BOBSMYTH

Need to check that calculator. If attendance was down 100%, that means that no one came.

Its just you.

I agree - but why stop there? How about a cymbal judge? A bass drum judge? A 3rd Trumpet judge? We want to make sure everyone is "properly evaluated". I propose that we implement the judging system currently used in figure skating. They have a panel of 9 judges - each properly evaluating one individual skater. To use that ratio with a full 150 member corps, we would only need 1,350 judges per show. And that doesn't count GE.

The G6 met for the first time in 1975. They were the United States, West Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Japan. They became the G7 the following year when Canada joined in. Oh, Canada!

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. - Oscar Wilde It is often said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. A million people (and climbing) is a million people.

You have to assume that this statement is true so that the rest of your arguments can follow. This is the same fallacy of logic that is the philosophical underpinning of the G7 proposal. If that "given" is not actually true - or not true to the degree you assert - then none of the rest follows. The sky is not falling.

DCI has not denied any voting corps its right to vote. The seven are still inside and still members of the association. They are not outside. Any one of them can continue to make proposals and participate in the governance. DCI cannot continue to leave the seven inside - if the seven are going to continue to cause disruption, IMHO. Meaning that at some point this thing needs to come to a head. Either the 7 choose to go off and do their own thing or they decide to stay within DCI and work within the system. The state of affairs as it has been for the last few years cannot continue as is. (edits for clarity and spelling.)

I'd like to imagine a time when all corps acted together as a cooperative fraternity of the members for the good of all.

To delineate the Music in Motion schedule more precisely: YEA has run used the name "Music in Motion" on several shows in previous years. This July 7 show is one of those and is a normal tour event on the DCI tour. It is not really a part of this discussion. Quoting DCI's 2013 announcement: "Beginning on July 11 in Warrensburg, Mo., this event series will also make stops in DeKalb, Ill., Round Rock, Texas, Murfreesboro, Tenn., Charlotte, N.C., East Rutherford, N.J. and Buffalo N.Y." Read more: http://www.dci.org/news/view.cfm?news_id=32f8d801-9d97-4552-a057-ba808894d6f5#ixzz2DZUTNxnO I can't find where the name for this series has been announced yet. It is being referred to here on DCP as the "Music in Motion" series. These are the events that are being run by the Music in Motion Performing Arts corporation. There are actually 6 shows as this list is missing the July 11 show in Warrensburg, MO. I single out the Murfreesboro show because this one has been run by DCI as a top-8 event for many years. It is still listed on the schedule as a DCI Premier event.

If you are looking for something to DISLIKE about any given performance, corps, show or year, you can find it. If you are looking for something to LIKE about any given performance, corps, show or year, you can also find it. Either way, you are right. You are entitled to your opinions. But they probably do not line up with all of those around you. Just because you have opinions does not lead to the conclusion that we are experiencing the "Death of Corps". Besides, you are way too late. Drum corps died in 1971. Before DCI ever started. They made tee shirts and everything.

Contract labor would be a variable in any kind of comparison across organizations. You can not definitively tell if it is included or not. It all depends on how it is reported by the individual organizations.

It depends on who is filling out the form. Not every field on the IRS form is well defined. My experience has been that there is some variation in presentation and interpretation between preparers.

The numbers I am using are from 2011 which is the most recent year's data available. They come from this thread - YEA post #157 and #134 for total compensation and gross receipts, respectively; same data for DCI in post #39 and #10. I am trusting that you copied them correctly off of the 990's.

Didn't say it was fair. But at least it is real and fact based. To connect some dots here, there was a certain G7 proposal that made the assertion that the corps themselves were so much more efficient than DCI that the corps could come in, take over, fire 50% of the office and the functions and operations of DCI would continue on without missing a beat thus freeing up significant amounts of cash that could go straight to the 7 corps. That doesn't seem like a fair comparison either. And yet, corps managements are making activity altering desicions based on such assertions.

I have a feeling there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than anyone knows.

As long as you're discussing organizational efficiency, here is a metric of efficiency that is often used where I work: Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel cost YEA: $ 5,103,866 Gross Receipts $ 1,356,711 Personnel Costs (Salaries, Compensation & Benefits) $3.76 Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel Cost DCI: $10,828,969 Gross Receipts $ 1,341,278 Personnel Costs (Salaries, Compensation & Benefits) $8.07 Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel Cost By this metric, DCI is 114.6% more efficient at generating revenue than YEA. We'll have to see how other corps measure up in this category.

It is not just you. There are 7 corps directors who are thinking just like you. Flashback - May 2010: When the then DCI Board of Directors was dominated by representatives of the G7 and the G7 proposal was presented to them, they voted to move it forward to study it and presumably to recommend its implementation. That was step 1. Step 2 - at that same meeting, the very next thing they did was vote to fire Dan. They did this becaue they knew that he was standing in their way of a complete coup. Reaction - the rest of the voting membership recalled that Board for not representing the best interests of the activity as a whole. Once the new Board was seated, their first act was to override the previous Board's decision regarding Dan. Conclusion: Dan is not the problem. He has been "leading through it". The current Board and the majority of the corps directors believe that he is the right man for the job. Don't take my word for it. Just look at their actions.

Some comments on your statements: The DCI Next proposal was very workable. The working groups concept was a part of the DCI Next proposal, not a response to its death. The working groups consisted of corps directors at different levels who could give input and feedback on different sections of the proposal. The DCI Next proposal was Dan taking a leadership position and showing how DCI could continue to move forward and evolve. The proposal specifically addressed the G7 issue and demonstrated how most everything that the G7 say that they want could be achieved underneath the DCI umbrella. From what I have observed, most of the other corps would have followed Dan's lead on this proposal. The G7 corps did not accept the proposal. They have their own agenda and are working from a different playbook. They already decided back in 2010 that they do not want Dan to lead. If someone is dead set on a particular path, there is not much that can be proposed that would dissuade them from it. Even if it is to their own detriment.

Department of Transportation. Thought this was going to be a thread about trucks and busses.

This is now the Monster Corollary to the CI Theory. First you need to finish in the top 3 to qualify - then you need a Monster to win. Interesting.

I understand your concern about the spread. But - Consider the fact that a spread of 1.0 is not that hard to acheive if each of the 10 judges has corps A ranked over corps B in each caption. Judges do not like to give ties in their caption - otherwise it appears they cannot make a call between the two corps. If each judge has A over B by 0.1 - voila - a 1.0 spread. Not saying that's what happened on Saturday night - but I wouldn't read too much into a spread of a point.

Cannot agree more. There is a lot to like in 2012.

The price was $65 all summer - and just got lowered to $40. I do not consider $65 close to $100. Just saying.

Using two examples from your predictions: Cavaliers are in serious danger of falling out of the top 7. Last time they were in 8th or below was 1984. That was 28 years ago. Ask the Cavies if they think they're being "slotted" this year. Crossmen are making noise about making finals again - after having been out of finals since 2004. They are making that jump from 17th place last year (and the year before). The last time a jump like that happened was 1994 to 1995 when Carolina Crown went from 17 to 11 in one season. That was 17 years ago. Yea - you're right. The new system is having no effect. Nothing ever changes.

When was the last time that the Scouts beat the Cavaliers?