G- 7 Corps Qualification

[perc2100]

The G7 want more money to beat up on the rest of the G7, I would love to DCI put a smack down on the multi-million dollar budget concept and boot the corps that have outgrown the DCI concept. Star did it to themselves, maybe BD and The Cadets should take off for year or two and see how the stadium show goes. Come back when you want to play with others.

This is a great point, and IMO uncovers the GLARING flaw with this G7 nonsense: the G7 corps want to be on their own to make more money, but know that they need the security of DCI. The G7 directors know that they would more than likely not be able to survive without the built in "machine" that DCI is: the marketing, pre-made tour and support, already existing revenue stream, etc. It can almost be looked at as offensive, like the G7 directors are saying, "we don't need the rest of you because we're the big draw, but we do still need DCI for the bulk of our performances because we can't support a self-sustaining tour on our own."

While there is obviously intrinsic value to this proposal: more shows w/Top 7 corps going at it, a format that seems to mirror the Tour of Champions thing, etc. But I imagine that this is more of a power grab move, and I wonder if the good parts of the proposal (Top 7 corps setting up some of their own shows with a Tour of Champions format) could be feasible without the not-so-good aspects (demanding more money for performance fees, an attempt to potentially completely exclude other corps/Open Class, etc). I get that those directors feel like they are worth more than they're currently getting in performance fees, but I wonder if they can do things on their own to garner more income/performance opportunities without completely disrupting DCI.

[perc2100]

I so want to understand this post. Would you state it again in a different way so I can figure out what the heck you mean?

I have read many posts over the years on DCP, where some of the older folks complain that some of the current practices/philosophies of drum corps promote a "everybody is great" mentality at the cost of competition. For example, when the topic of ties for Champion has been discussed, when a proponent of ties brings up the fact that 300 kids walk away champions vs. 150, a common counter-argument would be this new-age nonsense that everybody deserves a trophy and needs to be assured they're all great.

Yet when corps who have generally been at the top of the activity for decades make claims that they are the largest draw at DCI shows (news flash: for the most part they actually are), people scoff that they have the nerve to presume they are better than corps that have traditionally placed below them for the majority of DCI's existence, or at least in many recent years.

[audiodb]

Though I'm not one to imagine the thinking of Hoppy and the others in this, my guess is that they may see some quantity of corps (Open and WC) that simply plod along year after year (what we used to call "following the flag" in the military). They benefit from the draw of the "top 7 or 9ish" and it's a sort of "ground hog day" kind of thing.

And how do they distinguish the plodders from the up-and-comers like 73-74 BD, or 73-75 PR, or 78-84 Cavaliers, or 64-80 Cadets?

[floatdude]

I say, let the G7 do their own thing, but not with DCI. They are rigging more drum corps to fail.

They should move on to do whatever they want, they will be missed, if they got a better idea on how to do things and make more money for themselves let them move on. "G7DC"

But a new deal with the remaining DCI corps, and a new money plan with all the drum corps including open class, so it fair for them too.

The better corps gets paid more and the worst corps paid less, so it doesn't start any mediocrity.

A system is need to help the remaining corps and help new corps that are forming a fighting chance to make it.

But corps need to be better with money and recruiting, so the numbers of corps grow, not even less drum corps.

A drum corps tzar, need to happen, that person or his team goes out to corps hometown, helps them get better with making money and recruiting. Helps them get better at being a drum corps.

The Chef Ramsey ( as seen on Kitchen Nightmares) but with drum corps.

So that the sport of drum corps grows and those G7 corps will be missed but replaced, but with new better corps in bigger numbers.

[garfield]

I say, let the G7 do their own thing, but not with DCI. They are rigging more drum corps to fail.

They should move on to do whatever they want, they will be missed, if they got a better idea on how to do things and make more money for themselves let them move on. "G7DC"

But a new deal with the remaining DCI corps, and a new money plan with all the drum corps including open class, so it fair for them too.

The better corps gets paid more and the worst corps paid less, so it doesn't start any mediocrity.

DCI already has this.

A system is need to help the remaining corps and help new corps that are forming a fighting chance to make it.

DCI already has this.

But corps need to be better with money and recruiting, so the numbers of corps grow, not even less drum corps.

Without a doubt.

A drum corps tzar, need to happen, that person or his team goes out to corps hometown, helps them get better with making money and recruiting. Helps them get better at being a drum corps.

DCI already has this.

The Chef Ramsey ( as seen on Kitchen Nightmares) but with drum corps.

So that the sport of drum corps grows and those G7 corps will be missed but replaced, but with new better corps in bigger numbers.

[BRASSO]

That is how it was done in the 70s. The top twelve had a vote and the associate corps (13-25) did not.

But if this proposal goes through, it goes WAAAY beyond anything that was done in the first few years of DCI. No Group of Corps at the top of DCI in the 70's tried to create a sub division within the Top 12 whereby they would IN THE FUTURE, be accorded competitive slotting, with competition scheduling influences, marketing of their Corps, financial benefits, etc and all sorts of other advantages that would help solidify their current competitive position, and also disadvantage the future competitive opportunities for the other Finalist Corps, and those outside the current top 12.

What if this G-7 proposal was set forth by 3 Corps ( not 7 ), ie Blue Devils, Cadets, and Cavaliers...( a G-3.).. Do you think this would fly with the others, currently in the G-7 current proposal ? Of course not.

And It's not WHERE the subdivision takes place in World Class Division on this. It falls on it's face because fundamentally it runs against the grain of the principle of a fair and open competition where no small group of Corps can be allowed to set up the rules of engagement in future competition over the others in competition in the same class division.. It is inherently unfair. It would institutionalize a system of group slotting of Corps in the World Class Division. The " slotting " of Corps at one time, not too long ago, was viewed as a very bad thing. Have we become so numb now to such clear competitive manipulation attempts by some Corps ? What if 3 Corps in Open Class Division decided to set up a similar subdivision in Open Class that would advantage them, and disadvantage the others in future competitions. Wouldn't we say also that this would be a lousy policy to adopt as well ? Do we want a level playing field for all Corps in DCI competition.... or not ? I guess we're going to find out when this proposal comes up for a vote in the near future.

Edited May 23, 2010 by BRASSO

[NakedEye]

So, weren't these G7 corps (with the exception of Cadets, who were doing extensive YEA clinics already) the ones DCI itself singled out to be featured in that "On Q" business? Right there that was a precedent for separating out the corps that DCI considered to be the best of the best, and the plan was to set up additional events/clinics beyond the regular tour that would be centered around these groups and none of the others.

It had nothing do do with specific numerical placement on a given year. They pulled out the ones considered to be the strongest from an organization, educational staff, and audience draw perspective.

That was a DCI-led initiative, and I don't remember a huge outcry that it wasn't being fair to the rest of the corps.

Now that these same corps have come to DCI with a proposal for something which spotlights them in a similar fashion, it is suddenly outrageous?

As an aside, everyone remembers the fantastic success of On Q, right? If there was ever anything more to it than a spectacularly bad teaser marketing campaign, that put a lot of flash and sizzle on saying "it's coming," but then never gave even the slightest clue of what "it" was, I must have missed it. A good reminder of why fresh ideas that are generated outside (instead of inside) the DCI central office might be worth exploring.

[BRASSO]

So, weren't these G7 corps (with the exception of Cadets, who were doing extensive YEA clinics already) the ones DCI itself singled out to be featured in that "On Q" business? Right there that was a precedent for separating out the corps that DCI considered to be the best of the best, and the plan was to set up additional events/clinics beyond the regular tour that would be centered around these groups and none of the others.

It had nothing do do with specific numerical placement on a given year. They pulled out the ones considered to be the strongest from an organization, educational staff, and audience draw perspective.

That was a DCI-led initiative, and I don't remember a huge outcry that it wasn't being fair to the rest of the corps.

Now that these same corps have come to DCI with a proposal for something which spotlights them in a similar fashion, it is suddenly outrageous?

As an aside, everyone remembers the fantastic success of On Q, right? If there was ever anything more to it than a spectacularly bad teaser marketing campaign, that put a lot of flash and sizzle on saying "it's coming," but then never gave even the slightest clue of what "it" was, I must have missed it. A good reminder of why fresh ideas that are generated outside (instead of inside) the DCI central office might be worth exploring.

There is a HUGE difference between sptlighting a Corps .... or even group of Corps... for a specific marketing campaign and what this G-7 proposal is attempting to do. The G-7 proposal, if adopted, would codify and institutionalize the G-7 Corps in a manner well beyond the scope of the temporary "On Q "marketing campaign. It would immediately set in motion a series of events, rules, regulation, voting rights, financial revenue distributions,competitive scheduling advantages, future recruitment advantages, judges exposure ( and maybe influences ), etc that no temporary marketing campaign could ever claim such advantages to a Corps or group of Corps before. This radical G-7 proposal is unlike anything we've seen before. It is a HUGELY divisive proposal right now among the various Corps, and the DCI Executive Director, D. Acheson, acknowledged as much in his press release a few days ago.

Edited May 23, 2010 by BRASSO

[Feathers Up]

This radical G-7 proposal is unlike anything we've seen before.

Maybe bc we haven't seen it yet?!? All anyone is going on right now is SPIN. From both sides. And sadly, just spin from an idea which isn't even close to being finalized according to those who proposed it in the first place.

[CuriousMe]

Maybe bc we haven't seen it yet?!? All anyone is going on right now is SPIN. From both sides. And sadly, just spin from an idea which isn't even close to being finalized according to those who proposed it in the first place.