garfield

Bridgemen!

Boy them are some nice drill charts if they can clean them!

Thanks for the old skool sound BS!

Nice tension moment.

The guard needs brighter flags here in the ballad. And they need to clean, clean, clean!

The more I see this show the more I like it.

Excellent audio feed tonight!

In the FN video you can't see BS's pants. Looks like white dots moving around th field. Interesting way to watch drill when you don't see the feet!

I think Vaticinate's study yields lots of interesting stuff, and as I've read it, now, several times I see a couple of interesting points: 30% of the top 6 corps MM's come from an Open Class background. 31% of the top 6 corps MM's come from other WC corps. 44% of the activity's MM are in their first year as marchers. Now project these simple statistics onto the world of the G-6. If they're going to throw OC into the river, how much MM participation will they get from this group? How much attrition from the DCI OC corps to the G-6 corps will there be? Is it reasonable to think that DCI WC Non-G6 MMs will migrate to the G-6? To what extent can they get beyond being thrown under the bus and march the G-6 anyway? Presuming your thoughts on the above lean towards "Not may..." OC and non-G6 will migrate, that means the typical G6 corps will have to find something like 110 MM's from somewhere else, from sources they have not previously used or have been unavailable to them. Seems that if they don't want to pilfer each other's ranks, the G-6 has to find a heck of a lot of kids who want to march in their ranks. To what extent does the director of a Non-G6 corps have influence on convincing a MM to not go and support the G6 circuit? How much should he have? Do you see what I see in the stats?

Yep, that's it. A classic case. Welcome to the club!

"Did I say anything that is UNTRUE?" (tapping my foot and hearing nothing but crickets)

It's "CRS" Michael. It happens beginning around age 45 or so. And pretty soon you've forgotten why you're talking.

You live in the Bay area so correct me if I'm wrong (but I have it on solid authority that I'm not): Bingo in Concord is legally limited to non-profit organizations. That law is already in place. Isn't the "gang from VA" (or "G-VA") contending that they aren't "running" bingo so they don't have to be a non-profit to own a building that they lease to non-profits to conduct bingo? I'm not defending BD; rather, I'm hopeful that you can clarify that point because you're in the area. Further, if the "G-VA" wants to change that law, isn't it a referendum issue? That is, the law can't simply be changed by fiat to accommodate them? Please clarify if this is incorrect. And please site sources if you claim I'm wrong because my information comes directly from a "horses mouth" on the issue.

Wait, didn't you say this?: "It clearly was just a pathetic way to express his hate for the Blue Devils and raise hell on this thread." And then you said he needs to "grow up".

Yea, sorry. I missed that this was posted in the G7 forum and I addressed this in my reply above. Of COURSE he's allowed to post what he thinks! That's the nature of the board. But he, himself, admitted to not reading the supporting data prior to posting his thoughts. I'm just helping him out with that.

Oh, I just noticed that this IS the G7 thread. So sorry, got here through "Active Forum Topics". My mistake. OK, so here's where you're wrong (and while I realize there's a lot of stuff to read, if you'll focus on just the source data links (thanks Bawker!) you'll see these points: Your history of DCI's formation is mostly correct. The fault in comparing it to the current situation is that the original combine members didn't threaten to take over the VFW, et al, and force THEM to change their organizations to match the vision of the combine members. They broke off and started their own "brotherhood" of corps (yes, that word is used in the original charter of DCI, a "brotherhood"). The G7 aren't suggesting the "controlling" entity has become too prominent in their decisions that affect all corps, they are suggesting that they know better than any other of the member corps what is best for the activity as a whole. Don't forget "the controlling organization" is not some removed entity - it IS the member corps. I does propose the current payment schedule is unfair to them and also claims the current organization is about to collapse. But read the financial summary that DCI released after the G7's contentions and you find that "the sky is not falling". You acquiesce that the G7 are the top "contributors" of the activity, and that if they make threats it must be because of a lack of confidence in DCI's E.D. ability to carry out their wishes. Please read DCI's 5-year plan, done in September of last year, and "commissioned" by all of the voting members of DCI (the G7 among them). This plan was in it's nascent stages and the G7 bailed on the plan to introduce their own. The G7 contend that the activity cannot survive on its existing path, but the financials and the DCI plan don't support that point of view. Further, how does throwing the majority of non-G7 corps off the bus help the activity survive? Simply, it can't, and the G7 don't want the current activity to survive. They want to kill it, then reincarnate it in the vision that they think will help it survive. (Is the difference between the original combine and the G7 getting any clearer to you?) Again, the basis of the G7 contention (and your claim of "fact") are not supported in the financial results published by DCI in direct response to the claim. Please read the financial documents. No, it speaks of the G7's belief that to capture this fan base DCI must change itself to look more like the fan base. DCI's 5-year plan shows a lot MORE sensitivity to things that can cultivate the fan base than does the G7's plan, and the DCI plan includes ALL corps from the "brotherhood", not just 7 "elite" corps. The 5-year plan also lays out a tour schedule change to address the cost of touring, and it does it while protecting and nurturing "the brotherhood". It also publicly recognized the unique aspect of "the brotherhood" in this competitive activity. The G7 plan says "to hell" with the brotherhood. You said " It only makes sense that the best performing organizations should have the most input as to what will benefit ALL corps in the activity." This may be your belief, but it is not the basis of the DCI organization envisioned by the combine in 1971 (Read "Building the Green Machine" for supporting history). The combine, and the current structure of DCI, is based on ALL member corps having an equal say in the direction of the activity. Your contention is the same as the G7, and it's a selfish organizational structure, IMO. You said: "I know that ALL CORPS can gain financially when more fiscal reponsibilty is excersised. Increase revenues and lower expenses...what a horrible plan?" You may be right in your belief here, but what you said is NOT what the G7 proposes. They propose gutting the organization (Dan Acheson's office and staff) because of a lack of fiscal responsibility (an unsupported contention; see the DCI financials), then KEEPING THE PROFIT FOR THEMSELVES (a higher profit-potential is a G7 contention that is unsupported by anything other than "gut hunches"). "Increase revenues and lower expenses" is an admirable goal, and the DCI 5-year plan lays out a plan to accomplish that which is backed by actual studies done for DCI by Vaticinate (read the Persona study). What IS a horrible plan is to kick the other members of DCI out of the sandbox in order to keep those higher profits for just themselves. Again, as originally intended, it's a "brotherhood". I suspect you'll find a great number of G7-opponents are the same fans who have been vocal complainers of the changes introduced to DCI over the last few years. And the fact is these complainers were more right than wrong. The changes introduced were intentionally done to increase attendance and make the activity more "accessible" and "relevant" to the high school student in order to get them as members and they family/friends as fans. Did those changes work? Don't you find it contradictory that these changes have been introduced by the same corps directors who now say the entire organization must be destroyed and rebuilt to look like "scholastic" music programs? What basis of belief do you have that when what they've changed has not solved the problems of attendance and revenues, that THIS answer to the same problem is the correct one? Do you believe they must be correct simply because they are the "best performing organizations"? And do you identify "performing" as being their score on finals night? Do you not think Pio has a long history of "performing" their mission to introduce DC to newbies, train them, then see them off to the "best performing corps"? We agree that "sensible action" is needed. I simply believe that DCI's 5-year plan is much more sensible than the G7 plan. And I'm no longer willing to simply follow the Pied Pipers of the "best performing organizations" down a road that has, so far, produced nothing like the solutions that were contended as they made all those changes. Especially when their "solution" throws so much of the activity overboard, rips apart the governing body, represents "secret meetings" by members who were charged to protect the best interest of ALL world class corps, and smacks so blatantly of egoism (the word used by Dan A. himself), narcissism, and disregard for the vision the combine founders had for the "brotherhood" of the activity. Those central themes are too important to the character of the activity to throw aside based on ANOTHER hair-brained plan in the long path of the G7 "vision". Sorry so long, but I hope I've piqued enough curiosity in you for you to seriously study ALL of the supporting data links. I'm confident you'll change your thoughts when you look closely at what they actually want to do with this 37 year old activity. And remember... "The sky is not falling"

I disagree with Soccerguy on this issue, but I don't remember reading the rules of DCP and seeing anything like "You are not allowed to come on DCP and raise hell about an issue." Nor do I remember reading "You must love every corps you post about and no negative posts about any corps are allowed." Debate his contentions, but don't ban him from his rights under this boards rules to state any darn thing he wants related to drum corps because you disagree with his position. Except if he gets personal, of course.

fixed: http://bluedevils.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18254

I'm not going to add to the hijacking of the thread by bringing up more G-"shall not be named", but I wish you'd post these thoughts in the G7 thread. So much of what you contend misses major points and is flat our wrong. Simply "The sky is not falling" (hat tip to audiodb).

OK, let's forget the G7 for a second. George Hopkins is considered a "leader" in this activity right? Wasn't he who changed his model two years ago to put more emphasis on crowd reaction in his show design? Wasn't it he who made several posts on his blog during the '09 season that he was measuring fan response by standing-o's? Rhetorical question, it's a fact. So standing-O's, at least in the mind of this "leader" were still a good measure of fan enthusiasm. Of course I totally agree with all of this, and I even spoke directly with each of them before the show to tell them that the first few corps are "different" from the rest and the good shows are after INT. (Yes, INT was mid-show between 4th and 5th). I could go to them now and say "You should have stayed...." but what's the point now? I wish they'd stayed. They're obviously glad they didn't.

Bingo. Nail on the head.

Ah, logic and reasoning. Finally. Come back here when you're done. (Oh, and you have no basis for knowing about my life "outside the internet". Geesh, can you post anything without being personal?)

OK, Sam, can we get beyond this, please? Here's what the OP typed: "This was posted on the BD forum today by Dave Gibbs about the threat to the Blue Devils bingo operation, putting at risk the primary fund raising source for the organization." Then he posted a link to the BD discussion board where Mr. Gibbs' appeal was reproduced. Here: http://bluedevils.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18254 The opening line of that appeal is this: "I have an important request for all of the members, parents, alumni, supporters and fans of The Concord Blue Devils." I suggested he was appealing to his "fan base", and correctly assuming that members, parent, alumni, and supporters are among his "fan base". You attempted to correct me that he was appealing to his ALUMNI base (for the life of me I don't understand the importance of the point, but Oh Well). I pointed out all the above, and you attempted to belittle me with a condescending reply that suggested I have a problem understanding. I don't have any understanding problems (so feel free to type as fast as you can!). What I disagree with is your contention that he was appealing to his "ALUMNI" base when clearly he was appealing to his larger fan base than just alumni. Now please, Sam, tell me why this topic is important to the discussion? And while your at it, please answer: Did I say anything UNTRUE?

You have no basis for claiming the obvious, and you have no basis for claiming I'm not among the list of people to whom Mr. Gibbs was appealing. Misery? Hmmm... I'm hardly miserable (of course, you have no basis for knowing that, either). Answer please: Did I say anything UNTRUE?

No, you did that for me, thankyouverymuch.