cf144

I think the horses would be fine - as long as they don't leave any . . . ummmmm . . . stuff that stays on the field after the show

I think that would describe almost all of us

I'm not going to make a list of where I think everyone is going to finish. I just have one observation to make. I've been surprised by the number of people that have the Crossmen falling out of the top 12 this year - I guess based on their history over the past 10 years. There may be some "homeritis" in my thinking, but I felt that they finished turning a corner last year that they started to turn in 2012 and are on the up slope. I think that it is more likely they move up a spot or three rather than fall back out of finals.

I thought 2014 top to bottom was one of the best - if not the best - seasons in the last 15 years. Great show designs and performances basically from 20 on up. I have to say that for me it was awesome to see the Crossmen finally get rid of those uniforms they had been wearing the last 10 years. They were sharp and clean - but they weren't "Crossmen" - especially after they removed all the red from them. I mean - how can it be the Crossmen with no red on the uniform anywhere? Was also great to see them playing a show with a real groove to it.

"You have a fantastic top 5 show that will easily score in the 90's once it comes together" - pep talk given to a dejected 1985 Crossmen by a DCI judge (GE I think) after the first week or so of tour when we were doing pretty lousy. (Missed finals and finished 17th).

I would kill (not literally of course) for video from the '85 and '86 Crossmen - the years I marched. They were on youtube a few years ago but have since been taken down.

Yes, they were. Can't remember what year they broke away but once they got out from under George's thumb is when they went from a bottom-half finalist to a contender and ultimately champion. I look at Crown and dream of what could have been if the Crossmen had been able to get away sooner. There is a story floating around that much of Crown's current core staff were set to go the the Crossmen but George nixed it somehow and they went to Crown. No idea if there is any truth to the story or not.

Pretty good performance - except for the terrible echo.

Just because I think that the Crossmen are going to shock the world and win their first championship this year doesn't make me a homer!

I think your sense of direction is a little bit off.

That's one of the best scenes in the movie. Apparently, Robert Shaw was trashed when they shot it too.

Years and years ago - and enjoyed it immensely. Very offbeat and thouroughly enjoyable. hmmmmm . . . . I wonder if Netflix has it . . . .

Thanks. I think I was typing my response as you were posting your explanation. Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

I may be wrong, but I think this is a reference to the sicko church that shows up to protest at funerals of fallen soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen with signs that say things like "G-d loves dead soldiers"

$25-30 would be cheap. Tickets between the 20's at PPL park in Chester, PA this summer for 7 corps is $50-125.

I was not trying to address anything other than should or would DCI pull out of Indy in response to the new law. My conclusion was and remains a resounding "no" for the reason I mentioned (contract and the likely costs associated with attempting to break it). Whether DCI loves the law, vehemently opposes the law or is somewhere in between - their contract with Indy and their duty to the activity precludes them from leaving Indy as doing so could very likely be a suicidal act for them. Surely no one at any part of the spectrum of viewpoints on this issue wants that.

I've been following this thread and even made a few points, but must confess that as it drags on I haven't read every post, so forgive me if this has been mentioned. Set aside for the moment any individual biases about whether the law is OK, an aberration or indifferent. For those suggesting that DCI make a strong stand and perhaps even pull out of Indy I ask - what about their contract? If what I was told last year is correct, there are still 7 or 8 years left on the contract (I was told it was extended to 15 years). For DCI to pull out they would have to break that contract. I for one don't think that DCI should be expending their limited assets on the millions it would likely cost them when they get sued for breach of contract. Regardless of which side of the issue you may be on, I think all agree that the welfare of the activity is (or should be) DCI's top priority. Breaking the contract and pulling out would jeapordize that welfare. Now, if they want to factor in the issue (if it even still exists when the contract is running out) when deciding whether to remain in Indy or move on, that's a different story entirely. But until then, they aren't going anywhere. Nor should they.

Exactly. A private club (which is what drum corps are unless sponsored by a public entity like PAL was) can legally set any criteria it wants for membership. Private golf clubs do it all the time, and suits to try to force a club that restricts membership to men only for example always fail.

I don't see Madison or Cavies as practicing gender discrimination any more or less than other private clubs/organizations like Boy Scouts of America or Girl Scouts of America. And unless I am mistaken, a private club can make whatever membership prerequisites they choose based on any criteria that they choose.

Can't go wrong with black and red (not that I'm biased or anything )

Looks very sharp. My personal preference would be to try to get a touch of color on it somewhere. That's an awful lot of black.

OK - that statement did it. My brain officially hurts now (Monty Python reference to those who didn't grow up with them).

One of my all time favorite shows.

I would love to see your science to support that viewpoint which is one I've never heard before. As a physician who deals up close and personal on a daily basis with the ravages caused by tobacco you would be hard pressed to convince me of the merits of those claims. But I fear we are getting more than a bit off topic here.

My non-lawyer understanding of how these things work is that states have the right to make any laws that they see fit as long as they are not unconstitutional with the exception of any issues that are specifically assigned to federal authority.