garfield

Varsity

"Why, you didn't think you could wear THOSE shoes to tumble/march in, did you?" Noooooo! https://www.kolararms.com/kolar-shotguns-and-specifications/ Last year he shot 17,000 rounds in competition and about that many more in practice. To take the kind of abuse, a "normal" shotgun is like a pair of Keds on the marching field. His is a "mid-priced" competition shotgun. I, myself, have shot (don't own, thank God) 100 rounds through a sporting clays shotgun that cost $45,000 new, and grew in value to over $70,000 by the time I shot it when it was 4 years old. Drum corps, field hockey, travel soccer, travel shooting... they all take lots and lots of money. Enter Varsity.

https://www.usashooting.org/membership/youth-programs/youth-shotgun/scholastic-clay-target-program It's surprisingly popular. They fly and drive all over the country to compete in skeet, trap, sporting clays ("golf with shotguns") and FITASC. The non-scholastic version is the NSCA. It's amazingly like cheer except they shoot from a 5-stand pyramid (instead of making one), there's the $12,000 shotgun, 50 cases of ammo at $60/case twice per year (for practice), $700 shooting glasses, $300 hearing protection, range cases, travel hard cases, vests, hats, and gloves not to mention travel costs. Oh, and did I mention private shooting lessons (think ScoJo with bigger drum sticks)? Yes, in FLORIDA, for three days at $270 per hour. I wonder if Varsity is interested in the scholastic shooting sports, too?

There are two sounds a burglar won't mess with: a barking (big) dog, and the reload action of a pump shotgun. My security system is connected to a "bark box" that sits just inside the garage and sounds uncannily like a german shepard. It barks loud when the motion detector trips. I don't think I'll bother trying to record the sound of my Ithaca 37 pump action.

He shoots competitively for the college shotgun team. He got a substantial scholarship (he's a better shooter than snare drummer) to shoot that's worth many times more than the cost of the ammo so, for us, it's an investment in his college that's cheaper than tuition.

Related: I was speaking with a commercial insurance provider of mine and discussing that Varsity provides insurance and a requirement that all contestants stay in the same hotel. His response: "Well, if I were insuring an activity the very first thing I'd do is control the venue and the kids' egress from the performance venue. Lock them down and keep control of them is the first priority in making sure you don't have to pay a claim." So, an UNPROVEN scenario might be that Varsity isn't corralling the performers in one authorized hotel to make a profit on hotel rooms but is, instead, controlling its liability under the insurance it writes for performers. Very interesting. I like my insurance guy.

I just bought 12,500 rounds of 12ga shotgun ammo for my son to practice shoot for college. Shotguns don't need targets. Heh.

Yes, which, again, proves that DCI is not a monopoly. I'm no legal authority, but it would seem a very high bar to prove a monopoly in an industry where, apparently, the barrier to entry is only scale. Scale is not anti-competitive, exactly as the NCAA proved by creating their own.

So, what you're describing is not a Varsity problem, but a systemic judging problem? "Most judges can be bought", kind of thing?

I usually get your more obtuse posts but this one eludes me. Are you saying simply that the fact that Varsity sells props is all the proof we, et al, need to be convinced that Varsity is guilty of "score-fixing" based on prop requirements? Honest question and I'm only cautious about not speaking for you.

You "hate to" say that I might be right (along with MikeD and the rest of the silent masses)? Really? Is that Freudian? BTW, Matt Stoller's interest is, of course, in promoting his books and notions on monopolies. Naturally his opinions on Varsity are biased and naturally he'll find "facts" that support his claim. edited

I can only infer by the context of the discussion on pgs 37 & 38 that the one performance of every cheer competition where teams were required by the rules to use pom poms and other gear to incite the crowds excitement. The more props used, the better the score. Varsity sells props. Also, it's clear that court transcripts and chock full of typos and, as such, presumed syntax errors. The judges summary, retyped and reviewed, presumably by its nature is meant to remove those errors of syntax for clear interpretation and understanding of the testimony. I'm not sure where your scoop nose is taking you with Mary Ann's testimony but I'm all a-flutter waiting for your results.

I'm no English major, but I was taught that proper comma placement requires that the sentence still makes sense when what's between the commas is removed. If "...such as pom poms..." and "...sold by Varsity..." were meant to be tied together, there would not be a comma between them. As in "..., such as pom poms sold by Varsity Brands: the more Varsity props a team uses... Also, if the judge wanted to tie together the score a team receives and the props used, the sentence after the semi-colon would have read: "...; the more VARSITY props a team uses, the more points..." As much as it's reasonable to presume that the court's secretary who typed the judge's dictation may, or may not, be an English major, it's also reasonable to presume that the judge reviewed the syntax of his ruling of her transcription to make this very important point as specific as possible. But those presumptions would be potentially changing the judges intent.

ooooohhhhh, I wonder if....

Of course you love being a pest. "Most" and "alone" are both relative and extreme at the same time. "Alone", of course, except for the judge.

I wonder, after all of this, is the OP really reflecting the OP's concern for WGI? Because the most direct competitor to Varsity/SS is WGI. Defending DCI against Varsity may actually be only a blocking move to protect WGI from Varsity. After all, DCI isn't scholastic.

Thinking a specialty line of musical instruments is probably not realistic. First, BD tried it and, second, there are a bazillion other things not analog music production related that could be considered. Surely almost all guard gear, electronics, prop design, manufacturing, leasing, and storage, truck design, kitchen facilities, and YES, even accommodations could all be areas where DCI could make and brand it's own gear. At least one here believes doing so crosses "the line" and reduces DCI's cred to be not much above professional wrestling (interestingly, another billion dollar activity). I'm not so sure. Great experiences for kids costs money. We're discussing how to provide that money but, thanks Occam, someone somewhere has to pay for it. Creative demand must be fed, right?

Copyright!? SPONSORSHIP! 😀

Yes, sorry for my misdirect. I agree. DCI has an opportunity via Covid and via the potential Varsity association to reimagine what an ACTUAL long-term strategic plan might look like and have some avenues for funding that doesn't require the corps pitch in current cash (when they can't afford it) to make it work. Frankly, this feels much more to me like one of those "Signs" of life that the activity should take seriously for reasons that might not be evidently in front of it.

Absolutely, and I would suggest that what you describe is exactly why DCI was open (anxious?) to enter the discussion. Let's face it, from a revenue perspective, SS is apparently a wonderful idea that is underperforming its potential, and maybe by a lot, which might be why Varsity be interested in the first place. Sorry that it sounds blunt, but what will DCI lose if the idea tanks and VarsitySS is ignored by scholastics? Committing SS feels much more like that "baby step" you describe would be prudent for DCI.

Thank you for not taking offense at my counter. Your point here is the KEY part of the discussion that I have been loathe to bring up for fear of starting another attack by the purists. One of DCI's committee's is referred to as the "New Revenue" committee. You list many of the ideas worth salivating over if you were sitting on that committee, eh? I can't tell you how many times over the years I've heard a response to a "Sounds Crazy, Might Work" idea was "drum corps doesn't have the scale to do those things". It's not directly linear, but I think DCI's bigger problem is being relevant enough to keep Varsity's interest.

Like an old Michael Corleone.

I would encourage you to peruse the Varsity webpages - they have outstanding resources of judging rubrics (you think DCI's rules are hard to understand? Wait until you read cheers!). I have "perused" (specifically not scanned in details) to find any reference at all to criteria for costume brands used or prop brands used. I do clearly see the metrics for the "cheer" minute before the tumbling portions where teams are encouraged to use all props necessarily needed to excite the crowds and get their response levels up. Good gooly, this sounds just terrible. Terrible. Drum corps is doomed. (OK, do I really? That last was sarcasm...)

I've already been encouraged to announce my snark before I say it to avoid hurting feelings of other posters. Thereby, the next paragraph is dripping with snark and sarcasm even as I mean it to be encouraging. While I appreciate that you may feel 45 minutes listening to a Podcast of opinions is less taxing than reading the actual court documents, I would encourage you to remember that, according to many people here and elsewhere, I'm not that smart. (And, in many circumstances, I can't disagree.) Therefor, you shouldn't believe me and, at the same time see that, if I can do it, so can you. So far, darn near everything I've seen as evidence that Varsity is a bad partner is from other's opinions, and only one source needed - and obtained - are the opinions written by the courts that heard the evidence. The class-action now pending (look closely at the relationships among the plaintiffs) is also worth a discussion, but elsewhere.

EDIT: Sorry, I see you were pointing to a specific and my reply below doesn't necessarily address that specific similarity. I don't think they're far apart, though, because they both represent the basic human desire to see something good expand and grow in a controllable way. I wonder: Would drum corps as we know it even exist today but for the VFW/AL and churches that first fostered it? Would cheer be what it is had it not been for Webb? One decision (yank away from VFW/AL and we have drum corps today) and the other decision (make it profitable and engage thousands, millions world wide) resulted in a nearly two-billion-dollar organization that youngins' are, literally, hurting themselves to join. (See, I'm not wearing blinders to the reasons Webb claim(s) cheer is not a sport.) As I've chewed on this, the greatest distinction between the operating MOs is largely that drum corps is non-profit and cheer is, largely, for-profit. But in both cases, the activity is organized to craft programs that are so attractive that both kids and sponsors are willing to throw money at it to do it. And MORE kids. GLOBALLY. Hmm... AL? VFW? Varsity? Not sure it's the same at all, in fact.