GUARDLING Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) I would like to see "what happens", as a matter of fact. Will it be the end of the Blue Devils ? No, I don't believe so. Do you thnk it would be the end of the Blue Devils if there were sensible and reasonable transfer policies put in place that they and all others would have to subscribe too and compete in ? Why would you think BD would not be able to compete in a system that adopted sensible and reasonable transfer policies ? Parents pay good money now for bantom hockey, up to 3,000- 4,000 grand. They don't get to select the team and coaches they want in that league. Sports and other competitive youth endeavors have had transfer policieies in place, and it hasn't hurt them. Don't be afraid of change, of adopting sensible policies that work throughout the western world in youth competition. Such an adoption of sensible and reasonable transfer policies in the long run will be good for parents, for Corps, for competition, for fans, for marchers, and for the growth of the activity, imo. I know of no youth sport or competitive youth activity that has suffered in the least from the adoption of sensible and reasonable transfer policies. If you'd care to mention them for us, perhaps we could be enlightened with that listing. Well you would have to consider what you state as what sports do as sensible and reasonable. Thats can be an argument in itself. ANd Yes I do think BD would still be successful. One would have to assume that a lower corps would get a part of the talent but lower corps are lower not just because of its members . within a season ( for a corps ) is one thing and I dont know of any kid who ran from one to the other at that time , after a season , free game. I dont think many care what the sports programs are doing either. Edited August 12, 2015 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Any reasonable and sensible transfer policy would be an improvement over no transfer policy at all, imo. Under a no transfer policy that exists right now in DCI, it is currently permissible for any Corps to utilize any transfers from other Corps, up to and including Finals Night. For example, BD utilized the no transfer policy at Championships just a week ago to their legally permissible advantage. The fact that they took another Corps transfer from a Corps that was their own for Championships Week usage, does not negate the fact that they utilized another Corps transfer MM at Championships that was not present for 98% of their competitive season. Nobody but nobody, imo utilizes the current judging sheets and the rules in place at DCI , better than the Blue Devils. This is to their credit. My central point however is that the the Blue Devils will continue on their winning pace of Championships for the next 35 years ( as they have for the last 35 years ) as there is no apparent appetite in DCI to adopt some sensible and reasonable transfer policies that all sports AND all non sport competitive youth endeavors in the western world have had in place since the beginnings of their enterprise. Brasso, my friend, no they didn't. They didn't utilize a no-transfer policy. The little girl was not transferring. Her season in the C-corps was over long before she started working with the A-corps. The convoluted wording of your post comes very close to suggesting they "took advantage" of something, some loophole, no rule, or something to their advantage. That's simply not true. Now, if you're saying that your vision of a transfer policy would, if it were real life, prevent BD from utilizing an ex-member such as her, then I wonder if you'll be surprised to find out that BD would not support such a rule in the first place. Competitive winning corps attract competitive marching members who want to win. Any vision of a "transfer policy" is DOA if it in any way impedes the movement of those competitive MM's as they see fit in the activity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Any reasonable and sensible transfer policy would be an improvement over no transfer policy at all, imo. Under a no transfer policy that exists right now in DCI, it is currently permissible for any Corps to utilize any transfers from other Corps, up to and including Finals Night. For example, BD utilized the no transfer policy at Championships just a week ago to their legally permissible advantage. The fact that they took another Corps transfer from a Corps that was their own for Championships Week usage, does not negate the fact that they utilized another Corps transfer MM at Championships that was not present for 98% of their competitive season. Nobody but nobody, imo utilizes the current judging sheets and the rules in place at DCI , better than the Blue Devils. This is to their credit. My central point however is that the the Blue Devils will continue on their winning pace of Championships for the next 35 years ( as they have for the last 35 years ) as there is no apparent appetite in DCI to adopt some sensible and reasonable transfer policies that all sports AND all non sport competitive youth endeavors in the western world have had in place since the beginnings of their enterprise. So, no definition. I take it however, you might be in favor of something along the lines of: Corps must submit a roster of members to the DCI home office by : mm/dd/yyyy after which point no members may be added to the roster through : mm/dd/yyyy. Or maybe: BD must pay the corps in which the newly contracted member most recently marched. Does that sound reasonable and sensible? Please, provide one example of the western world youth activity transfer policies of which you speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Brasso, my friend, no they didn't. They didn't utilize a no-transfer policy. The little girl was not transferring. Her season in the C-corps was over long before she started working with the A-corps. I suppose this all depends upon one's definition of a " transfer". In my definition of a " transfer ", if a marcher in a Corps marches in another Corps in the same competitive season, this is a " transfer ". As such, if members of the Cadets in DCI march in Cadets2 in the same competitive season, this consitutes a " transfer ". The fact that Cadets in DCI finished their season, in August and these " transfers " wound up in the ranks of Cadets2 at DCA Championships in early Sept is merely an internal organization transfer for hoped for competitive advantage. I'm not saying the Cadets organization has ever done this or not, just to point out that in my definition of a " transfer ", a " transfer " occurs when a Corps marcher goes to another Corps within a 12 month calendar year, internal organization " transfer " or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Please, provide one example of the western world youth activity transfer policies of which you speak. They all have them. We could give hundreds of examples. I'm surprised you need any examples of sensible and reasonable transfer policiies that all youth sports leagues have. If you played youth sports of any kind in your youth you should be able yourself to provide countless examples where it is prohibited by league rules to move from team to team, no matter what the parents wanted, nor payed for.. Millions of parents over the years have become accustomed to these nominal restrictions to unfettered transfers too... and it certainly can't be seen that such adoption of transfer policies have hurt parents, participants, fans, competitiveness of the activity,nor the growth of the activity either. Edited August 12, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 1st DCA corps have done this for decades..lol many many decades but you now are making up an issue to non existent problem or a definition to fit the cause ( not sure ) either way a season has always been considered over when a corps does their last show. At least as I and I think many have ever viewed it. Also if you say a 12 month calendar that means noone from the 2015 season can go to another corps till after DCI 2016 leaving them out a year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) They all have them. We could give hundreds of examples. I'm surprised you need any examples of sensible and reasonable transfer policiies that all youth sports leagues have. If you played youth sports of any kind in your youth you should be able yourself to provide countless examples where it is prohibited by league rules to move from team to team, no matter what the parents wanted, nor payed for.. Millions of parents over the years have become accustomed to these nominal restrictions to unfettered transfers too... and it certainly can't be seen that such adoption of transfer policies have hurt parents, participants, fans, competitiveness of the activity,nor the growth of the activity either. None of that comes close to how drum corps are and their locations .They can not be compared IMO, Your examples of reasonable and sensible are neither. Now if you said once a season started noone can transfer, which they dont i think then thats different. It pretty much does happen that way. Or if you want to say no kid owing ANY winter or summer program under no circumstance can go to another without paying, I'm all for that. that's totally different Edited August 12, 2015 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Current MM's are free agent signings on one-year contracts. Trying to enforce a noncompete, or a multi-year contract, in an already dwindling activity that is primarily funded by those free agents would be folly. It'd be like plugging a leak with a sledgehammer - the problem isn't near as big as the solution would warrant. (Although now that I say that, a true "multi-year" contract would be an interesting exercise - instead of 3k for one year, pay $4K and get *two* years in a corps, $2K of which is refundable if cut in year 2, nothing refundable if you leave?) Mike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) 1. Drum corps is not sports. Well, then you have a disagreement with even DCI itself with this... as even they think Drum Corp is " a sport ", or at least a " quasi- sport". If DCI did NOT think Drum Corps was a sport or quasi sport then they certainly would not have done the following: ...... market themselves to a sports network as such ( ESPN ).......brand themselves as the marching music's " Major Leagues " where it host ( Rondo ) calls it " the Super Bowl ".....bring a Indiana State reasearcher out to hook up a heart rate monitor to a quad player to demonstrate the heart rate beat to that of a finely tuned athlete....... hire a long time sports announcer as its booth host ( Curt Gowdy)......bring on college coaches (Bob Knight ) and football players ( Steve Young ) to compare the multitude of similarities to athletes, and Its competition to sports........the " sport " of Drum Corps is a competition, afterall, that takes place on a sports competition field ( football ), with prelims, scores, rankings, etc. So again, if you believe that " Drum Corps is not a sport" ( or quasi sport ) this assessment is most certainly at odds to what DCI itself believes on this. Edited August 12, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Current MM's are free agent signings on one-year contracts. Trying to enforce a noncompete, or a multi-year contract, in an already dwindling activity that is primarily funded by those free agents would be folly. It'd be like plugging a leak with a sledgehammer - the problem isn't near as big as the solution would warrant. (Although now that I say that, a true "multi-year" contract would be an interesting exercise - instead of 3k for one year, pay $4K and get *two* years in a corps, $2K of which is refundable if cut in year 2, nothing refundable if you leave?) Mike Youre right it isnt an issue. I think ( maybe im wrong ) that he might think it evens the playing field, As I said It's not just the talent that pushes a corps to the top. It's a combination of many things and 1 does not happen without the other. Now multiple year offers can be interesting. I actually know of a winter program who did that with long standing members. it worked for a few and didnt for a few. All depends on the member. 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.