Blueemrld8 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I'm always amazed by the creative math here. Lets say 1,000 new fans arrive, and 500 old fans get fed up and leave. Net growth 500. Could have been 1,000. DCI is not maxizing a fan base by driving us away, they are under utilizing their resources. The question is, are the new fans a direct result of the elements that drive the rest of us away? I think not. 500 fans driven away for no good reason. Do any variation on the numbers you like, DCI is losing out. This just got me thinking... who do you think pays more per person? New fans or alumni/legacy fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) This just got me thinking... who do you think pays more per person? New fans or alumni/legacy fans? Come and look at all the SCV stuff in my closet and make your own decision on that one! In fact, right now I'm wearing an SCV hoodie over an SCV drumline T shirt! Of course - I haven't bought anything in the last few years.... Edited January 24, 2008 by kusankusho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueemrld8 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I have a question: Would this proposal have been met with less resistance if Hopkins wasn't the figure head for it? I mean, if someone not on the radar submited this change, would it be less of an issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I have a question:Would this proposal have been met with less resistance if Hopkins wasn't the figure head for it? I mean, if someone not on the radar submited this change, would it be less of an issue? Not for me -- I don't give a hoot who proposes what -- I'll always give you my opinion (if I have one) on the merits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I have a question:Would this proposal have been met with less resistance if Hopkins wasn't the figure head for it? I mean, if someone not on the radar submited this change, would it be less of an issue? I don't think it would...the more worrisome part of this is the fact that it's been "discussed" for a while now by the "Gang Of Nine", according to what the proposal states. So, Hop or Gibbs, Arnold or Smith....it doesn't matter what name is on it. It's just bad juju. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Would this proposal have been met with less resistance if Hopkins wasn't the figure head for it? I mean, if someone not on the radar submited this change, would it be less of an issue? If the Hopkins weren't in the picture, absolutely. Not a shadow of a doubt. There is a legitimate and worthy argument being made here against the concept. But to my mind, that argument is mostly academic. It is the potential influence of one man that's inspired most of the passion heard here. Without him, it's just a dull discussion about good governance, a discussion no one (except maybe Liam) would care about ten minutes after the decision is made - no matter what the decision. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 ...the more worrisome part of this is the fact that it's been "discussed" for a while now by the "Gang Of Nine", according to what the proposal states. Why is that worrisome? HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Diversity. Different ideas. Dissenting opinions. Wider representation. Varying perspectives. A voice for the smaller players. The ideas your country was founded on are insightful enough to work pretty well in this situation too, certainly better than the oligarchy being proposed. Uhhh......except: The dudes who founded my country didn't trust the unwashed masses to vote for a president based on popular vote. So they came up with the Electoral College, whereby the Electors ("wise" gentlemen selected by each of the States) voted for and therefore selected the president. Not unlike GH's proposal, actually........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 In thinking of the eventual fallout from this, it begins to look like the top corps are saying "give us what we want or we will take our ball and go play somewhere else." DCI ate up all of the regional circuits, how much longer until the power hungry (top 9?) leave DCI and create their own? I don't think the power hungry directors would leave DCI and create their own, unless the resistance became stronger and didn't give in to their demands. They want the DCI name in their possession, and will let the other corps secede and form their own generic no-name unrecognizeable circuit if they dare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 (edited) ...Removed post because it's off topic .... Sorry Edited January 25, 2008 by Liam 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.