Ed from Kansas Posted May 22, 2010 Author Share Posted May 22, 2010 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. So far, you're the only one that understands my initial point. Don't mean to pick on SCV, but their mission statement says kids of all ages, but what is the average age of their corps. As I said initially, the top corps live by the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. A "Finders Fee" allocation could begin with higher appearance fees for the lower tier corps. I don't believe that an average age requirement would lower the level of all corps but would certainly force the "G7" corps to play by the same rules that everyone else does. So, what's wrong with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 I hear you, but it's not like this concept is unprecedented in other enterprises.If you are a Div. 1 college athlete at a school, and want to transfer and play for another school and team, can you just willy nilly leave and go to that other college and play ? Heck no. As a matter of fact, both you and the new school would be in VIOLATION of NCAA established rules and guidelines if you and the new school did so. You might be disbarred from playing ever.. and the school put on probation and fined for using that player from another school. NCAA makes a transfer have to sit out a whole year before being allowed to participate in athletics at the other school. If people think this is Draconian, keep in mind that these policies were put in place for a reason. And more importantly, they work for the very reasons they were intended for. And since such transfer policies were put in place, MORE schools are participating now at the Div.1 level now.... not less. Most Div 1 athletes are also going to school for free. When drum corps start offering the kinds of benefits that Div 1 athletics do we can start talking about punishing kids for wanting to march somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 So far, you're the only one that understands my initial point. Don't mean to pick on SCV, but their mission statement says kids of all ages, but what is the average age of their corps. As I said initially, the top corps live by the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. A "Finders Fee" allocation could begin with higher appearance fees for the lower tier corps. I don't believe that an average age requirement would lower the level of all corps but would certainly force the "G7" corps to play by the same rules that everyone else does. So, what's wrong with that? The G7 corps already play by the same rules as everybody else. Younger kids can already march the top corps if they are better than the other people auditioning. Why dumb it down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed from Kansas Posted May 22, 2010 Author Share Posted May 22, 2010 The G7 corps already play by the same rules as everybody else.Younger kids can already march the top corps if they are better than the other people auditioning. Why dumb it down? 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) This is going to punish the kids who WANT to move on. The top corps aren't going around and handing out fliers at Pioneer rehearsals or anything. These are kids who no longer want to be with their old corps and want to march somewhere else. If corps want to retain their kids then that should be on them to convince people to stay, not a matter of punishing people for wanting to leave. No it won't. Corps that take members from lower Corps should pay a finders fee to the lower tiered Corps. If they don't want to pay the finders fee... don't take the recruit. Allow a 1 year waiting period then. The recruit stays out of both Corps, or marches 1 more year with his current Corps, then nobody has to pay a finders fee after 1 year, and the recruit goes to wherever they want... finders fee waived. The suggestion that the same old Corps are great because they groom all this talent by themselves is nonsense, imo. Yes, these Corps have great staff, management, know how, resources. No question about it. But lets get real here. Many of the recruits that walk in their door are not wet behind the ear talent. They are already groomed and polished in many cases. From being trained by OTHERS. I do give the " TOP ACTS " credit as they fine tune this talent and take it to another level. But the top Corps are not the top Corps without the ability to take from the lower tier Corps each and every year, and give them not a dime for taking from these Corps their best talented marchers. In such a system, no wonder it is next to impossible to penetrate into the upper echelon by so few other Corps. The top Corps don't " recruit " like so many Corps have to do..... they " select ". BIG difference, and why we have such little parity these days in DCI. Edited May 22, 2010 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 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? Source, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed from Kansas Posted May 22, 2010 Author Share Posted May 22, 2010 Source, please? The Cavaliers will not talk to anyone under the age of 16 and who has not completed his sophomore year of high school. As for the average age, check out the corps web sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 The Cavaliers will not talk to anyone under the age of 16 and who has not completed his sophomore year of high school. As for the average age, check out the corps web sites. Thank you. Will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) Most Div 1 athletes are also going to school for free. When drum corps start offering the kinds of benefits that Div 1 athletics do we can start talking about punishing kids for wanting to march somewhere else. DCI really is NOT the norm when it comes to allowing members to willy nilly go from Corps to Corps without any restrictions in movement at all. Most succesful enteprises have some restrictions in movement. Just so you know, some Drum Corps circuits around the country before the formation of DCI had restrictions in movements from Corps to Corps. One had to get a " release", and they were not always granted either. Were the kids " punished "who were not granted their release ?...depends on one's point of view. But there was a reason that such policies were put in place. And it was of course in a different a time. A time where there were over 500 competing Corps, and with any number of a dozen Corps having a legitimate shot of winning a Title , and those Corps names having a real shot of winning it all, changing in name almost from year to year. Contrast that with today, where more than half of the DCI Titles the last 35 years go to just 3 Corps. Edited May 22, 2010 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvs me sum mello! Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 "I'm sorry, you've been marching here for 5 years and it's your age-out year, but we have too many vets and have to make cuts to meet DCI age quota." Ya I could see that conversation going over great.... 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.