Class A 35 minimum rule

[84BDsop]

That's not a bad line of thought, actually....except for ONE small detail...

Suddenly, we have a self regulating system! Nobody gets excluded by "big bad DCA", only by themselves.

You have to have staff WILLING to self-regulate first....that would be the downfall....but for those who DO see the sense, it might work.

[MoonHill]

I applaud the many still reading this thread for listening to the different viewpoints, adding in your own thoughts, and generally participating in what is obviously a contentious issue. This isn't the first thread dealing with the 35 member rule, and probably won't be the last, and all of them have gone many pages long.

I think everyone agrees with what Tom wrote about the origins of, and the thoughts behind the rule, though I have my doubts that there was unanimous approval at the time - unanimous votes maybe, but that doesn't always mean the same thing.

I had suggested before that instead of a minimum # of members, that there be a minimum score be required before any official recognition or money be doled out. If Elks Lodge 232 wants to come out and compete on the field with 15 horns, 3 drums, and no flags, that should be fine, if the show sponsors want them. Will they get paid? No. How about a score? Well, they'd get evaluated, they'd receive a score, but they wouldn't be ranked. We already do that in effect at our show. We had quite the entertaining show, featuring the Houston Shrine Corps (5 members), World Gone Mad (?? members), Austin Stars (20 members?), Revolution (in exhibition), and 2 competing corps with over 35 members, GCS and Frontier. Would we have liked to have more corps there in competition? Heck yeah! But nobody seems to want to return the favor and come out west.

Now lets say that FutureCorps came back out, same numbers as the Elks Lodge, but they clean up the captions and score a 65. Apparently they would be doing something right, and would have probably deserved a share point and a competitive ranking. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a corps that can meet some minimum level of excellence also has the wherewithal to determine for themselves if they have the resources to uphold their seasonal commitments and travel/not travel to Finals. If your corps knows that the minimum score is unobtainable, then they will more than likely confine themselves to local shows. If they think they are close to the minimum, then once again, they would keep things local, with maybe one or two shows scheduled out of territory, if not for the official score, then for the benefit of the members that want the experience.

If you know that you will be able to score higher than the minimum, then you are probably pretty confident that your program is in order, and you can count on the share point/performance fee to help offset the added expense (and yes, I know that share points get paid out the year after).

Suddenly, we have a self regulating system! Nobody gets excluded by "big bad DCA", only by themselves. The outlying regions, such as Texas, can encourage more local corps by inviting these smaller groups out and giving them a venue. Groups like Austin Stars, Masquerade, etc. that are working their way up. Why join a performing group that doesn't perform in the venue it's supposed to?

The only problem that I have with that idea is the level of subjectivity it brings into the consideration of whether or not a group should head out to nationals or take on big financial challenges. "If you know...", for instance. If you know your group is financially capable of going to nationals and getting smacked around score-wise and will still have the depth of capital to survive another year, then you're golden anyway. But many groups have known that, and been wrong. Many groups have known that they were good enough to get into the top 5/10/12/17/whatever, only to be rudely awakened once they actually get to nationals.

IOW, might as well go back to the days when a small corps on the edge of survival might well see a nationals shot as "just the thing we need" to do better next year... when what they really need is to spend a year building.

The 35-minimum rule isn't perfect, but it's got the advantage of being objective. It doesn't rely on the (too-often completely lacking) common sense of the corps directors to determine whether or not a corps is eligible to compete at nationals. It's cut-and-dry. This is, of course, also a fault within it, as it does make it tough for those corps that are filled with 32 multi-millionaire musical prodigies, who can't for the life of them find three more members at all ever.

Though, honestly, my perspective might be a bit skewed, since I think performing in exhibition is a #### fine way to perform...

[Sun Devils Corps]

[quote name='nukeme70' date='Aug 21 2008, 10:25 PM' post='2367672'

Black Knights....coolest head gear!!! Great show in 1974! A memory blast from the past.

I applaud the many still reading this thread for listening to the different viewpoints, adding in your own thoughts, and generally participating in what is obviously a contentious issue. This isn't the first thread dealing with the 35 member rule, and probably won't be the last, and all of them have gone many pages long.

I think everyone agrees with what Tom wrote about the origins of, and the thoughts behind the rule, though I have my doubts that there was unanimous approval at the time - unanimous votes maybe, but that doesn't always mean the same thing.

I had suggested before that instead of a minimum # of members, that there be a minimum score be required before any official recognition or money be doled out. If Elks Lodge 232 wants to come out and compete on the field with 15 horns, 3 drums, and no flags, that should be fine, if the show sponsors want them. Will they get paid? No. How about a score? Well, they'd get evaluated, they'd receive a score, but they wouldn't be ranked. We already do that in effect at our show. We had quite the entertaining show, featuring the Houston Shrine Corps (5 members), World Gone Mad (?? members), Austin Stars (20 members?), Revolution (in exhibition), and 2 competing corps with over 35 members, GCS and Frontier. Would we have liked to have more corps there in competition? Heck yeah! But nobody seems to want to return the favor and come out west.

Now lets say that FutureCorps came back out, same numbers as the Elks Lodge, but they clean up the captions and score a 65. Apparently they would be doing something right, and would have probably deserved a share point and a competitive ranking. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a corps that can meet some minimum level of excellence also has the wherewithal to determine for themselves if they have the resources to uphold their seasonal commitments and travel/not travel to Finals. If your corps knows that the minimum score is unobtainable, then they will more than likely confine themselves to local shows. If they think they are close to the minimum, then once again, they would keep things local, with maybe one or two shows scheduled out of territory, if not for the official score, then for the benefit of the members that want the experience.

If you know that you will be able to score higher than the minimum, then you are probably pretty confident that your program is in order, and you can count on the share point/performance fee to help offset the added expense (and yes, I know that share points get paid out the year after).

Suddenly, we have a self regulating system! Nobody gets excluded by "big bad DCA", only by themselves. The outlying regions, such as Texas, can encourage more local corps by inviting these smaller groups out and giving them a venue. Groups like Austin Stars, Masquerade, etc. that are working their way up. Why join a performing group that doesn't perform in the venue it's supposed to?

[Sayre Kulp]

That's not a bad line of thought, actually....except for ONE small detail...

You have to have staff WILLING to self-regulate first....that would be the downfall....but for those who DO see the sense, it might work.

Well that's just it. You can't necessarily rely on a corps to make the best decisions for itself ALL THE TIME. In an activity that gets as heated as it does, someone is always bound to think they can pull off a miracle and make a poor decision because of it. That's why I suggested the items in my proposal to do the following things (in a nutshell):

1.) Provide a place for corps with 22-34 members to compete.

2.) Protect show sponsors from having to accept these corps if they do not wish to.

3.) Leaving room open for these corps to grow and move up.

4.) Preventing them from over-extending themselves just to go to Nats.

The only subjective item in question is whether or not a corps going through the proposed evaluation process should be allowed to compete. But it doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between a group that can put a field show together (even though it may not be very competitive) and a corps that may be able to put their time to better use MOWING the field rather than marching on it. You know you've all seen one somewhere along the line. Can't find a melody or a solid rhythm anywhere in the mess. Thankfully, I haven't had to sit through one of those for a while. It's just one more way to determine whether or not the corps TRULY has its act together.

[84BDsop]

Well that's just it. You can't necessarily rely on a corps to make the best decisions for itself ALL THE TIME. In an activity that gets as heated as it does, someone is always bound to think they can pull off a miracle and make a poor decision because of it. That's why I suggested the items in my proposal to do the following things (in a nutshell):

1.) Provide a place for corps with 22-34 members to compete.

2.) Protect show sponsors from having to accept these corps if they do not wish to.

3.) Leaving room open for these corps to grow and move up.

4.) Preventing them from over-extending themselves just to go to Nats.

The only subjective item in question is whether or not a corps going through the proposed evaluation process should be allowed to compete. But it doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between a group that can put a field show together (even though it may not be very competitive) and a corps that may be able to put their time to better use MOWING the field rather than marching on it. You know you've all seen one somewhere along the line. Can't find a melody or a solid rhythm anywhere in the mess. Thankfully, I haven't had to sit through one of those for a while. It's just one more way to determine whether or not the corps TRULY has its act together.

Oh totally agree there....I'm not sure what the DCA eval process is, but parts of the DCI eval are: a look at the books, all thje reqired paperwork and clearances in order, and at least 2 minutes of show ON THE FIELD....

There has to be SOME level of oversight...but even more important is corps staff being realistic...and that's sometimes difficult to do.

[Jeff Ream]

I fail to see the humor.

95% of this thread seems to have been about placing BLAME on the corps for not meeting the minimum. And apparently a small minority to place BLAME on DCA for having a minimum. Regardless of who's to BLAME, you're NOT gonna get to see said corps at DCA. Regardless of how bad, or GOOD, or fiscally stable they may be.

[Jeff Ream]

No, 99% of this thread is you blaming everybody and their mother for the fact that YOU won't get a score or be seen at Championships. You're worried about the gap between minicorps and the Class A minimum. Have you ever stopped to realize that your corps (which I believe had 20 people in Atlanta) is not only the perfect SIZE for minicorps, but with a set player and hornline, it is the perfect MAKEUP for a minicorps. Why don't you all get together and travel up for minicorps and kick some butt?

My guess is the answer is going to be something along the lines of "well we all have to buy our own horns so we can't afford it." At which point I have to bring up the fact that if you can't afford to mobilize a minicorps, you certainly can't afford to do a field show at championships without running the corps and its membership into the ground (financially speaking). ---> which is kinda why this rule was created, no?

tweet. flag on the play. illegal use of logic. 10 yards, repeat first down or go back to RAMD

[Jeff Ream]

That's because -- to be blunt -- you've been behaving like a spoiled infant since your first post and have pretty much driven away any POSSIBLE SHRED of goodwill torward your situation.

People have offered advice, possible solutions, explanations of rationale, etc....and ALL you've done is go Jeff Dahmer on the hands that are trying to feed you.

You're also essentially speaking as if you're the policy maker for your corps...and unless you're the director THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB. If you were a member of En Garde right now....you WOULDN'T be...I would've given you fair warning to shut up 20 pages ago....and the way you've been going on, you would've been booted about 5 pages later, if THAT long

You act like NO ONE else is close to being in the same boat as you....you're NOT special at all. You think it's easy to recruit people in an area where you have 7 operating corps in a 65 mile radius?? I may have complained about DCI-P's recruiting restrictions last season, but I was nowhere NEAR as embarassingly idiotic as you've been....even I have SOME behavioral standards. We were unable to recruit well, which was -- what a shock -- OUR problem -- and elected to move on and work for 09 instead of blaming all of our failures on someone else.

For the record, at En Garde's first camp last year, we DID have enough people present to come close to DCI's 30 member minimum. It would've been small, but it would've been viable. Had those people stuck around AND with the additional people who came in later, we would've fielded last year. Corps being what it is, numbers dropped and we didn't make it. I even lost my center snare to VK.....did you see me posting on here about it, complaining to everyone that they "stole" him away from me? No (because I didn't know he was trying to march BOTH corps until right before he left...a good call in his case, and one that in the end didn't hurte us more than we already were)

You have a REAL victim complex going on here....since at LEAST DCA 06. You need some professional help....and you're hurting your corps' rep by your continual, incessant, hateful, imbecelic whining.

My GOD, man, stop acting like a 5 year old, grow the #### up AND a pair, and take some people's advice for once in your life.

are you the twin my mother prayed would never appear?

[Jeff Ream]

We know. And for the record, I agree with Sam's idea... a nice heavy bat.

(OK... that's not nice.)

we should all chip in for brent's tab if he's coming up next weekend

[Jeff Ream]

I found that accepting a well intended correction (like the one I got from Jeff Ream) helps to change the tone in an instant.

Backing up just one step changes the view (by broadening the horizon).

i was never mad at you, and if anything, i didn't clarify my point well enough. late nights during band camp week will do that.