kdaddy Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I realize that drum corps isn't about placement, it's about the experience. However, there's no reason why DCI can't help boost the competitiveness of some of the lower-placing corps. I believe one of the premises used in raising the number of corps members to 150 next year was because many of those who try out for the top-tier corps won't try a lower-tier corps if they get cut. That is, the mentality is "Cadets (or insert corps name here) or bust." Therefore, drum corps loses out on many members because they don't try out (and likely make it) elsewhere. NCAA football players must wait three years after high school (essentially play three years of college ball) before becoming eligible for the NFL. NCAA basketball players must wait one year before pursuing the NBA. What if DCI inacted a rule that all new members must march one season at a non-finalist corps before becoming eligible to try out for a finalist corps? Presumably, if members really wanted to march Cadets (or insert corps name here), they wouldn't mind marching elsewhere first. The list of finalist corps would obviously be updated every year. An exception would be made for rook-outs. Questions to be answered would be: - Would potential members balk at the idea of being required to march in a non-finalist corps? - Do members typically march in a lower placing corps before going to the "big daddies"? My guess is "no." - What is the average tenure for members in the top 12, the top 22, divison 2, and division 3? That is, how long do members march in their respective tiers? If the answer is, say, those who march in division 1 typically march for four years in division 1, then that would be a positive bit of information with respect to this idea. - How many rook-outs are there? I'd guess it was rare, but I have no clue. - If "forced" to march in a lower-placing corps, would that motivate someone, due to their experience, to stay with that corps for their marching tenure? - What would be the impact on the lower-placing corps if, say, 10-20% of their members were of finalist talent? If 5-10% were of top 3 talent? - What would the actual percentages be? I totally made up the 10-20, and 5-10 figures. - Would the number of corps increase due to a perceived increase in competitiveness, member fees, etc? - Does DCI care about such matters? DCI can certainly point to this year as being one of the more competive ever for the 12th spot, but this seems to be an aberration. - Do those who currently try out for the top tier corps then not march elsewhere try again the next season? That is, if someone doesn't make the Cadets (or insert corps name here), do they persist? If so, then they may accept being "forced" into another corps. - Would lower-placing corps be considered "feeder corps"? This may have a negative connotation, and one that I don't wish to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingJoeVII Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 (edited) there was already a thread on this exact proposal just about a month and a half ago...maybe some more motivated person will come by and post a link to it for you... Edited July 27, 2007 by KingJoeVII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdaddy Posted July 27, 2007 Author Share Posted July 27, 2007 there was already a thread on this exact proposal just about a month and a half ago...maybe some more motivated person will come by and post a link to it for you... DANGIT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertrombone Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 there was already a thread on this exact proposal just about a month and a half ago...maybe some more motivated person will come by and post a link to it for you... Ha-ha! My first convert!! I told you all I was on to something. Just wait, next thing you know, DCI will have a "vote for your favorite" via cell phone! Great prizes for members of the winning corps! You heard it here first. I suggested something similar, as Joe said, and it was kind of received the same way as one might regard peanut butter and asparagus or potato salad on tour (ie, mayo plus Texas = ampssuck ). Nobody liked it and I got three death threats via PM. Well, not really. But nobody liked it. I suspect that all the current members in the crowd said, "How DARE you tell me where I should march!" One guy threatened a lawsuit for comparing it to the NBA draft and mentioning LeBron James. Well, not really. But you get the picture. Great idea. Keep thinking for yourself and passing on the DCI Kool-Aid. P.S. Got my semis/finals tix in the mail today! WOO-HOO!! (Sorry, Homer Simpson moment.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdaddy Posted July 27, 2007 Author Share Posted July 27, 2007 I told you all I was on to something. I think this is a great idea. I believe it would increase the number of corps. I'm interested in reading your post, if you care to link. I suspect that all the current members in the crowd said, "How DARE you tell me where I should march!" I can imagine. But that would pass with time. By the way, would Ohio State have made it to the championship game without Oden? Doubtful. Such Oden-like talent would really benefit some of these corps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertrombone Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 By the way, would Ohio State have made it to the championship game without Oden? Doubtful. Such Oden-like talent would really benefit some of these corps... LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GIVE THIS MAN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, THE PULITZER PRIZE, AND INVENT SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE HE'S ON TO SOMETHING!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 But honestly, wouldn't that hurt the non-finalist corps? The experience is one thing, but if everyone is there with the intention of not coming back the following year, or even half of the members, wouldn't that just start to break things down? Part of every drum corps is the tradition and heritage, and the family that is built on year after year. If there is no one staying, and the purpose of a group is to be a stepping stone rather than a family, there won't be tradition, and nothing to build on for the next year. The top tier corps would benefit, perhaps, but the other corps would be deteriorated, and the gap between top and bottom would grow even bigger. This season is phenominal because it is so close in so many captions, and it feels more like an actual competition rather than "going through the motions, knowing that everyone's going to end up in roughly the same place they always do." A lot of that is because so many programs have built upon the successes of previous years. But I'm not trying to start a fight, and I do remember the last topic about this got QUITE heated....so sorry if I offended anyone, it was not intention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leadsop97 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I personally would not want to march at any corps in division I other than Madison, Crossmen, or Vanguard. It's not really me not liking the corps or the people in it, I just prefer the shows that those 3 corps put out year after year. That being said, I'd stay in division II for years before marching any other division I corps not mentioned above. well, I guess that's what I did anyways, kind of, but I guess that's not the point. hah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdaddy Posted July 27, 2007 Author Share Posted July 27, 2007 (edited) But honestly, wouldn't that hurt the non-finalist corps? The experience is one thing, but if everyone is there with the intention of not coming back the following year, or even half of the members, wouldn't that just start to break things down? Part of every drum corps is the tradition and heritage, and the family that is built on year after year. If there is no one staying, and the purpose of a group is to be a stepping stone rather than a family, there won't be tradition, and nothing to build on for the next year. The top tier corps would benefit, perhaps, but the other corps would be deteriorated, and the gap between top and bottom would grow even bigger. I see what you're saying about the "family" aspect, and perhaps that would take a backseat in this process. But I don't see how top tier corps would benefit while the others deteriorated. The top tier corps would be sharing the wealth with their talent - if anything *they* would feel the adverse effects. Just my perspective... I'll give another sports analogy with corps turnover. Perhaps not the best one, but it's the first thing I thought of when I read the first few sentences of your post. I'm originally from near Tulsa, so I've grown up hearing about University of Tulsa basketball. Here's what happened with a string of coaches they've had lately. - Tubby Smith, at TU for four years, went to back-to-back Sweet 16s, got hired by Georgia - Steve Robinson, at TU for two years, went to back-to-back NCAA tourneys, got hired by Florida State - Bill Self, my hero, at TU for three years, went to two tourneys including an Elite 8, got hired by Illinois - Buzz Peterson, at TU for one year, won the NIT, got hired by Tennessee Then people at TU said, "Whoa, we don't want to be the springboard for coaching careers. Even though we've been to the postseason something like 7 times in 8 years, including an Elite 8, let's hire a coach who will stay at TU forever." - John Phillips, at TU for 3 years and 7 games, went to two tourneys, didn't recruit, went 9-20 in year 3 then started year 4 at 2-5 and resigned. Good guy, would've been at TU forever, but TU wouldn't have wanted him forever. My point is this... if you're consistently having competitive success, why does it matter if your coach leaves every couple years? If your corps has increased competitiveness, why not sacrifice a little "revolving door" mentality amongst members to stay competitive? Who knows, maybe some of those members will choose to stay at that lower-placing corps rather than moving up in the world based on the experience and friendships they built that they wouldn't have had otherwise. In other words, maybe the John Phillips experiment would've worked out at TU... :) And just perhaps that little boost would turn a lower-placing corps into a more regular finalist... Edited July 27, 2007 by kdaddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comeonfhqwhgads Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 horrible idea. requiring a year of non-finalist marching essentially creates a "Division 1.5" who's member corps turn over completely almost every year and have rookie staffers and members. (be honest; how many people would choose coaching a team destined to be medicore EVERY YEAR no matter what you do, with very low team loyalty, poor resources, and the knowledge that your chances of breaking into the top 12 are slim to none for your entire career? The only people to staff that kind of group are either extremely dedicated, or, like the members themselves, just getting their year or so of rookie experience out of the way so they can move to bigger fish.) The only positive i see here is that div 2 and 3 would likely get a boost. I, for one, would rather march a div 2 corps where i might have a chance at being competitive rather than marching a corps in a stagnated div1. This idea is like the way things are now, but a few times worse. Big corps are popular, get prime new talent, division stagnates. almost like we need a draft cap or something. :P 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.