making non-finalist corps more competitive

[silvertrombone]

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.

Paragraph #1: How many kids don't ever march now b/c they audition for "that" corps the first time and just keep going back to "that" corps year after year to be rejected again? How many 'rook-out' at that corps, finally accepted, and gave up two more years (one "there", one elsewhere) because they pridefully said "XYZ or bust"? I say, do the year elsewhere, then do two years "there" instead of settling for the 'rook-out' experience. Better all around, no?

Paragraph #2: Nobody has addressed my assertion that the NFL, top-to-bottom, is better off due to parity imposed by the salary cap and the DC activity would be better off with parity imposed by membership requirements discussed here. You guys jump in and comment. I don't see the current activity stronger than one where 40 corps vie for quarterfinals every year and you can drop from 1st to 15th and rise back to 3rd the following year. More placements will depend on entertainment value because EVERYBODY would rise to the same level of achievement.

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.

Don't understand your "budget caps" idea--feel free to elaborate. I would think that each corps would set its dues and if you are eligible to march, either under existing rules or new ones discussed herein, and can pay the bill, you're in.

Who is your favorite NFL team? How did they do pre-salary cap? How have they done since?

Look at MLB pre-draft and post-draft. Look at the MLB without a salary cap now and consider what a salary cap would do. Even considering what the "luxury tax" has done to the NYYankees shows that if you put everyone on a level playing field you get parity, and look at the numbers in EVERY pro sports league today. Revenues are DRASTICALLY up and every team gets their piece of that.

It is so pronounced that you can literally open up the stadiums for free and not sell a single ticket and let people in for free and still turn a profit due to TV revenue.

Wouldn't DCI like THAT scenario!?

And on a tangent, refreshments at the ballpark would probably still turn a pretty nice profit, given current prices, but that's another matter entirely.

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.

Paragraph #1: I tend to agree--take the entire staff and put them elsewhere and that could be something a corps never recovers from.

Paragraph #2: Good idea--would take a 2nd American Revolution to enact, though.

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.

I'm going on 15-year old information and recollection, but my experience was that the two were mutually exclusive groups of talent. The DC 'hacks' were not the best or All-Stater's, and the best concert/orchestral/jazz players were into their thing. Rarely did you find someone who was All State-calibre doing DC, and that was in Texas, where you had plenty of both.

I'd be interested in hearing from recent Texas HS grads, but keep in mind, the growth and development in Texas since 1992 has been phenomenal, and nearly every 5A high school marching band and band program in the state is killer now compared to then, too. Ridiculously better! And lots of the Band Directors are former DC folks from all over who came here to teach band. Incredible.

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 actually drum corps experience under my belt.

but thats just my $.02

Think about what you just wrote--that's common sense. The only difference in you writing it and me writing it is I'm saying that any potential auditionee would be able to find it on dci.org and you and 600 other people want to show up at Rockford and audition, pay your $100 audition fee, 450 of you get sent away and have contributed $60,000 for the corps to outfit the new food truck they bought with last year's audition money with state-of-the-art commercial appliances, etc.

600 ain't an audition, guys--it's a fundraiser.

[Nite_Maresz_25]

Think about what you just wrote--that's common sense. The only difference in you writing it and me writing it is I'm saying that any potential auditionee would be able to find it on dci.org and you and 600 other people want to show up at Rockford and audition, pay your $100 audition fee, 450 of you get sent away and have contributed $60,000 for the corps to outfit the new food truck they bought with last year's audition money with state-of-the-art commercial appliances, etc.

600 ain't an audition, guys--it's a fundraiser.

I can't tell if you're trying to agree with what a said or totally shoot it down....=/

EDIT(i thought a little bit more)

And yes, it is kinda common sense. But if someone just goes to that lower level corps right away and makes it fairly easy, the person auditioning will wonder "maybe I could've made phantom/cavies/cadets/ect?" The only way to find out if that person would've made the corps would be by going to the 'fundraiser' and giving it his/her best shoot. Who knows, maybe they make the corps their first try and don't have to go try out at a different corps then wait another season to give it a shot at their favorite...

Edited July 28, 2007 by Nite_Maresz_25

[silvertrombone]

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?

Agreed on the 150 thing. 135, too, quite frankly. 128=3 buses if staff hops on with the members, if I recall correctly.

Accounting lesson for all interested.

Revenue - Variable Costs = Contribution Margin

Contribution Margin refers to the amount contributed to defraying Fixed Costs

Revenue - Variable Costs - Fixed Costs = Profit

This is a variation of the more familiar:

Revenue - Expenses = Profit, where Expenses = (Variable Costs + Fixed Costs)

When a corps adds members, say 7 from 128 to 135, or 135 to 150, it is adding revenues in the form of member dues, fundraising, etc. So it becomes a matter of, "Can we add more revenue than associated expenses?"

Fixed Costs would be Director's salary, staff salaries (doesn't really change from 128 to 135, etc), corps hall-related costs, Buses, gas, etc.

Variable Costs would be the cost of each t-shirt the corps buys prior to selling in the souvie stand; cost per meal for the whole corps; costs per uniform/per horn, etc.

So if the addition of 22 new members from 128 to 150 results in more revenue than expenses for the same, the MBA book of business operations says, DO IT!

Now, what does that do? Pretty simple. Those who do have a little bit more money for other stuff. Higher staff salaries=better staffers. More $$$'s = better props, guard uni's, and amplification equipment.

Oh, and now it becomes clear, doesn't it? With the common move from 3 buses to 4, as I've seen in many cases, now it becomes a matter of, "We have empty seats on the bus--we need more members paying more money."

Well, that becomes, "Now we have this extra money, what do we do with it now?" And, "Well, we have 3,000 people auditioning for the corps, we need to add more spots so we can add more members and fill all the bus seats."

From an MBA point of view, great. From a D2/3 and lower D1 point of view, not great. The rich simply get richer.

[comeonfhqwhgads]

how to make non-finalist teams more competitive:

join them.

end of argument.

well, not really. see, the problem here is the "I must join ABC because XYZ is somehow lower-quality." The wonderful thing about this is that you could always join XYZ and fix said "problem." However... i don't see that as too likely.

so.. DCi Draft? that'd be pretty sweet.

[silvertrombone]

I can't tell if you're trying to agree with what a said or totally shoot it down....=/

EDIT(i thought a little bit more)

And yes, it is kinda common sense. But if someone just goes to that lower level corps right away and makes it fairly easy, the person auditioning will wonder "maybe I could've made phantom/cavies/cadets/ect?" The only way to find out if that person would've made the corps would be by going to the 'fundraiser' and giving it his/her best shoot. Who knows, maybe they make the corps their first try and don't have to go try out at a different corps then wait another season to give it a shot at their favorite...

Too many people now audition, are cut, and never march, or only "rook out" rather than marching what is perceived to be "lower" corps. The idea is to build the base of the activity and drive demand for more corps by having so many people audition for D1 corps that members spill over into the D2/3 ranks, and by demand, raise them up to D1 size. There can still be a D2 and even D3 classification, and others suggested in the previous thread that the top 1, 2, or 3 D2 corps automatically move up to D1 every year. Maybe D1's move down automatically, but hopefully the trend would be of corps moving UP, not down.

Suddenly, GROWTH instead of corps going inactive.

Let me put it this way:

Nix the 150 rule for this illustration.

Say all of today's D1 corps max out at 135. D2 maxes out and they all move up to 135 in size, but keep touring in D2. D3 is bursting at the seams and same thing happens--they max out at 135, but stay in D3. Each year the top 2-3 corps move up into the next level, and so on.

Now, it may just be me, but I think we start seeing corps coming back from the dead, or at the least, new corps sprouting from the ground.

May also be me, but more corps seems to be what was the case when regional tours were common years ago, yes? Interesting result is that more regional members end up marching regional corps for Law of Economics reasons (closer=cheaper=better car at college!).

More regional tours=less expenses (shorter trips and more shows closer together).

Lots of places this could go, guys.

But my statement still stands: Nothing changes if nothing changes.

Hmm...almost worthy of Dave-ism status.

[madscout96]

Alright, I've read the proposal, and read the positives and negatives argued by people in this thread, and I've thought about it. I, too, would love to see DCI solve the problem of competitive imbalance. Here are my ideas of how to amend this proposal to make it a little more palatable:

And for the sake of this post, I'm going to use the term "pure rookie" to describe someone who has never marched a drum corps anywhere ever.

The first problem with this proposal is how it does draw a big line between 12th and 13th place. Let's say this rule goes into effect immediately, which effects the auditions for the 2008 season. The corps that finishes in 12th in Pasadena is happy to make finals, but is at a HUGE disadvantage to the corps that just missed the cut. The 12th place corps cannot have any pure rookies at their audition, while the 13th place corps will attract the biggest and best pure rookies out of anyone.

To solve this problem, we gradate (proper term?) the requirements for top 12 corps to take only non-top-12 vets. The higher you place at DCI Finals, the fewer pure rookies you are allowed to take into your corps the following year. The lower you finish at DCI finals, the more pure rookies you are allowed to take into your corps the following year. The numbers could break down like this, for example: Whoever finishes in 1st at Finals would be required to fill their spots next year with 100% non-top-12 vets. Whoever finishes 2nd at Finals would be required to fill their spots with 90% non-top-12 vets. The 3rd place corps would be required to take 80%, etc. So you get down to the 10th place corps, and they're required to fill 10% of their open spots with non-top-12 vets, that'll be easy for them. Of course they could take more if they'd like, but they'd be able to take alot more pure rookies.

Another problem with the OP's proposal is that it might seem unfair to someone because they're forced to travel much further to try out with a corps because the one closest to them is top 12 and they're a pure rookie. Well, I say exceptions should be granted to people for the following:

The top-12 corps they're interested in is the drum corps that they live and/or go to school closest to. If a kid who lives in Skokie or goes to college at DePaul wants to march Cavaliers, he should be allowed to try out! Of course, if that kid is a girl, then she should be allowed to try out for Phantom, unless Pioneer is geographically closer to her (not sure exactly which is closer).

If someone's parent is an alum of a top-12 corps, they should be allowed to try out for that corps if they want. Some of you may not agree with that one though.

Some people in this thread have argued that the lower-tiered corps would become even more of a stepping stone than they are now if this rule was put in place. Because the top-12 corps would get only vets, and the lower corps would get only rookies and those rookies would then leave the following year. Would they? Or would they realize that the corps they decided to march with was awesome and they had a really awesome experience and that maybe they want to spend another year marching there? Maybe they broke into the top 12 and want to stay because of that. Maybe they would decide to try out for Blue Devils anyway. But when BD cuts them, instead of going home and sitting on the couch like a pure rookie might do, they'd go back to the corps they marched with because they now love drum corps so much they couldn't imagine sitting home with feeble calves and pale skin all summer!

Edited July 28, 2007 by madscout96

[shaners]

why were the regional tours and competitions disbanded in the first place? i really have no idea. what was dci's logic in stopping them?

[The Nagging Cough!]

Look at the MLB without a salary cap now and consider what a salary cap would do.

Absolutely nothing, since the Oakland A's have more wins from 2001-2006 than anyone but the Yankees.

[Bob984]

Whereas I feel your intentions are good, what you are suggesting will never happen....corps is a volunteer youth activity, not the NBA...Kids are going to audition and march where they want to.

For non-finalists to attract talented members...recruiting is the name of the game. Basketball is actually a great example. 20 years ago, would a George Mason have made the final 4.....no way.....but they did 2 years ago, and it wasn't a fluke....they had a great team, and that happened not only through coaching, but the players who decided to play there, and they were recruited. Many, many schools now do a good job of recruiting in basketball, and thus we are seeing new success stories every year. It's even starting to happen in football. I guarantee you that alot of "name" teams would not have wanted to play Boise State in football at the end of last year......

Some corps do a good job of recruiting. Also, once you are a top 5 corps, especially if you have won a title, the corps' reputation does the recruiting for you, but even then, those corps are still pushing for the best kids they can find. There are tons of kids going to colleges across the nation for music, and that source is not tapped out by any stretch. Recruiting from good HS programs is ok, too. I do think that many corps need to get people out in the fall to colleges and band shows and put the word out and invite people to camp, no strings attached. I was on staff of a major corps as a grad student.....I posted a flyer in the music building. I also recruited at my old high school, who had a killing drum line that year. With next to no effort, I put 15 people in the corps by myself, most who stayed 2 years....some longer....the corps went from 10th to 3rd to 1st. I realize that we were a finalist going in (but 10th, and 17th the year before).

I have also had several success stories when current members were encouraged to bring musician friends to a camp, no strings attached, to just "check it out", and after the experience, consider if it would be something that they would be interested in. What else that is great about this approach, is that the new member or members have a few kids in the corps that they already know, and that helps the new kid feel a bit more at ease when you are going to be "living" with these people in the summer.....

Staffs of top corps should be recommending to ANY student who does not make it to "march somewhere", and recommend where they may fit in best. I actually recommended a kid to a competitor finalist (and called their caption head), because the kid had money/logistics problems, and was living 30 minutes away from the competitor...they did fine there, and I did a good thing. If a young kid comes in and the instructor knows they are not ready for this level.....recommend a div II or div III corps that may be a good fit. If they are ready, but you simply do not have room, write and sign a recommendation note for that kid to take to another Div. I audtion. There are kids who audition once for a top 5 corps, don't make it, and never march there or anywhere, and that is sad.

I do think that perhaps a rule should be made that if you march in a division I corps and wish to march in another division I corps the next year, that you should be ineligible and have to wait a year, unless your old corps "releases" you to do so (there may be very legitimate reasons) However, I have actually read on DCP posts by individuals who are marching in a FINALIST corps who say, and "I hope to age out next year with the......." (insert top 3 corps), or "I think I'll make it next year" (referring to that corps). Nearly every top 5 corps has members who were in other FINALIST corps the year before...........I think if they had to sit out a year, that would curtail that a bit.........some of those who choose to do that seem to be a bit more interested in "me" than "we", and there is something to be said for corps loyalty. If I am a junior basketball player at NC State, and Florida wins the NCAA championship....I can't say, "my senior year I think I'll go play for Florida...they passed on me out of high school, but I am good enough now"...something's not quite right about that, and they would have to sit out a year under NCAA rules....I do think, though, that going from a div II/III to a div. I corps the next year is a fact of life, and creating the rule to stop that would actually hurt the div II/III corps more than the div. I.

Ironically, this year I think the field at DCI is very deep and competitive. Some of the corps who do not make finals would have gotten in other years......the competition for 12th is absolutely fierce this year, and even for 17th. I would not be surprised if there is less than 2-3 points seperating 11th and 17th. This is a good thing.

GB

[dojinator]

that would only benefit the top corps...

non-competitive corps would only have rookies who probably wont stay next season

and they would only be training rookie... and becoming less competitive

the top corps will benefit from this cause they would have no rookies coming in.

it would only make the problem worse