skajerk Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) Don't make me post the "dead horse" pic AGAIN! As it's been said countless times, they have not been given any special treatment. The show to be used for placement of Academy was decided BEFORE the season began. Try reading back a few posts. Please, someone put this thread out of it's misery! Edited July 21, 2007 by skajerk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekneek Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Don't make me post the "dead horse" pic AGAIN! As it's been said countless times, they have not been given any special treatment. The show to be used for placement of Academy was decided BEFORE the season began. Try reading back a few posts. Please, someone put this thread out of it's misery! It would be nice if DCI would put that on their website. The comparison between this situation and what Star of Indiana went through in 1985 is valid. Even though they were scoring on a finalist level, they still had to go through Prelims, Quarterfinals, and Semifinals to get into that slot. They won Open Class Prelims, while going on after Glassmen and before Connexion Quebec. They won Open Class Quarterfinals while going on after Les Eclipses and before Avant Garde (no previous year finalists competed in Quarterfinals). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gasparillacorps Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 IMHO- I think the biggest issues with some people is not that AA is a good program or worthy of the performance placement but the fact that AA, Mandarins and PC do such a limited tour. I understand why $$$ but why the exception? Why "evaluate" programs (DCI) when they ask for D-1 status. Shouldn't this be based on the ability to conduct a FULL tour? If not that's OK but the rules should be a bit different. Those that tour all summer should be given more consideration when it comes to regional placement. If corps like AA, Mandarins and PC are that good, it will all come out in the end. By the way, if DCI uses a method to "check-out" new corps or corps moving up into D-1 they should do this with all corps. BIG, BIG name corps have MAJOR money issues but because they are who they are, nobody questions those corps and they continue to get deeper in debt supporting full tours ( Could you imagine the Cadets, Phantom or Madison asking for a limited tour) and or go away all together. Just in the past few years we have lost Magic, Esp and Kiwanis. Capital has taken a year off but I don't imagine we will ever see these others groups return. Drum Corps Fan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekneek Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) I think the biggest issues with some people is not that AA is a good program or worthy of the performance placement but the fact that AA, Mandarins and PC do such a limited tour. I understand why $$$ but why the exception? Why "evaluate" programs (DCI) when they ask for D-1 status. Shouldn't this be based on the ability to conduct a FULL tour? If not that's OK but the rules should be a bit different. Those that tour all summer should be given more consideration when it comes to regional placement. If corps like AA, Mandarins and PC are that good, it will all come out in the end. That is some of it. I have nothing against any of those corps. I like them all. The situation, for me, is that there are rules and such below the surface. DCI is a competitive activity. As such, all the rules should be available to the public. If what is available to the public says that performance order is determined by placements at X show, it doesn't make sense that Y corps is placed above Z corps when Y corps didn't earn a placement at X show. It goes to DCI's credibility with those outside of the activity. It is just a reminder that DCI has largely become a self-serving entity. Good luck with any attempt to push into the mainstream, DCI. This stuff should be transparent. Edited July 21, 2007 by Tekneek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willyc Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) IMHO- I think the biggest issues with some people is not that AA is a good program or worthy of the performance placement but the fact that AA, Mandarins and PC do such a limited tour. I understand why $$$ but why the exception? Why "evaluate" programs (DCI) when they ask for D-1 status. Shouldn't this be based on the ability to conduct a FULL tour? If not that's OK but the rules should be a bit different. Those that tour all summer should be given more consideration when it comes to regional placement. If corps like AA, Mandarins and PC are that good, it will all come out in the end. Corps that don't want to conduct full tours should stay in Div 2 or 3. On one level, isn't this what they exist for? No one would be deprived of seeing them perform, since they would still be doing their 15 (or so) shows each year, and going to Div 2 or 3 finals. This is a side topic to what the thread has mainly been discussing, but it smells of "having your cake and eating it too". No criticism of Academy, since they simply worked the system that was there - just think that DCI needs to take another look at this, in fairness to the corps that put the full tour in. Edited July 21, 2007 by willyc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjordansc Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I am not sure why people think someone who posts his/her believe that D1 corps doing full tours should get the better prelims slots is out of line. I agree, todays show order should have been determined by the Atlanta placements. If a corps was not in Atlanta, they should go on first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKMello84 Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Corps that don't want to conduct full tours should stay in Div 2 or 3. On one level, isn't this what they exist for? No one would be deprived of seeing them perform, since they would still be doing their 15 (or so) shows each year, and going to Div 2 or 3 finals.That's not true at all. I would guess that only about 10% the amount of people see a Division II or III corps as do a Division I corps, at least at Nationals. Someone can work with the numbers, but the lower Divisions get only a fraction of the exposure.The logical ends of one taking the position you have is that DCI would be better served with 19, 18 or 17 Division I corps than they are with 22. That is the ends of being more exclusive. Defened it! Explain how DCI and the activity is better served that with fewer corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekneek Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) That's not true at all. I would guess that only about 10% the amount of people see a Division II or III corps as do a Division I corps, at least at Nationals. Someone can work with the numbers, but the lower Divisions get only a fraction of the exposure.The logical ends of one taking the position you have is that DCI would be better served with 19, 18 or 17 Division I corps than they are with 22. That is the ends of being more exclusive. Defened it! Explain how DCI and the activity is better served that with fewer corps. If that is important, then let everybody be DivI and not put tour commitments on them. Whenever they have a show, they are DivI. They can bring back Prelims on Wednesdays, or maybe put everybody on the field at Quarterfinals. Works for me! My only problem is what seems like multiple sets of rules, or at least rules that aren't visible to the public eye. If they want to put everybody on equal footing because they want to say they have a lot of DivI drum corps, I'm ok with that. Edited July 21, 2007 by Tekneek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willyc Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 That's not true at all. I would guess that only about 10% the amount of people see a Division II or III corps as do a Division I corps, at least at Nationals. Someone can work with the numbers, but the lower Divisions get only a fraction of the exposure.The logical ends of one taking the position you have is that DCI would be better served with 19, 18 or 17 Division I corps than they are with 22. That is the ends of being more exclusive. Defened it! Explain how DCI and the activity is better served that with fewer corps. Your argument implies that they only valid DCI corps are in Div 1, and we all know that that's not true. When you say fewer corps, maybe you mean fewer Div 1 corps. If so, that's what you should say. It's true that the Div 2 and 3 corps get less exposure. Part of that may be based on the fact that, with more restricted tours, less people get to see them throughout the season. My OPINION is that any corps that wants to be a Div 1 corps has to buy into the full tour - ESPECIALLY presence at DCI regional competitions. I understand that others will disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKMello84 Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) Your argument implies that they only valid DCI corps are in Div 1, and we all know that that's not true.It does not. It implies that most of the revenue is being generated by Division I corps, and that is true.You still haven't explained how DCI would benefit from fewer D-1 corps. Edited July 21, 2007 by VKMello84 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.