making non-finalist corps more competitive

[JazzmanSA80]

Like it was said in the old thread, REQUIRING anyone to march somewhere isn't going to fly. I might even help the membership of the lower tier corps, but it would probably hurt the activity as a whole.

There is still no reason why the top Div. I corps shouldn't be strongly suggesting that a person march a Div 2/3 corps if they don't think that person is ready for their organization, and then encourage them to return the next year and try again.

I know that some corps do this, but I know some others just cut people and say see you next year. Why not, "We don't think that you are ready to march here this season, but we'd like you to attend an audition camp at Corps X next month and see how you like it. The experience could really help you make our organization next season."

It would be wise for smaller corps that aren't feeder corps for any specific Div. 1 organization to "officially" partner up with one. The benefits would be mutual: kids with potential get deferred to the smaller corps, resulting in a more consistent level of talent, and when the kids in the smaller corps are ready to move on, they have a likely place to think of first- the partnering Div. I corps.

[kdaddy]

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.

I'm suggesting any non-finalist corps. Division 2, Division 3, or Division 1 13th-and-on corps be benefited from this.

(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.)

How are you destined to be mediocre every year? This idea would put top 12 more talent in those lower-placing corps. It would challenge designers to devise better shows. Arrangers would be able to increase the difficulty of design with this new pool of top 12 talent. Sure, perhaps the members would only be there for one year, but if you're continually cycling out top 12 talent every year, who is to say that a corps like the Cascades wouldn't make finals this year? They're relatively close, but maybe they need a little boost.

And as for staffers not staying around every year, how is that any different from the current set up? How many Division 1 corps think they'll make finals at the beginning of the season? Maybe 14? Staff members still take those jobs. Staff loyalty would only improve if the corps is more competitive.

[kdaddy]

but it would probably hurt the activity as a whole.

How?

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

There is still no reason why the top Div. I corps shouldn't be strongly suggesting that a person march a Div 2/3 corps if they don't think that person is ready for their organization, and then encourage them to return the next year and try again.

But the problem is that apparently a lot of kids don't actually do this. If they don't make it in that top corps, they sit out the summer.

Man, just imagine the Cascades, Academy, Mandarins, and Pacific Crest with future SCV and BD members...

[comeonfhqwhgads]

I'm suggesting any non-finalist corps. Division 2, Division 3, or Division 1 13th-and-on corps be benefited from this.

How are you destined to be mediocre every year? This idea would put top 12 more talent in those lower-placing corps. It would challenge designers to devise better shows. Arrangers would be able to increase the difficulty of design with this new pool of top 12 talent. Sure, perhaps the members would only be there for one year, but if you're continually cycling out top 12 talent every year, who is to say that a corps like the Cascades wouldn't make finals this year? They're relatively close, but maybe they need a little boost.

And as for staffers not staying around every year, how is that any different from the current set up? How many Division 1 corps think they'll make finals at the beginning of the season? Maybe 14? Staff members still take those jobs. Staff loyalty would only improve if the corps is more competitive.

In reverse order-

That's just the thing- making non-finalist corps "rookie corps" would only make the whole thing less competitive. How many corps full of first-time members would you expect to do well against corps full of ONLY vets? You're basically creating a line between 12 and 13 that becomes VERY difficult to cross. and even if an extraordinary set of rookies and rookie staff beats corps #12, not only is that one corps changing out of 12, but due to your new system of discouraging corps loyalty with the exception of corps ALREADY IN the top twelve, the odds of that extraordinary set staying with our upstart corps are significantly lowered.

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?)

[silvertrombone]

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.

DING!! DING!! DING!! DING!! GIVE THE MAN HIS PRIZE!! What has he won?? A lifetime supply of Hot Chops Lip Balm!!

See, here's another thing that crossed my mind: What if, due to this requirement ACTUALLY WORKING, D2 became the exact same size as D1 in terms of members per unit?? You know, 128/135/150, whatever, in EVERY CORPS. How does D3 fall in there? Not sure. Maybe it goes away and D3 units morph into D2 with the same size as D1 thing applying to them as well.

Basically the same thing applies in every sport. Baseball's minor and little leagues may differ in terms of roster size, but you never have more than 9 guys on the field at the same time. Same with basketball and football in junior high, high school, college and pro's--12 players in football and 6 in basketball is a no-no. So a same-size requirement in DC is not a problem in my view.

12 alternates on your roster? Fine--just as long as you don't exceed the 128/135/150 performer-on-the-field limit.

Treat all D1/2/3 corps the same in terms of performance fees and voting. Now there's a whole other thread in itself, and gee, maybe in 20 years the top 3 ain't even IN the top 3 any more. Wouldn't THAT be a change of events??

And NOW the REASON this doesn't happen becomes REALLY, REALLY clear, doesn't it?

Monopoly.

Now, maybe BD, Cadets, and Cavies still place SOMEWHERE in the top 12 every year in my little scheme. I wouldn't expect anny less. They are three of the most established organizations in the activity (meaning off-field stuff). But if you have four years in a row like this year and the same result occurs--BD wins, Cavies win, Cadets win, Cavies win, top 3 stays the same--do you REALLY want to see that happen?

MY proposal was, if you want to march in the former champions, go march elsewhere first. 600 people audition for Phantom? Several hundred each at several other corps? Stupid ridiculous--doesn't need to happen. THAT, my friends, is how the best get better and the big dogs keep their death grip on a dominated activity.

Bloooo's knocking on the door to the top 3--great! Give them a boost.

Crown is knocking on the door to the top 6--great! Give them a boost.

OK, so BD, SCV, PR, Cadets, and Cavies (exemption for Madison for now due to current placements) suffer just a bit--MAYBE! That's not guaranteed--they are, after all, the best in the business. Do you expect they would REALLY suddenly fall out of finals? Get real.

Back to the original point of the last paragraph. Maybe those corps suffer just a tad--do you really feel the effect at a time when the activity has become SOOO competitive at all levels in the last couple years? I doubt it. Maybe "everybody's favorites" get bumped back a step. But if new blood is what you want, how is doing the same old, same old going to result in something new???

And I'll wait for answers on that one.

"Oh--Oh! Bluecoats will win this year, and Crown will place fourth!"

Yeah--I'll believe it when I see it. Not a bash on Blooo, just a student of history. Saw 'em in Texas and know that they have the vehicle--just gotta do it.

Who was the last corps to bust into the top 3/6??

[ouooga]

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand what I think you're missing about this.

See, it is my belief that, going back to your football example, those coaches, while they were talented, would not have been as successful if they had started at that top level. I believe that starting in a lower tier, they gained experience, were possibly trained, and when they moved up they applied their new knowledge with their skill to be successful.

While many of the lower tier corps may not make finals consistently, they still put together wonderful performances every year, and that is because they all have incredible teaching staff. So in essence, yes, the talent from "future" BD players would be there, but when they make it to BD they would have had some of the greatest teachers in the activity teach them. They would then be even better players, and it is my belief that BD would then grow even stronger then they would have if that player just came straight into BD, while the lower corps would have just lost a great player that they trained.

I have a friend who was decent at his horn, but nothing I'd ever call great or even really good. The guy worked his butt off and marched in a drum corps (he filled a hole). He came back home with such confidence and learned talent I couldn't believe it. The guy finished high school as the lead player in the state in both jazz and classical, when just a year before he couldn't even make it into a decent city wide honor band.

Yes, someone who is talented enough to make BD (ya, I keep using BD, but just as an example, nothing more) would probably be a great advantage if they were playing like a Blue Devil. But by training someone who is talented for an entire season, the top tier corps are basically getting drum corps vets, rather than flat out rookies.

That is why I believe the top groups would benefit. Maybe ONE year after this rule is passed would it actually effect them, but I doubt it would much, and then after that they would start to benefit. And I've already expressed my views of why the lower tier groups would suffer.

Again, disclaimer and such, not trying to make anyone made, just stating my feeling.

[Halcyon122]

This idea is as ridiculous as saying that the same teams always win in college football and making players spend a year at a Div. 2 school before getting to play at USC/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/etc. The members are PAYING for this experience, and many are traveling great distances to do so, with in most cases only 1-3 years to really be able to march a full Div. 1 tour. In many cases, it's not as easy to say, "You're not good enough to be in the Cavaliers, so go march Southwind for a year or two and come back." In my case, it's at least about 6-7 hours to get to the nearest DCI corps of ANY division, so why should I be REQUIRED to spend the time and money to march Southwind or Jersey Surf etc. if I could qualify for the Cavaliers or Cadets or whatever? Plus, it's insulting to the corps at the top to say that while they've been spending years or even decades building themselves up to the top, it's not fair that they're better at running a corps so you're going to artificially create parity...

Worst. Idea. Ever.

[kdaddy]

In reverse order-

That's just the thing- making non-finalist corps "rookie corps" would only make the whole thing less competitive. How many corps full of first-time members would you expect to do well against corps full of ONLY vets? You're basically creating a line between 12 and 13 that becomes VERY difficult to cross.

Okay, good point. However, I don't think it'd be the line between 12 and 13. I think it'd be between 8 and 9 or something. I think the number of corps vying for 9 to 12 would be huge, because I think the bottom 3 or 4 corps would probably cycle out pretty often. That is, perhaps, say, a Southwind places in 11th then doesn't get the benefit of the added rookie talent pool. If they can't sustain their membership as an 11th place corps, then perhaps they fall back out of the top 12. Them falling out brings up another corps who may or may not be able to "sustain" themselves without the added rookies, and so on.

However, I argue that finishing, say, 17th every year would be less fun than finishing in the top 12 every 2-3 years.

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?)

Disagreed.

I think traditionally non-finalist corps would more frequently have a shot at finals.

As for your parenthetical comment, I'm not quite sure where that comes from. I'm entertained by most all corps, given that they perform a show that I'm interested in (not necessarily correlated with size or competitiveness).

I know that we have about 22 division 1 corps. If more rookies are required to try out in the 13-22 place corps (and others), then I think we'll see the number of corps jump up a little. Maybe not a lot, but a little. Let's say a bunch of kids from Oklahoma try out for other corps every year. Someone in OK says, "hey, rookies from OK have to march in a non-finalist. We can start a fairly competitive corps around here with these kids, and kids from Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas." Now you have a corps that started as a regional corps to fill demand that may turn into something bigger. That would probably be the goal of any start-up corps - meet regional demand. And inacting such an approach as I have stated may increase regional demand. March near home for a year, then move on.

[KingJoeVII]

I guess I'm that motivated person who scours back to find the older post...

here is the old post that goes over in 6 pages of depth this exact proposal..

http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/inde...c=99541&hl=

[Pinwiz]

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.