owning it digitally and/or streaming it. Streaming and Cloud media storage isn't the future - for a lot of us, it's already the way things are.

If you add up the number of high schools with band programs who have begun to actually care about doing marching band well, as opposed to just dragging out some s___ty 1950s drums and playing "Mr Touchdown" five Saturdays each fall, the answer is "lots more." Local, community based drum corps still exists, it's just called "marching band." DCI actually WON that debate, which is why the corps that exist now at the mid-level and above are so much better, musically, then the same level groups were back in the 70s and early 80s. In the 70s, even the best corps were going out there with fewer than full ranks, and you could show up in May and find any number of top corps eager to get you on the field, because they had openings. We have many more 'training corps' than we did, and more kids marching in drum corps-influenced programs. They might be called 'bands' but that doesn't change the reality. Drum corps has evolved into something that is much harder to do well then it used to be, and we have a huge network of band directors out there that are doing the dirty work of prepping their kids to audition for corps. Be a gracious winner and accept the victory.