jasgre2000

Is DCI struggling to keep things together? I have always been under the impression that DCI, as an organization, was doing just fine financially. There may be individual corps that are struggling, but do we have evidence that DCI is on the verge of going under? What would a group of private investors do to help?

Nice rebuttal. If you want to talk about being condescending, you need to look in the mirror. You don't even address anyone that dares to suggest you are wrong (a pattern I have notice over several threads).

Oh ... so you are one of those guys.

What? What is circular about saying that we haven't reached the point of diminishing returns? And please show me where I said spending has no impact on creativity. I have never said that. I have said that spending is not what causes success in drum corps, but I have never said it has no impact on design and creativity. If you think design/creativity is the only thing that distinguishes the best corps from the weaker corps then you might have a point. I don't agree with that though. It is only one of many things that impact success.

Sorry that I don't spend my entire life here. I came across the thread and thought I would throw in my two cents. And you are only upset because you can't effectively rebut my argument. Stop crying and tell me where I am wrong.

Did I say that? Nope. Notice that I began the sentence with "if." The idea that corps that spend more are better than others is the basic premise of the spending cap argument. If spending didn't matter, why would we need a spending cap?

????

Which corps outside of the G7 helped Crown get to where they are now? What are you talking about?

It's not a universal truth, but more often than not it is true. It is common sense. Of course bad management (or geography) can squander an opportunity to take advantage of raising money off success. But it is simply ignorant to suggest that success doesn't allow corps to raise more money. This is economics 101.

Please show me where this is really a problem. When there is a problem with this, then we can discuss it.

Ergo nothing. That doesn't follow at all. Of course there is a point where more spending yields little to no increase in creativity. But we are nowhere near that point in drum corps. It takes time and talent to design great drum corps shows. If you don't pay the best designers to spend their time and talent to do it, they will spend their time doing something else more profitable to themselves.

This is key. Why does a salary cap work in the NFL? Because the NFL has a monopoly on elite football talent and the opportunity cost for not playing football when you are an elite football talent is relatively low. In other words, if you are an elite football talent, and can command a multi-million dollar salary even with the cap in place, then it is very likely (almost certain) that your best career opportunity is to play in the NFL. You are unlikely to be able to make more money in some other career. If the salary cap was set at a level where most elite NFL players would be better off not playing in the NFL and pursuing some other career, then the salary cap would destroy the activity. How does this apply to drum corps? Well ... the only place it really makes sense to cap spending is on designer costs (most staff members don't get paid anything anyways, so talking about them having their salaries capped is silly). In terms of parity, it makes some sense to tell everyone they have to cap their spending on staff and designers at a certain level. In order to make this "fair" (according to the definition of fairness the spending cap proponents throw around), the cap would have to be low enough to allow Pioneer and The Cascades to pay the max amount on staff/designers if they want to. So what happens in that case? Designers stop designing (or they stop spending as much time and effort designing, knowing they won't be compensated for the fair value of their work). This makes the general quality of design worse off. It brings the design level down to the level of design that Pioneer and Cascades have. It may even cause corps not to employ professional designers at all (I imagine many of the corps with less financial ability have their directors designing their shows). It destroys a market for great design that would exist without the silliness that would be a spending cap. The only time a salary/spending cap makes sense is when there is a significant amount of producer surplus, and elasticity is low. This means that a salary cap only makes sense when you can cap spending without losing talent. That is nowhere close to true with drum corps and this discussion should end there.

Huh? I never said what caused success on the field. Clearly it isn't as easy as just choosing to be successful. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that when you perform better, you can raise more money. This is true in every single money-making/raising organization in the world. When you put a good product in the market, you make more money. This is common sense. A 10 year old could tell you that.

Maybe different people are making different arguments. And yet ... both arguments undermine your spending cap nonsense. What do you really think will be accomplished with a spending cap? Will it make weak corps better? Will it cause more skilled marchers go to weaker corps? Are people choosing corps based on how much they spend? I really don't get your theory. Salary caps make sense when talent is based almost entirely on salary. In the NFL, you play where you will make the most money possible. It is completely different in drum corps. First, marchers are not paid anything (they have to pay money). Second, marchers are all free agents and can go wherever they want (are you going to restrict free agency to make sure weaker corps get to hold on to people they want?). Third, spending is very tangential to why marchers choose to go to one corps over another. The best corps are the corps that attract the best marchers/talent. The best talent go to the corps that have the best history of success (and where they are marching with other people that are among the best in the world). When a corps is successful, they make more money through fundraising, sponsorship, and product sales. This allows them to spend more. Spending is at the end of the line ... it isn't causing anything. Please tell us how a spending cap will make anyone better.

What is the point of raising money you can't spend?

Bingo. Notice that there is NO salary cap for coaches or staff in any competitive league that I am aware of. If we were paying kids to march in corps, that would be one thing. Otherwise, none of this makes any sense.

The only way that is true is if you set the spending cap so low that everyone could spend the max amount if they want to. That would cause DCI to fold.

How are the corps not "equal under the rules"? What rule favors rich corps? What on earth are you talking about?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Success on the field breeds success in the bank account. You have everything absolutely backwards.

Exactly. I think Crown is the perfect example of this. Crown is a relatively recent success story in DCI. They didn't "steal" any talent from other corps, they built their success and are now seeing the payoff. This is true in any competitive activity. Stifling excellence is not the way to make bad corps better.

Huh? That isn't how the NCAA works. In fact, most college football teams (if not all) get their uniforms (and equipment) free from Nike, Adidas, or Under Armour. You'll need to find a better example than the NCAA to support this silly idea.

If money is the reason why corps like Pioneer aren't competitive, do we really want to bring everyone else down to that level? Really? How is this even debatable?

The spending caps in professional sports (for the few leagues that actually have them) are high enough to allow each team to be elite if they want to be. If there is a spending cap for Drum Corps it should be like $5 Million per corps. I think that would be reasonable. Anything less will artificially punish good corps for absolutely no gain to anyone else.

Ummm ... no we haven't. We have only done it in TWO professional sports (football and basketball). It works great for football, where each team brings in billions every year. It doesn't work so well in basketball. Nothing else does it. Please know what you are talking about next time.

Seriously? Do you really think Bingo is the only way there is to raise money? If that is the excuse people are giving for why some groups have more money than others, they are lying. There are tons of ways to raise money that don't involve gambling. This is the perfect example of how poor management is to blame for low revenue groups.