U27athecopa

What were the results?

The is a lot of good dialogue here. I believe that the system should remain a scaffolded system with Div II/III on different sheets. This works well for WGI that there are differences in sheets and one set of criteria is "nested" within the other set as it ascends. Sure, there will be groups withing Div II/III (or the new class name) that "punch through" and, if on the same sheets could exceed a Division I Corps, but if everything is made to be the same - much of the original intent becomes lost.

I am compelled to say that an over-riding issue that "plays" into this dicussion is the relationship between Div I and Div II/III. DCI has done a lot of good work over the years, but their performance in housing corps and other issues surrounding finals in California is proof that there is a lot that DCI fails to forecast. I am bringing this up because it is critical that DCI recognizes the fact that any segment of the Drum Corps Community that is weakened, will eventually weaken Division I. This leads toward this discussion because, while Division II/III does not affect Div I directly, the fact that Div II/III is one more mechanism that may give people exposure to drum corps, and help further the goals of the Music Merchants Association (NAMM) along with DCI's sponsors strengthens drum corps for all - REGARDLESS of how many performers actually transition from Div II/III to Div I. That said, this change being discussed needs to be embraced for a whole set of reasons that are not even being mentioned. This change suggests the potential to go from fragmentation, to a more organic structuring of drum corps. The reason Div I corps should accept will boil down to their own learning curve. Some of them are mistaking their own increased capacity to handle funding and raise money for the fact that drums corps has somehow become financially healthy <laugh>. It has not. Hopefully, everyone can get past the relabeling that is being suggested and recognize that this whole proposal is an OPPORTUNITY. Slightly "off the wall" I realize, but that's my "two cents". DV

This is, in the "long run" a sound financial decision. Let's face it - these days finances be "jumpstarted" for the activity to be healthy. I think that this decision, assuming DCI ratifies it, needs to be "marketed" and "promoted" in a positive way that brings all Div II/III corps into as much agreement as possible. I don't mean the Directors - they were the ones that voted on it - but the Directors may need to be empowered to sell this to their members. Hopefully, the Directors took the time to uncover any hidden issues that this could affect such as housing, scheduling and such - which should all be OK, yet it is always the lack of "vision quest" that creates situations in which "we should of thought of that..." Overall - I like it!

That is a fair question. I plead "guilty" to assuming you are on the periphery of these circumstances. So let me ask you to educate me - what actions have you taken to try and change (or improve) the situation about which I interpret you to be "bitter?" DV

Tom, While I agree with some of the more objective facts you have stated, I find it fascinating how badly you want to control this situation and how it seems to command a great deal of your mental energy. Why not evolve from lip service and get involved enough to do something about it? A word of caution - if you get involved, you might need to have an open mind. DV

Hi Mike, I agree, you are trying to find stories on Division II and III but seem to get little feedback in spite of the fact that I have heard Div II/III folks gripe that they don't get enough credit! David V.