Jump to content

Why so few new champions


Recommended Posts

This is something I've been wondering about for quite some time. There have only been 7 champions in DCI. Since 1972 there have been 21 different World Series Champions, 16 Superbowl Champions, 15 Stanley Cup Champions and even 7 FIFA World Cup winners since 1972.

I'm wondering why there are so few new winners in DCI.

Is it a money thing? In baseball we all know the Yankees can outspend anyone but haven't won in almost 10 years. The Germens had the best talent but always didn't win and in hockey theres doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for who wins.

I really find out hard to believe and sometimes frustrating that we know who can win by the end of July. I can't remember the last time we had a 3 way race for the championship.

Does this bother anyone else and can someone explain why it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They win all the time because they have learned how to win, and how to operate consistently and financially well (or reasonably well). They have created a culture around their organizations that attract the best (members AND staff) from all over the world who want to be a part of that success and legacy.

As for the last 3 way race? Does 2006 count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I've been wondering about for quite some time. There have only been 7 champions in DCI. Since 1972 there have been 21 different World Series Champions, 16 Superbowl Champions, 15 Stanley Cup Champions and even 7 FIFA World Cup winners since 1972.

I'm wondering why there are so few new winners in DCI.

Is it a money thing? In baseball we all know the Yankees can outspend anyone but haven't won in almost 10 years. The Germens had the best talent but always didn't win and in hockey theres doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for who wins.

I really find out hard to believe and sometimes frustrating that we know who can win by the end of July. I can't remember the last time we had a 3 way race for the championship.

Does this bother anyone else and can someone explain why it happens.

Well for baseball, football, basketball and hockey, there used to be much fewer winners. Look back before the 70s or 80s and each of these sports were dominated be an elite few who went on long chamionship runs (Yankees, Celtics, et al). Each of these sports in the 70s, 80s or 90s instituted some sort of salary cap to even out the talent pool. All these sports also have a draft of some sort, but it was free agency backed up by salary cap limitations that opened to doors for individual teams to change their fortunes dramatically over a short period of time.

Not necessarily suggesting that this is something DCI should do, just attempting to answer your question as to why the differences in champion turnover.

(Edit -- also, not sure I agree that the Germans always had the best talent -- the Brazilians at least, would give you a big argument there :thumbup: )

Edited by Liam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I've been wondering about for quite some time. There have only been 7 champions in DCI. Since 1972 there have been 21 different World Series Champions, 16 Superbowl Champions, 15 Stanley Cup Champions and even 7 FIFA World Cup winners since 1972.

I'm wondering why there are so few new winners in DCI.

There've been 8 champions - the 6 that still exist, plus Kingsmen and Star of Indiana.

To answer the question....drum corps, unlike most other sports, everyone basically becomes a free agent again at the end of the season. Rather than help their current corps achieve greater things, many people will head out to the bigger better corps, thus those corps are pretty solid on the recruiting front. However, the main reason these corps have won consistently is because they have figured out their formulas for show design and their formulas for how they run things off the field.

There've been a few corps that figured out their formulas and could have won, or at least made it into the top 3. Boston, after 2003, I thought had figured it out. And then they just completely redid how they formatted their shows in 2004, and placements reflected that. Bluecoats had the same thing - after 06 I honestly thought they'd have a championship by 2009. And instead, they came out of the box in 2007 with a show format that was unlike anything they'd done before and a new uniform that did not compliment their visual package well at all.

The number 1 rule of drum corps: Once you're in the top 6, change nothing. Once you've won it's a different story, but until you have that big DCI trophy in your corps hall, whatever you did to get into the top 6 becomes a series of golden rules for your corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I've been wondering about for quite some time. There have only been 7 champions in DCI. Since 1972 there have been 21 different World Series Champions, 16 Superbowl Champions, 15 Stanley Cup Champions and even 7 FIFA World Cup winners since 1972.

I'm wondering why there are so few new winners in DCI.

Is it a money thing? In baseball we all know the Yankees can outspend anyone but haven't won in almost 10 years. The Germens had the best talent but always didn't win and in hockey theres doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for who wins.

I really find out hard to believe and sometimes frustrating that we know who can win by the end of July. I can't remember the last time we had a 3 way race for the championship.

Does this bother anyone else and can someone explain why it happens.

Because, in each of these sports, a ball actually goes over a goal line of some sort and the best performer simply wins the championship. In drum corps, however, a panel of judges "decides" who is the best based on personal preference. This subjectivity is the reason why we have the status quo, and also the reason why some corps still outscored Phantom in some captions even though, imo, there should have been no contest.....and I am not even a Phantom fan....

It has been said many times over many years, but if the judges didn't know which corps they were seeing before them, you would have 6 or 8 corps in contention rather than 2 or 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about money. The corps' who win are paid more money than the ones who don't do as well placement-wise. It's an endless spiral of the rich getting richer, and better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members get to choose where they go. A lot of people like winning, so a lot of people go to the top corps. Therefore, those top corps have so many options that they always get the best. Whereas lower placing corps have to "settle" with less talented individuals. That and everything that's already been said about figuring out how to design a show and run the corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...