garfield
-
Posts
14,925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
109
Posts posted by garfield
-
-
4 hours ago, MikeD said:
The actual court transcript of the statement by Webb, with its commas and semi-colon, does not make it clear that he is saying groups get more points for using Varsity props (i.e. pom poms). It could be read that yes, groups using props in that particular competition get more points for using props, and yes, Varsity manufacturers props, but it doesn't state that only Varsity makes props or that Varsity props get more weight than any other props.
Right. And readers are not allowed to insert or redefine any word or phrase to suit their purpose.
The correct presumption is that the judges wording is specific and, if he had meant to say that Varsity was prohibiting others by demanding only Varsity gear be worn and used, it was to his benefit to say so and not to his benefit to omit it if it were fact.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
There is one looming problem for Varsity. Last year, the NCAA, which controls college athletics, established a cheerleading-like sport called “Acrobatics and Tumbling,” and placed control of the sport not under Varsity but under scandal-ridden USA Gymnastics. In other words, the only thing that has stopped Varsity was another more powerful monopoly.
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/this-is-not-a-democracy-its-a-cheerocracy
And doesn't that, therefor and by definition, state that Varsity is NOT a monopoly if such a decision even CAN be made?
Does "scandal-ridden" describe Varsity or its competitor? Is the NCAA lauded for this move?
And I presume it's one that the anti-Varsity crowd applauds, but it sounds like the NCAA is getting into bed with an even worse org than Varsity.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
yes but scholastic circuits don't.
But DCI isn't scholastic. So the whole linear argument that Varsity will do with non-scholastic programs what they already do with scholastic programs is a presumption, not fact or even based in fact.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
see a few posts up. quote and article link provided
Again, circular support quoting and re-quoting a statement doesn't make it patently true. Quoting lay-people's opinions as a counter to that of a judge and the law isn't proof or evidence, it's just opinion.
I'll take the judge's opinion as the one society must respect until/unless it's overturned.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
i have done a lot of reading their business model. How'd that work out for ma bell?
You mean the company that continued for 106 years before it was broken up, and then for another 37 years since? I don't know; the dividend is pretty good and they have a LOT of copper and the real-estate that it hangs from in front of most houses.
Pretty well for Alexander G. Bell. Not so much for those of us who were expecting lower prices, better service, and more competition after the split up.
[Careful, just fair warning: the Bell Telephone "split up" was the first full-blown case analysis I did for real in 1984. I used that work to address exactly your question in 1994 at U of Penn. My final answer? It worked out pretty darn well (depending on how one measures "success") for the original players and for the industry, which eventually spawned the companies that we use today. Is the claim now that Ma Bell's breakup has resulted in everyone today being fabulously in love with their phone provider, lower prices, better service? And, if you'd care to discuss what happened to each of the "baby bells" as a result of the this fabulous idea to break up the Bell System... So, please don't try to convince anyone that every breakup of a claimed monopoly is good for society, or that breaking up Varsity, or preventing it from its (so far proven legal) business practices is going to automatically be better for the cheer industry.]-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
i'm all for competition. Varsity isn't and in their own ruebook they state if your group is found to compete in a competitors circuit, you'll get disqualified.
so hey Ronald reagan, you compete here and BOA....we dq you.
Hmmm... sounds like DCI is partnering up with a company that thinks exactly as they do!
(See my earlier post about DCI forbidding performances (EDIT for clarity: with other drum corps) outside of DCI-sanctioned functions.)
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
There’s more than blocking advertising and distribution at these competitions. Webb admitted that in at least one contest, cheerleaders got more points if they used more Varsity equipment as props. In other words, it’s not just a rigged game as some sort of metaphor, Varsity actually rigged the rules of its cheerleading competition to coerce purchases of Varsity products. Indeed, Webb has testified in court that the competitions exist solely for the “promotion of his cheerleading supply business.”
you're welcome
Cut and paste from the same couple of 5-year old articles citing ten year old testimony that circularly support one another's contentions? That's the "proof"? Pfft. Crappy research, IMO. More like a circle-jerk. And most researchers point those they're trying to convince to actual paragraphs and sentences - not whole articles that they have to weed through to find the one supporting piece of evidence. I presume this is the paragraph that keeps getting repeated:
"Webb’s 2010 testimony, however, implies that Varsity actually views cheerleading as less than a sport. He testified that Varsity’s competitions were established only for “promotion of his cheerleading supply business.” In one competition, Webb admitted, teams received more points if they used more Varsity merchandise as props."
Also from the provided "research":
"According to Leigh Buchanan in Inc., “Teams appearing in Varsity competitions can wear whatever uniforms they want. But rival apparel makers can’t show their wares at those events, which are important showrooms for cheer merchandise.”
And this person quoted who believed at the time of the comment in 2014): "
This level of control hasn’t gone unnoticed. As one person in the cheerleading world sarcastically put it in 2014:
“Shocking that they don’t have officially sanctioned Varsity make-up, underwear, and no-show socks yet (or maybe they do, who knows?) I can foresee the Varsity Secret Police (the same ones that patrol the lobbies of non-STP hotels looking for girls in bows & bling) checking each athlete in warm-ups to make sure they are wearing Varsity brand hair clips and rubber bands.”
OK, "shocking", but they don't.
"You're welcome" before "Thank You" is snark, but not unexpected.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, E3D said:
I'm going to go back and read the DCI announcement for Varsity sound-sport and reevaluate my position. I currently and previously held or hold the opinion that its a good thing. Still don't see the problem.
You and the devil, always advocating...
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:
No problem. Here's why it matters:
One part of your argument is that because that document was a "complaint" by a party opposed to Varsity, it must therefore paint Varsity in the worst possible light.
But it's nothing of the sort. Even if it were the initial complaint by the plaintiffs in the case, rather than the ruling the judge made in the case, the plaintiffs were not suing Varsity.
This document is not someone laying out the strongest case against Varsity. Far from it.
Hmmm... (pulling my chin...)
Firstly, my use of the word "complaint" in this doc must be filtered as you stated as a memorandum of the facts that went into the decision. You are correct that this is the judge's interpretation of the facts that formed the opinion to make the order at the end. The facts, as he sees, do show two components: one is that non-Varsity props were allowed at Varsity events and the other is that teams received more points for using more props.
-
Just now, N.E. Brigand said:
Before we get further into this, I do want to thank you for providing that link.
You're welcome, and I'm glad to have your eyes reading it - it's fascinating and boring at the same time. I suggest using their index and paragraph markers.
I would also suggest reading the class action currently on file. It's contentions are spelled out pretty clearly. Thankfully, class actions aren't protected by a presumption of confidentiality so the claims, defenses, and counter-claims will be easier to get. Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer; I'm barely a decent human being if you ask some here but that just keeps me in the same class. Oh WAIT, did I just insult some thin-skinned lawyer out there? Awww...
-
17 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:
Let's all agree on one basic point to start: that's not a complaint.
It says right there on the first page: "Memorandum of Decision".
Yes, absolutely. I did see that. My terminology is wrong. Thank you.
-
9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
I have friends that work for those companies that do drum corps and now Varsity supplies. their words paraphrased....."this is the beginning. We'll get more and more involved."
If it's successful and profitable for all, why the heck not?
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:
What a relief! I will sleep soundly now, knowing that Varsity only wants to help DCI grow... or eliminate it. Whichever.
Well, it's not DCI, it's SoundSport. And we don't know what the deal says about outcome if it's negative.
Remember, they're not buying SS. The association can be undone as easily as it was done, right?
-
1
-
-
On 8/29/2020 at 5:07 PM, Jeff Ream said:
their owner admitted groups wearing Varsity wear score better. it's called monopoly......corner every piece of the market you can and use scoring as a way to make it happen
Again, false.
Their owner said that teams score better for using more props, not exclusively Varsity props. At the time of the article, there were more than 50 companies whose props were all allowed at Varsity events. However, those companies were not allowed to sell those props at Varsity events where Varsity was allowed to sell its own gear.
This claim is one of those where an important word (in this case) is inserted, is never challenged, and is allowed to grow into its own life as a fake truism.
If this claim were the fact, the Class Action filed would make that claim. Instead, it claims that teams were allowed to use any makers props, were awarded points for using more props, and Varsity sells props.
-
1
-
-
On 8/27/2020 at 12:41 AM, Jeff Ream said:
look at Varsitys history....they don't suffer competition. they buy competition out. it wasn't that long ago their name was all the buzz about buying what was left of YEA. Heck their own rulebook says if they find out you're at their event and competed at a competitors event, they'll disqualify you. in the link I posed, the owner admitted in court they'll give you higher scores if you use their apparel.
The DCI rulebook forbids any drum corps from participating in any performance or competition with any other member corps except at DCI sanctioned events.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
drum corps do now yes. But following Varsitys rulebook, if DCI goes all in with them, the corps won't get that option.
Again, study the Varsity business model and not the headlines. Their business M.O. is to recognize good management teams and help them become great while sharing in the resulting profit increases.
Your characterization of their business practice is flat-out wrong; apparently you view "improve" and "substitute" as synonymous. Again, look at the business of Just Briefs for your proof; your description of Varsity doesn't jibe with that specific case, and not with any case I can find of Varsity purchasing another company.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
read the article several pages back who they go after competitors one by one and eventually gobble them up.
And? That's bad how?
Only in The Globetrotters (and maybe drum corps) is fake competition created for the sake of entertainment. In the business world, competitors are squashed in real-life death matches for survival.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
drum corps do now yes. But following Varsitys rulebook, if DCI goes all in with them, the corps won't get that option.
This is that linear thinking again.
Varsity doesn't have a musical scoring rulebook.
-
2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
yet Jeff said they would score better using Varsity equipment. so who ya gonna believe?
Evidence, please, because this is patently false.
They were scored higher for using props. They were not scored higher for using Varsity props - that part is made up.
Read the claim. If those making the claim are bringing the worst with which to win, even THEY DON'T SAY THAT IN THEIR CLAIM, so who are you going to believe?
I showed research support. Still waiting for the proof of the claim that Varsity props scored higher.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
Lol you need to dig deeper. Tell me how do scholastic cheerleading groups get to vote on their rules? They don’t. They have zero say.
Not digging, Stating facts and my impressions of them.
I never suggested that cheerleading groups set their own rules.
What I'm saying is that drum corps sets its own rules, too. DCI member corps make their own rules for those very member corps to compete under. Varsity sets the rules for cheer and thousands of cheerleaders rush to compete for those titles each year. What's the difference that's meaningful and not just definitional?
Would Varsity's performance rules change dramatically if their competitors had input on the rules? Would DCI's performance rules change if the MARCHING MEMBERS had input on DCI's judging rubrics? Anecdotal, I know.
Do the band kids you judge each year have input into the judging rubric they're held against each fall weekend? What's the point of this comparison to DCI's methods?
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
Their track record says otherwise. So unless you have facts, your guessing more than I am because I researched their track record
Facts? How about first-hand experience? I have two friends who both work for a company that Varsity recently bought. This is a company that is a current supplier to the activity.
Both of these people have told me that their experience with Varsity has been nothing like what you describe. The Varsity people are there, in front of the company, asking how they, Varsity, can help this purchased company improve their financial results, what avenues for sales this company would like to develop, with actual paths for development that Varsity has already developed. Their care for the executives who run their business is top-notch, and their interest in helping the purchased company leverage Varsity's assets to help it realize its growth targets. You see, it's completely to Varsity's benefit to help their portfolio companies grow, or to meld the good ideas they buy into their existing business, or eliminate it as competition.
I would encourage the curious to search out the story of the Just Briefs, a business that tried to compete against entrenched Varsity. After several years of unsuccessfully trying to break in, Varsity bought Just Briefs and kept its founder and CEO on to run the company. Eventually, this person departed again to start Just Briefs Apparel to, again, try to compete against Varsity. Question: How much was the owner of Just Briefs paid for her company and for her time running it after it was purchased? (Varsity eventually realized that the founder was unable to improve the division's performance and shut it down in favor of Varsity's own management running a similar business more successfully. It runs today as such while Just Briefs Apparel is still attempting to position itself as a competitor in the space.
Varsity's M.O. is to recognize good management and leave them in place to make their businesses more valuable. Do they make a profit? Of course. But they also help make good companies great by offering avenues not previously available in return for a hands-off participation in the resulting growth. Anyone who is serious about private equity understands that the "leverage buyout" days of the Wall Street movie days are long gone, and the tax and business benefits of buying companies is in seeing them be successful, not in eliminating their competition.
I'm not guessing. Analyzing companies - even private companies using private equity - is my business. I have facts and I'll put my research of Varsity's "track record" against anyone's.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:
They want to own the market place, and based on their track record they don’t care who suffers
Evidence please.
I agree that they want to own the market place (doesn't everyone??). It's your evidence of their "track record" that I'd like to see.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, keystone3ply said:
Or maybe the "Varsity Spirit" has entered Dan Acheson's body & is influencing his every decision. Time to call a Priest? Or maybe Mr. Hopkins?
Interesting what you can find on the inter-web Looks like this kid is a cheerleader with strong opinions about the Varsity monopoly. Also some good links:
Anyone read the whole complaint? I have. Here's the link: http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/ctxc/KX330R32.pdf
For those of you who are curious about this notion that Varsity awarded points for teams using Varsity gear, it's not quite that way. A couple of paragraphs out of 93 pages of the actual legal complaint addresses this contention with this language:
Page 31 shows that teams were allowed to use any suppliers "props" (pom-poms, etc) but non-Varsity suppliers were not allowed to sell their wares at Varsity events.
Page 32 shows, and I quote: "During the 'spirit' portion of the competition [evidenced elsewhere in the claim as the one minute period at the beginning of competitions where teams were rewarded for inciting excitement in the crowd] cheerleading teams were awarded for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; [elsewhere in the claim is evidence that other suppliers sold props and teams were allowed to use those props]; the more props the team uses, the more points that team receives."
There was never any restriction to use only Varsity gear and nothing in the judging rubric (found on the Varsity website itself) that states using Varsity gear awards additional points.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, cixelsyd said:
The DCI rules are what the DCI member corps directors approve by their vote. Why would you suggest otherwise?
I'm really not. I am showing that those who control the activity make the rules.
Varsity is in a similar situation
DCI partnering with Varsity Performing Arts to launch "SoundSport Scholastic" events
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted · Edited by garfield
And please, while the quote does exist, and I grant your interpretation is as valid in your mind as mine is in mine, can we please keep in mind two things:
1. The very quote being challenged as the standard operating procedure for Varsity states "At < ONE > ..." event. Webb said "ONE" event out of the hundreds of events (thousands?) that Varsity programs promote, and
2. My understanding and belief are taken from, and backed by, the very words of the judge. I'm not interested in debating possible interpretations of his grammar and syntax and I'm presuming that the verbiage, syntax, and grammar have been combed through in minutia by the parties that were directly affected, and some massively and financially, by the decision.
I mean, I love to BS scenarios and, for FUN, I'm perfectly willing to enter into a banter about "what ifs" the activity might face and what its leader should do UPOD. But, in the end, I'm not so passionate about the discussion that I care to risk losing friends or spurring the scorn of anyone, for that matter.