garfield
-
Posts
14,925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
109
Posts posted by garfield
-
-
9 minutes ago, Continental said:
$12,000 shotgun?
"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.
-
10 minutes ago, Continental said:
That's nice that you are supporting that. I didn't know that colleges had shotgun teams.
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?
-
4 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:
Don’t have that much ammo but that’s part of my home security system. Or as co worker who teaches gun safety said “if you hear someone in the next room, just aim for the sound. Drywall and pellets can be very painful”.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Continental said:
Why does your son need to practice shoot for college?
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Continental said:
If you don't work at Target, maybe you should take that bulls eye off your back.
I just bought 12,500 rounds of 12ga shotgun ammo for my son to practice shoot for college.
Shotguns don't need targets.
Heh.
-
9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
and the NCAA did that to subtly fight Varsity. hasn't really slowed Varsity down because they'll claim the title NCAA chose is different.
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.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
you mean like the many stories of judges in many circuits being told what to give groups? that's not in any rulebooks
So, what you're describing is not a Varsity problem, but a systemic judging problem? "Most judges can be bought", kind of thing?
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
just saying this: and yes, Varsity manufacturers props,..........yeah thats all you need right there.
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.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:
Well, I hate to say this, but new evidence suggests that garfield and MikeD may be right after all. Not sure yet. Need to read some more. But I'm definitely seeing a future where I write Matt Stoller and ask him to explain himself.
For those who want to solve this mystery on their own, here's a hit: Mary Ann Powers.
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
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:
Also what do you make of this statement from the closing argument (p. 38) by the attorney for Quinnipiac University?
"You may recall about how the team used some pompoms in the one 45-second portion of one performance during the year in which they were actually required by Jeff Webb's company to use those pompoms, which by the way he also sold to the participants."
Is he saying that there was just one year in which teams were required to use pompoms?
Or is he saying that there was a year in which teams were required to use Varsity's pompoms?
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.
-
7 hours ago, MikeD said:
This seems to be the statement in question. It can be read in all sorts of ways, with the commas and semi-colon.
"Page 32: During the “spirit” portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives."
You could read it like this:
"Page 32: During the “spirit” portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives."
I tend to look at it that way. the statement in red is the primary statement, with the green showing pom poms as an example of a prop, and yes, Varsity makes them. Does not mean the unit gets points for using Varsity props over other props; it does mean the spirit competition does awards points for props in general.
I guess some here read it this way:
"Page 32: During the “spirit” portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives."
In that reading, the red text shows that props made by Varsity will enhance the score of the unit. The green is just one example of a prop. Personally, I find that interpretation to be silly, but that is just MHO.
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 rulingof her transcription to make this very important point as specific as possible.But those presumptions would be potentially changing the judges intent.
-
8 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:
Naturally.
Does anyone know if that judge is still available for comment? Maybe we can get him to explain what he meant.
ooooohhhhh, I wonder if....
-
2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:
I hate to be a pest about this, but we need to be clear that still haven't seen Jeff Webb's actual words on the relationship between props and scoring at Varsity's competitions.
All we have seen are the words of the judge and the attorney for the defendants in the case in which Webb appeared as a witness.
Most people interpret those words as indicating that in at least one event, higher scores were awarded to those groups that used Varsity's pom-poms.
You have offered an alternate and not unreasonable reading of the judge's words. You may yet be shown to be right about that, but at the moment, you do seem to be pretty much alone in that interpretation.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:
As garfield says, given they have no expertise in this field, then presumably the former if they are hoping to make inroads beyond selling uniforms.
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?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, keystone3ply said:
Having witnessed this company for some 25+ years as an educator, their simple goal is to use this "cool" & "hip" branding of "SoundSport" by DCI and bring it to the secondary school market as an alternative to local, state, & national competitions for school band programs. In turn, it will give them much more exposure & a possible "monopoly" for their products.
Could their exposure bring a new opportunities? Possibly, but time will tell the story with the directors "buying in" and/or "drinking their Kool-Aide". I just think some of us are missing the "big picture". Something about the "forest for the trees"? (This is not directed at N.E Brigand.)
Did anyone know that "SoundSport" is also a wireless headphone product from Bose? I wonder now about the copyright, etc. I do see the copyright logo on the DCI product & it looks like Bose markets their product as "SoundSport Free" & "Wireless".
Copyright!? SPONSORSHIP!
😀
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:
No.
I have considerable appreciation for the contribution VFW/AL have made to the activity over the decades. But when it comes to the specific issue I commented on, I find it silly to insist that 50 state championships and one national should be the model. It worked for VFW/AL because they were already having conventions in each state anyway.
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.
-
19 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:
Maybe there is more to it than that. But if not, it still establishes a business model to reward use of props, while simultaneously profiting from the sale of those same props.
Getting back to an earlier contention of yours...
... but you can learn from them without going to all the trouble and risk of a contractual partnership venture. For instance, the example here teaches that perhaps more money can be made by taking greater ownership/market share of the supplies required to compete effectively in your activity. To restate that in DCI strategic plan language, DCI could "generate new revenue streams" by getting into the uniform/costume business. Or props. Or tarps. Or mixing board carts hardened for outdoor use. Or even the manufacture of horns and drums.
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.
-
42 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:
Maybe there is more to it than that. But if not, it still establishes a business model to reward use of props, while simultaneously profiting from the sale of those same props.
Getting back to an earlier contention of yours...
... but you can learn from them without going to all the trouble and risk of a contractual partnership venture. For instance, the example here teaches that perhaps more money can be made by taking greater ownership/market share of the supplies required to compete effectively in your activity. To restate that in DCI strategic plan language, DCI could "generate new revenue streams" by getting into the uniform/costume business. Or props. Or tarps. Or mixing board carts hardened for outdoor use. Or even the manufacture of horns and drums.
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.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
when you do DCP you do DCP all the way from your first cigarette to your last dying day
Like an old Michael Corleone.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:
This seems like a fair summary of what we know so far. And (excuse the pun) props to N.E. Brigand for digging through the court docs.
That said... if the allegation is that Varsity made rules that gave more points for use of Varsity products, then the evidence of that should be in their rule book.
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...)
-
8 hours ago, Jurassic Lancer said:
Yes, thank you @garfield and @N.E. Brigand for wading through these legal documents and reporting on the salient points. I don’t have the patience for it. I sincerely appreciate it.
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.
-
4 hours ago, cixelsyd said:
That sounds like VFW/AL.
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.
DCI videos on Youtube gone
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted
Varsity