making non-finalist corps more competitive

[silvertrombone]

I suppose this could push the top twelve even higher, but that would only broaden the gap between twelve and thirteen, making it even less likely for a corps to jump it. You're lowering the number of competitive corps to a meager 12, substituting quantity of people experiencing drum corps at it's best for a few corps of questionably higher quality. (are you suggesting that Div1 corps aren't already the epitome of the pastime?)

Love your signature! I was kind of thinking the same thing when I saw them in Dallas, and I'm a Bari/Buick vet! If I've heard correctly, they just moved the mello player onto Baritone if that makes you feel any better!

Regarding your statement, it could be made not to work the way you suggest.

There are upwards of a thousand Texas kids marching this summer between Crossmen, Revolution, and everywhere else. Now, if in order to march the former champions, as I suggested (exemption for Madison due to current placements), do you think those 5 corps would have trouble filling their corps?? Get real. They already have 400 people auditioning for 135/150 spots.

Again, I'm not too concerned over the feelings of some priss who thinks he's/she's too good for anybody except for XYZ corps. Go away as far as I'm concerned--don't need that kind of attitude. There's no talent in the world worth that chip, IMO.

I want 50 new members who were told, "Go do a year somewhere else before coming here" to go somewhere else, march for a year, help that group (fill in the blank--say Blue Stars, Crossmen, Spirit, dare I say Pioneer?), then come back and audition here next year.

Go home in a huffy-puffy fit? C-ya.

Go march elsewhere as stated and come back in a year? Great! Welcome to auditions! Nothing is guaranteed, because we have 300 vets auditioning, but we sure welcome you to come join us for a weekend!!

Now you have 150 accepted to the D1 former champion corps and 150 vets of some corps that have to make the decision, "Do I do the couch potato? Or do I go back to ABC corps and march with my friends again?"

I'd go march. Anywhere. And the majority--by a 2-to-1 margin--agreed with me in my original thread in the poll: It's my age-out year--do I march anywhere or do the couch potato b/c XYZ corps said I wasn't accepted in auditions.

Folks, it's really, really simple: We ALL love the traditional top 6--they put out a good product, with a few exceptions here and there, year in and year out. Some say, "I'd sure like to see a mix-up at the top." Some say, "I wouldn't march ANYWHERE except X, Y, or Z corps."

These two statements are either-or. Can't have 'em both.

Disagree?

Can't. I have history on my side. Look it up.

Anaheim '72.

Madison '75.

Madison '88.

Star '91.

'96 doesn't count b/c, although PR tied, BD was also champion for the umpteenth time. '99 same thing (SCV/BD).

That's four years without BD, Cadets, Cavies, or SCV in the end zone, so to speak. And SCV and Cavies have basically switched spots since 1990. That's utter dominance by a very few corps.

Ever look at how many fans take off after the last corps finishes and before scores are announced? Pretty shocking at Dallas and San Antonio this year, actually. This activity will NEVER have a chance of going mainstream as long as it is so utterly dominated by the Cowboys, the 49ers, and the Redskins, if you will. By that I refer to three of the most successful pre-salary cap NFL powerhouses.

The analogy actually makes pretty good sense if you drop the tired, "It's not pro sports" argument.

Edited July 27, 2007 by silvertrombone

[shaners]

your idea is good in theory, but there are alot of aspects you are not considering.

doing this would create a "minor league" of drum corp.

problems: who gets paid more?

quality members IS NOT the only aspect to having a good drum corp.

the administration has to be strong, the volunteer group has to be strong, the SHOW DESIGNERS have to be strong, and the STAFF have to be strong. if all of these aspects are not holding up their end of the deal, then a corp will start to collapse.

there are more reasons for marching a 'top 12' corp than mere placement.

i for one marched crossmen, not because i knew they would be top 12, but because i love the corp.

professional sports athletes get paid. it is a job, not a hobby. and there are no age limits in professional sports.

these are just a few flaws..

to answer some of your questions,

if this did work, then ya i can see it boosting competitiveness, although then the "top corps" would start to fall, and their administration would be very angry. plus, not the same corps are top 12 from year to year.

although i have responded against your proposition, i still think it is cool that you are progressively thinking! remember that trial and error is how much that we know came to exist.

since drum corps are separate non-profit orginizations, they must build up their program by their self. tho difficult, if done correctly then it is very possible. prime example = academy! this is their first year in div one and only there fifth (?) year as a drumcorp! their administration took it nice and slowly and now they are fighting for a top twelve spot with a strong administration! like i said, members are only a part of a corps success!

if you pm me i would love to talk more about this with you, cause i believe that there is a lot that can be done to boost dci in general!

Edited July 28, 2007 by shaners

[Legalhack]

Ever look at how many fans take off after the last corps finishes and before scores are announced?

The lack of parity is not why folks don't stick around for the scores. After all, the night show is a finals. The reasons are long drives and the fact that, unlike twenty years ago when Drum Corps World and your friends were the only available DC news sources and no one had cell phones, the internet allows folks who leave early to read the scores as soon as they get home and, if their friends stay behind to catch the encore, they can get the scores in real time.

[BozzlyB]

Actually I think a more interesting way to achieve parity would be to take the staff from the winning corps each year, and put them in a random draw for corps placing 13th and below (each staff member going to a different corps). The staff would be required to work with that corps for one full season, be fully integrated and exclusively work with that corps. DCI would pay them the salary equivilent to what they made the previous season, and they could return to their other corps after one year. Members would be educated by tried and proven staff, existing staff at the lower tier corps would be educated in winning techniques and cutting edge design.

[JazzmanSA80]

How?

I'm not trying to argue. I'm really curious as to why you'd say that.

Well, it has been said that a lot of kids want to march their choice corps and no other. So if everyone were required to march in a lower placing corps before they can march with their dream corps, then it's safe to say that a lot of those "corps X or bust" kids would blow off marching at all than march somewhere they don't want to for a season. Granted, I think (at least I hope) that most would be motivated enough to march that season with another corps before going for what they want, but just think of how much talent could potentially be missed out on by this?

That's why I think this has the potential to hurt the activity as a whole: because although it can help the lower corps, it could hurt the top-tier corps, even if only a little. Do we really want to drag down the excellence of the top corps to create more competition? There must be a better way.

[Legalhack]

Parity is overrated if it means attaching anchors to the best. If there are going to be parity measures, I would prefer "budget caps" to rules that interfere with the freedom of kids to march were they want (especially if their financial sitation of other life circumstances mean they have one summer to tour) or staff members to work where they want.

[JazzmanSA80]

Actually I think a more interesting way to achieve parity would be to take the staff from the winning corps each year, and put them in a random draw for corps placing 13th and below (each staff member going to a different corps). The staff would be required to work with that corps for one full season, be fully integrated and exclusively work with that corps.

I can't tell how serious you are being there with the "" at the end haha, but I don't think having one big-shot staff member is as important as having a team that compliment each other's skills and knowledge. Sticking a staff member who probably doesn't want to be there in with another corps' staff would create some bad mojo, and that would likely make things worse.

Since the corps directors essentially make the rules, wouldn't it be smart to give a more weighted vote to the lower corps? That is the only fair way that I can see to give the lower corps a boost without punishing the top corps. This could help prevent rules being passed that favor the top corps, like raising the max corps size to 150. The lower corps need an advantage to help make themselves competitive again. Then they might actually stand a chance at passing a rule like what the OP suggested, which would never ever get passed now.

[Legalhack]

Well, it has been said that a lot of kids want to march their choice corps and no other. So if everyone were required to march in a lower placing corps before they can march with their dream corps, then it's safe to say that a lot of those "corps X or bust" kids would blow off marching at all than march somewhere they don't want to for a season. Granted, I think (at least I hope) that most would be motivated enough to march that season with another corps before going for what they want, but just think of how much talent could potentially be missed out on by this?

That's why I think this has the potential to hurt the activity as a whole: because although it can help the lower corps, it could hurt the top-tier corps, even if only a little. Do we really want to drag down the excellence of the top corps to create more competition? There must be a better way.

I tend to agree. Say, for instance, you have a kid who has top-shelf talent, wants to march but also aspires to play orchestral music or jazz. The kid may march one year and then focus more closely on pursuing his career goals. After all, playing in a working jazz combo is a better improv school than spending 10 weeks perfecting 10 minutes of music and performing maybe seven additional minutes of tunes. Similarly, playing in a festival orchestra while studying privately is probably a better way for an aspiring orchestral player to spend his summer. If he can't march where he wants, that kid probably will not march at all. Some might say "Who cares, let the kid who wants to march the most march." However, when drum corps becomes less of a meritocracy, it will inevitably become less compelling.

[Nite_Maresz_25]

Maybe it's not something that needs to be enforced by DCI, but it could be something that the Big Boys could do on their own.

Audition for Cavies (just to pick a name), and if you don't make it then the corps tells you "Go march somewhere else. If you don't march somewhere else for at least one summer and don't have a good reason, don't come back."

The best thing that any potential corps member can do is to march. March anywhere and learn.

I actually agree with this more than the DCI-inacted thinger.

I'd be way more likely to go march at a lower tier div1 or a div2 corps if i auditioned at cavies(or cadets or regiment) and they told me I'd have a better chance at making the corps next season if i went out and got some actual drum corps experience under my belt.

but thats just my $.02

Edited July 28, 2007 by Nite_Maresz_25

[kdaddy]

That's why I think this has the potential to hurt the activity as a whole: because although it can help the lower corps, it could hurt the top-tier corps, even if only a little. Do we really want to drag down the excellence of the top corps to create more competition? There must be a better way.

Definitely, there must be a better way. And I see your points. And several flaws with my original post have been highlighted - ones I didn't think about.

I just feel that increasing corps size to 150 is bad for business at the lower levels. Mandatory non-finalist corps membership may not be the answer, but I think it's a better answer than increasing corps size to 150.

Out of curiosity, how many corps do you guys think will field 150 next year? Is DCI helping to subsidize the added cost of fielding a corps this size? Will corps fees have to increase because of it?