In light of the elitism

[Ed from Kansas]

a) There is no enforcement rule that 14 year olds “have” to be a certain percentage of the activity. It just means that they are eligible. To punish the G7 for success in recruiting many (legal age) 21 year olds is just as bad as the G7 punishing the Open Class by kicking them out of DCI. And quotas never solve anything except lowering standards of expectations.

b) The DCI Mission Statement is there to remind these directors that in a non-profit charitable world, the haves agree to watch out for the best interest of the have-nots. I do "not" mean that the millions of dollars collected by the G7 have to be evenly distributed amongst all DCI corps'. I mean that since these G7 signed on with DCI, they have a duty to structure a system for the lower corps' to exist, grow, expand on their own with the "guidance" of the G7. That is what Dan Acheson was attempting to convey.

There is no rule. At the beginning of the thread, I proposed an "average age" rule. Nothing to do with letting 14 year olds march. The idea is that 14 year olds are eligible, under DCI rules. Never were quotas mentioned, either. What the "elitists" want is to pump up their egos (using the oldest possible legal age marchers). All I am saying is let's return to the original idea of drum corps, which is teach and give the youth of the country an opportunity to have the drum corps experience.

And --- I do not believe a 21 year old junior or senior in college should be considered a youth.

[MikeD]

The idea isn't to make every corps a middle of the pack corps. I'm sure that some organizations would do just fine because of the population in their area. Others might struggle a bit more and some of the lower tier could move up. The idea is to be more competitive and fulfill the stated mission of DCI.

How do you get kids well under 18 to be able to move in and tour?

1) Parental permission for a 14-year old to travel all over the country with college kids would be tough to get. I know I'd hardly want a 9th grader of mine on the road for months on end with college seniors.

2) College timeframes are bad enough...now factor in high schools...here in NJ they get out in mid-June.

[dbc03]

And --- I do not believe a 21 year old junior or senior in college should be considered a youth.

Then you have a different definition of youth than DCI.

That is unfortunate for you

[MikeD]

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?

You picked a bad example...SCV has a variety of ensembles covering a wide array of ages.

All corps do play by the same rules. Kids march where they so choose. That is how it should be, IMO.

[MikeD]

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?

Because those are the ones that are on the whole the most skilled...who make the cut at auditions. Nothing wrong with that.

[Ed from Kansas]

Then you have a different definition of youth than DCI.

That is unfortunate for you

Not unfortunate - an opinion. You will notice that I never said they should not be allowed to march. I just said the activity should not be dominated by 20 and 21 year olds.

[MikeD]

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.

You say that the top corps 'take' form lower corps...it's not that way at all. Kids choose to move on as they are able. Just as they did in my era, pre-DCI.

[dbc03]

The activity should be dominated be those who are good enough and have the dedication required to make the cut at whatever corps they want to march.

[MikeD]

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.

I marched pre-DCI...there were never a number of dozen corps who had a decent shot at winning Nationals...really no more corps than today had a decent shot at winning it all.

[Ed from Kansas]

You say that the top corps 'take' form lower corps...it's not that way at all. Kids choose to move on as they are able. Just as they did in my era, pre-DCI.

But they sure don't hesitate to take them, do they? I also marched pre-DCI and I can tell you, we would rather take a beating than to change corps. Loyalty means a lot in drum corps and there isn't much of it around today.