In light of the elitism

[luis]

I mached in world class dru corps when I was 15 and I actually learn to be more mature around those 19-21 year olds, it was the greatet experience ever yes I agree that a lot of the kids who are 14-15 are not mature enough but there's always some kids who are mature enough to do it, but the problem is can they play that's the biggest problem.

[Jeff Ream]

That isn't true. There are many reasons for a kid to change corps and many of them are valid. I was just making a point from my own personal experience.

Of course they are going to take them. They're already trained. So the point is -- the G7 has made much of its reputation on the backs of other corps who trained the kids. There was another thread of what percentage of kids in the top corps started their drum corps experience somewhere else. The percentages were astounding. Wish I could remember the thread but I'm sure if you have an interest in the facts, you can find it.

and the Yankees have made a lot of winning seasons and championships off of the backs of teams that drafted/signed kids that started with other teams, played their ##### off, then decided when it was contract time to go to the Yankees.

look at college sports...how many kids transfer in from Juco's or other schools?

I'm all about loyalty, but if the kids want to move on, more power to them.

[ContraFart]

instead of messing around with age, why not just say you must go to a corps that is within the region of where you live? Also why not restrict the corps themselves so they cannot hold camps outside 100 miles of their home office.

[Stu]

At the beginning of the thread, I proposed an "average age" rule. Nothing to do with letting 14 year olds march.

I do not mean to get into a semantics debate here. However, later on in the thread you stated, "That's why the DCI mission statement specifies 14 - 21 years old. It's just that the low end isn't enforced." Using the word "enforced" and the words "low end" indicates that you certainly do want corps to be required to march 14 year olds.

[papasmurf]

I didn't read all 9 pages of this, but I doubt this idea has been stated, because it's pretty radical, so bear with me:

My older brother played hockey through middle and early high school, but didn't start till late in 7th grade. He started on a house team, and how he got on the team was he went to a mass tryout for every individual interested in playing hockey that season. There were players that blew him away, but there were also players that were at or a little below his level. At the end of the three-day tryout, all the coaches got together, and split the individuals. I wasn't there to witness it, but I would imagine the coaches went in a private room with a list of everyone trying out, and basically did a draft of all the individuals, much like the NFL.

Now I know this is a crazy idea, but since this is simply a forum and we're all throwing ideas out there, I figure why the hell not? What if we did this in drum corps as well? What if starting with some given year, everyone who hasn't marched before flies out to a specified location and participates in a giant tryout. Every corps director is there, along with caption heads of each section. At the end of the (let's say week-long) audition, the corps directors confer with their staff and come up with a ranking list of who they want. The directors then meet and participate in a draft. They pick until their corps is full.

Now I see this as the ultimate in leveling the playing field, which is why it would never-in-a-million-years work. But in an ideal world, what would you think of this idea?

Like I said - I know this is irrational, so don't confirm my knowledge of that fact, otherwise I'll just think less of you. All I'm curious about is your opinion of this idea.

[Liahona]

Start then with a" Finders Fee " payment allocation to every other Corps whose talent you took from, that postioned you to want to demand more revenue from them now.

I really like this idea, but I don't think that it will ever become a reality. How about the participants/members sign a non-compete agreement for a certain time period? This is done in the course of business in many fields already.

~Roger

Edited May 23, 2010 by Liahona

[CuriousMe]

I'm all for that too. And when the top Corps " take members " from the lower tier Corps, cough up " a finders fee " to these lower tiered Corps. Afterall, the Top Corps ranks are filled with marchers that didn't just fall out of the sky into their laps at their camps, did they ? Where'd many of them come from ? ( lower tier Corps )

Some of these Open Class, and lower tiered World Class Corps took these marchers in. Taught them the hard work and discipline. The fundamentals of playing and marching. They essentially groomed them. THEY invested THEIR time and THEIR energies and THEIR Corps costs to the marcher. But who ultimately gets the benefit regarding this training and grooming ? Bingo, if you said the proposed G-7 Corps do.

So if the G-7 Corps now want a bigger slice of the revenue from the lower tier Corps., fine.

Start then with a" Finders Fee " payment allocation to every other Corps whose talent you took from, that postioned you to want to demand more revenue from them now.

That'd work.

Why should anyone get a "finders fee?" Did the member not pay to march in their first corps? If that member didn't audition for another corps, there's no guarantee that they would march another season at their original corps. The original corps looses nothing.

Are you suggesting that high school's and colleges get paid a "finders fee" as well?

[MikeD]

Now I see this as the ultimate in leveling the playing field, which is why it would never-in-a-million-years work. But in an ideal world, what would you think of this idea?

Like I said - I know this is irrational, so don't confirm my knowledge of that fact, otherwise I'll just think less of you. All I'm curious about is your opinion of this idea.

IMO potential marching members should be able to audition and march where they wish. Your idea means that a member has no say in where they march, something I find terrible. Unlike sports, corps members are paying to belong. If you tell person X who wants to march, say, BD, that "sorry, the Colts selected you..give them a check for $2,000" I bet the audition pool would shrink real fast, as it should if that rule were to happen.

[CuriousMe]

Not true. Some corps have stated policies about minimum age that is higher than the DCI's stated age range. Then, there is the unstated preference for older kids because the corps don't want to be bothered with the younger kids. So, by either written or unwritten policy, they are only interested in the older kids.

Why else would the "G7" corps have an average age of nearly 20?

There are younger kids in these corps as well though. I know that BITD, I was 15 my first camp with Garfield, and there were folks younger than me.

I also know that there are folks aging out this year who have been marching for 6-7 years....so they obviously didn't start there when they were 18+.

Different corps have different personalities, values, goals. To start using arbitrary measures in limiting who can march where, is unnecessary and detrimental.

If the 15 yr old rookie, is a better "fit" with the corps than the 21 yr old vet....I think the 15 yr old gets offered the spot.

Also, I don't think that anyone's mentioned that corps do want younger members......IF......they're mature enough to do what needs to be done to take care of themselves on tour, and it doesn't negatively impact their education. A corps wants vets who have been there forever, they usually become the leaders of the corps.

But there are things that need to be considered in order to be fair to the 15 yr old in question.

[CuriousMe]

I really like this idea, but I don't think that it will ever become a reality. How about the participants/members sign a non-compete agreement for a certain time period? This is done in the course of business in many fields already.

~Roger

Right, it's done in business....where the person in question has been paid for their services. Limiting where someone can apply and pay to be a member is a different matter all together.