cixelsyd

Not sure what to conclude from this. Are you saying that the tick system contributed to the score variations back in the day?

Another reply to Slingerland: I do not consider the Troopers discussion "beating up" on them. I gave my opinion previously on how Pioneer has been treated in these discussions - more like neglect than abuse. We have seen far more abusive posts on them in other threads in the past.

Regarding the Troopers in 2006: My understanding is that the Troopers had their DCI membership revoked by unanimous vote of the other member corps. But since plenty of corps compete in DCI shows as non-members, that option was still available to the Troopers in 2006. Had the corps tried to enter 2006 competition, that might have triggered an evaluation, and there is no telling what level of touring or which class they would have been allowed into. The corps decided instead to take a year off, bring in new management, and deal with the issues that caused the loss of member status. In doing that, they were able to pass evaluation and regain access to world-class status upon their return in 2007, and later earned their membership status back as well.

A reply to Slingerland: And here is where I am coming from - DCI also has a defined mission. But go on. Is that because the several million dollars DCI returns to corps is "pathetically small", or is it because the expenses of the corps have grown to become ridiculously large? I hope you do not expect competing drum corps to become profitable ventures. No matter how much money DCI pays out to corps, the corps are going to continue raising their own funds as part of their natural drive to compete with each other. By definition, then, DCI will never cover 100% of the operating expenses of the corps. Since we already have such a model (WC and OC), all we are really debating is how to cut the deck. Maybe part of the reason you make this an issue is due to this belief you stated in another post: I have no idea where you get the impression that DCI pitches every drum corps as being equally skilled. That goes out the window the instant they begin announcing scores. Additionally, DCI defines differences between world class and open class right there on DCI.org.

Creating this thread as a place to continue the discussions in the previous "Tour of Champions 2013" thread that were deemed off-topic.

What? I think you misunderstood me. I know DCI judging is subjective, as are the criteria.

Just applying the same standard as those who nit pick at the SoundSport press release. Which brings up another point. You keep referring to the G7 proposal, which is nice information for those few of us drum corps nuts here. Most people will never look at the G7 proposal. The press releases are the only information that most people see.

Never said that, Slingy. You call that clear? I cannot tell anything from those car model names. Like everyone else, I have to look at the features/prices to find what I am looking for.

First of all, the context of this thread was to compare annual results, not results of single events. But more importantly, it is still incumbent on the competitor to outperform their previously superior competition to create diverse results in an objectively scored contest. I think many sports have more diverse pools of winners due to the nature of the sport, and the idea that in some cases, the sport was purposely created to be a close competition (unlike art/sports, which are not created solely for that purpose).

Not having seen the figure skating examples, I would have to ask if any of these repeat champion skaters were actually that uniquely good that those streaks of titles were fully earned. Not to mention, what were all the other placements? I hear ice dancing has had a long and inflexible order of placement that might actually remind one of DCI, but what about the singles and pairs?

Let me refresh your memory, then. You also said this: In that post alone, you identified at least six factors in the context of how corps should be separated. One (the Pioneer reference) identified competitive standing as a factor. If that is what you want, there is no need to even mention anything else in that context. But it would appear from your earlier post here that you also want to separate: a. corps interested in touring less b. smaller corps c. community-based corps d. corps with less experienced members e. corps with younger members Rather than have me speculate, I will let you clarify. Going back to the latest post: Well, you have objected to the idea of dividing classes based on both competitive placement and financial resources. You said DCI cannot have a clear marketing focus unless they are selling the top 16-18 corps in a distinct division. Adding any other factor into the equation leads to situations where a top corps might be left out on that account. Who said that? My point is that making other remarks about size, age, touring and other characteristics, and basing an entire vision for DCI divisions and membership cutoff on these characteristics without even fact-checking them demonstrates a dismissive mindset toward those corps. Oh, there is hope for you after all. If you can steer clear of the stereotypes, you can make a better case for yourself. And then you step right back into it. How can that be? Drum corps do not compete against high school marching bands, so there is no such "metric". Therefore, trying to claim this as a "metric" only puts you in a "very messy messaging position", as you say. Now, no one knows precisely which corps you are referring to in the first place, as there is an ongoing debate over which corps are more proficient than which bands. So that debate flares up again. Meanwhile, remarks just like this are used as derisive stereotypes all the time. Someone who wants to take a cheap shot at Pioneer can come along and say they are no better than a HS band, so why would anyone want to march there, blah blah blah. Evidently, you are aware of this, as you already felt that qualifying your statement was warranted (this time). Why make that statement in the first place? All the corps? I am all ears.

Because it recurs among people who share most of the G7 point of view, like yourself, Slingerland, and whoever wrote the G7 proposal and put Pioneer in class AA with a question mark, while other better WC corps were relegated to class AAA. Good for you. The activity needs people like you. Then why do you go on and on about age, average age, minimum age, age of drumline, head count, number of shows, number of ageouts, number of weeks on the road, and other things when what you are really interested in is simply competitive placement? If all you want is to go back to the system where the top X corps were the member corps, just say so and leave it at that.

We have a winner - it is the Cascades. You get to ask the next question.

Drum corps judging was not new in 1972. If the newness of DCI mattered, then 1972-3-4 would have been more volatile than the preceding years. Do you think it was? You keep using the word "objective" when we have a subjective judging system. But if I substitute the word "consistent" for "objective", I think I follow you. Do I have that right?

No. So you are saying that subjective judging yields less diverse results (i.e. slotting) because they either miss mistakes or evaluate them differently for different corps? You may be correct there. But I would not settle for that state of affairs. Subjective judging should yield valid results. If enough mistakes are being missed, maybe judging needs to be improved to fix that.

No. One other corps should be, apparently (Oregon Crusaders), because they have in fact expressed interest, and subsequently passed evaluation to enter WC in 2013.

Not necessarily. There are many existing groups that could do SoundSport. No, the fan voting was completely separate from the judging process. Unless it figures into the official contest results, it is not part of the judging process. By your definition, a thread here on DCP could be part of the judging process.

What is with this Pioneer derangement syndrome? I see a pattern of behavior here among those promoting the G7 point of view. It is a derision for the lower placing corps so deep that these people cannot even bring themselves to spend the time and attention to get their facts straight. Derisive comments and stereotypes about corps with allegedly younger members without actually knowing how old any of them are. Derisive comments and stereotypes about point spreads and placements without even looking at the scores. Derisive comments and stereotypes about major league vs. minor league without even considering that the expectations of world class have been defined by the DCI membership (G7 included). Derisive comments and stereotypes about how a corps "tours a bit" without even checking to find that they did 21 events vs. the Blue Devils doing 22. These people just want to dismiss those "other corps", figuratively and literally, proposing they be removed from DCI. Yet when asked for justification, they present a jumble of "facts" that prove untrue. If the basis for these proposals is factually incorrect, why should these proposals be seriously considered?

How is that? Scores from 2012 prelims: Oregon Crusaders 75.9 Blue Devils B 73.45 Vanguard Cadets 72.95 Spartans 69.35 Gold 66.35 Pioneer 66.2 7th Regiment 64.45 Genesis 63.5 Legends 63.4 Music City 62.85 Raiders 61.05 Colt Cadets 57.95 Stentors 52.75 Blue Saints 49.1 Pioneer would have been 6th, not 9th. Did you even look before posting?

I do not understand. SoundSport events are also in the future. The fans did not "participate in the judging process". They had a separate vote by text message.

So you have no idea what age the Pioneer members are? Nice.

Because that was my point - all he has is a hypothesis.

I thought their primary function was to run shows, not make money for corps. UPDATE: It appears DCI might already be returning 40% of revenue to the corps.

They did not get behind the DCI business plan of 2009. If voices here are any indication, things will be no different today. At least seven-ty percent!

The G7, "The 7", 7, Music in Motion, Inc., and Tour of Champions still have not even fleshed out what trade name they want to use. But they had no issues with rushing out a press release on May 19, 2010, to blunt the possible bad vibes from their G7 proposal. This press release touted a new event format that had not been invented yet, promising such things as "fan participation in the judging process" which still have not been developed three years later. I take it, then, that you have even harsher criticism for the G7, yes?