Corps loyalty

[2000Cadet]

some kids will leave to follow staff. some kids will leave to win a ring. some kids will leave because there were reasons ( real or imagined that caused them not to stay.

best thing I can say is if you want loyalty, the corps itself has to build it. After all, you have some corps at the bottom (and the top) that have the same kids march year after year.

Fixed.

This is the most sensible statement I've read on this thread all day.

Edited June 16, 2010 by 2000Cadet

[BRASSO]

Do you realize how much a difference there is between even a 1st place and 8th place corps? Last year, there was no way the Blue Stars were ever going to come close to the Blue Devils..... In the NCAA tournament, Butler was a 5 seed (so overall ranked 20th or so) and they beat a 1 seed, and almost another to win the championship. They could do this because their competitive level was nearly the same as the very top. It is not like this in drum corps.

In each of the past few years (except for 2008) the oldest corps has won. How can you say that a transfer penalty would not have an effect on performance level? If roughly 30% (45 members) of the Blue Devils last year previously marched in another corps , then if you take away those 45 people, another 45 would have to replace them. Would those new 45 be at a lower level?.... of course they would. With a finite number of potential marchers, what one corps gains, another loses.

Imagine this scenario:

A kid really wants to march Phantom Regiment when they are 18 years old but does not make the cut.

3 things could happen:

1. They audition for Pioneer and march. Now the next year, they have improved enough to make Phantom but would have to sit out a year to transfer.... so they remain at Pioneer for the remainder of their DCI eligibility. In this scenario Pioneer has a great chance of improving with the retention of a more experienced marcher.

2. They march Pioneer and decide they still want to march Phantom so they sit out a year. This is a bad scenario for drum corps in general because it deprives us of one potential marcher for a whole season.

3. They decide not to march anywhere until they are good enough to march Phantom. This may be the worst scenario because it deprives us of a potential member for at least one season, deprives the lesser corps of a potential member, and deprives the kid of gaining the experience he/she may need to make a top corps..

I think everyone can agree that scenarios 2 and 3 above are bad for the activity, and I guarantee that this kind of thing would happen if such a rule was implemented. We have to ask ourselves if the reward of scenario 1 happening out-ways the risk of 2 and 3. I don't think it does. Too many potential marchers would be sitting out when they, under current rules, would be marching. In basketball, there is nearly an endless supply of potential NCAA athletes. In drum corps the total number of potential marchers is very small. Anything we do to diminish that would hurt the activity. Yes, I would love it if drum corps was popular enough that we could implement something like this, but realistically I see the above scenarios happening over and over. The risk out ways the reward.

some good insights here, imo. I might add that your assumption in the " sit out " year, is that the transfer will not be afiliated in Corps... any Corps... for 1 year. But that does not have to be the case. For example, when a Div.1 athlete transfers to another school, he or she STAYS with that team for their " sit out year ". He or she practices... they go to meetings.... he or she might even travel with the team. The transfer demonstates their strong desire to be with that team. And remember, the team decides to have him or her with the team, but can't use his or her talents. That demonstrates that the team is not simply depriving the other team of THEIR talent. It's a sign of commitment to the correct process. It works for the betterment of all parties, ie te former team.. the new team.... and the long term interests of the activity itself. Absent a transfer rule, we get a system that perpetuates the success of those at the top by systematically draining the talent of those below and destroys any reasonable chances for 90% of Corps to break through the institutional glass ceiling that was created to protect the influential and powerful at the top. Under such a system, it is no surprise at all that in the last 25 years, 3 Corps have dominated the top... and more than 50 Corp have folded under the talent drain, staff drain, etc that has been allowed to occur that other more successful enterprises ( ( NCAA )would consider unthinkable to be allowed to continue in such an unbridled fashion.

Edited June 16, 2010 by BRASSO

[Bob984]

Do you realize how much a difference there is between even a 1st place and 8th place corps? Last year, there was no way the Blue Stars were ever going to come close to the Blue Devils..... In the NCAA tournament, Butler was a 5 seed (so overall ranked 20th or so) and they beat a 1 seed, and almost another to win the championship. They could do this because their competitive level was nearly the same as the very top. It is not like this in drum corps.

In each of the past few years (except for 2008) the oldest corps has won. How can you say that a transfer penalty would not have an effect on performance level? If roughly 30% (45 members) of the Blue Devils last year previously marched in another corps , then if you take away those 45 people, another 45 would have to replace them. Would those new 45 be at a lower level?.... of course they would. With a finite number of potential marchers, what one corps gains, another loses.

Imagine this scenario:

A kid really wants to march Phantom Regiment when they are 18 years old but does not make the cut.

3 things could happen:

1. They audition for Pioneer and march. Now the next year, they have improved enough to make Phantom but would have to sit out a year to transfer.... so they remain at Pioneer for the remainder of their DCI eligibility. In this scenario Pioneer has a great chance of improving with the retention of a more experienced marcher.

2. They march Pioneer and decide they still want to march Phantom so they sit out a year. This is a bad scenario for drum corps in general because it deprives us of one potential marcher for a whole season.

3. They decide not to march anywhere until they are good enough to march Phantom. This may be the worst scenario because it deprives us of a potential member for at least one season, deprives the lesser corps of a potential member, and deprives the kid of gaining the experience he/she may need to make a top corps..

I think everyone can agree that scenarios 2 and 3 above are bad for the activity, and I guarantee that this kind of thing would happen if such a rule was implemented. We have to ask ourselves if the reward of scenario 1 happening out-ways the risk of 2 and 3. I don't think it does. Too many potential marchers would be sitting out when they, under current rules, would be marching. In basketball, there is nearly an endless supply of potential NCAA athletes. In drum corps the total number of potential marchers is very small. Anything we do to diminish that would hurt the activity. Yes, I would love it if drum corps was popular enough that we could implement something like this, but realistically I see the above scenarios happening over and over. The risk out ways the reward.

A) I do understand the difference between a 1st place corps and an 8th place corps. As a marcher, and then instructor/arranger for multiple corps, I have finished: 16th,13th, 12th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, and 1st (twice).....so, I think I qualify. A corps like BD is going to attract talent even if they can't have kids from other corps. When the corps I was with won DCI, we had many rookies, and only around 5 kids from other corps. The year before, the corps was far more experienced/talented (came in 3rd). It is bull that you can't produce a high level champion without members from other corps.

B) Where did I state that the Blue Stars were competitive with BD last year??? What I DID say, is I do believe that there are possibilities in the future that we could (I didn't say "will") have as many as eight corps in title contention. However... Right, wrong, or indifferent, a record percentage of members from 7-12 finalist corps are jumping to top 6 corps in their last 2 years of eligibility, and in most cases (certainly not all, though), the reason is to win.

I do have mixed feelings about a rule, and frankly I do not know what the results would be. I do believe, though, that for a multitude of reasons, loyalty to a corps is far less than it used to be. Maybe an alternate, and perhaps "fairer" rule would be this: (1) A corps may not have more than 10 members who marched in another World Class finalist last year, and no more than 20 who marched in any World Class competitor last year (ie 10 finalist, 10 non-finalist)". If a world class corps does not field a corps the following year, all of their former members would be immune from this requirement, and their numbers would not be included in any counts.

This would still allow for jumping ship to happen, but on a more limited basis. It would encourage member retention, and make jumping ship a bit more challenging.

GB

[Jeff Ream]

how dare you call me sensible

but i wish you hadn't fixed my post..because it was to show that not every corps is full of ring chasers that plan to jump

Fixed.

This is the most sensible statement I've read on this thread all day.

[2000Cadet]

how dare you call me sensible

but i wish you hadn't fixed my post..because it was to show that not every corps is full of ring chasers that plan to jump

Lol, well you know it's hard for you and I to agree on SOMETHING...so I gotta call it whenever I get the chance.

[garfield]

Wouldn't it be be great too if college athletes could leave their teams and have coaches at Duke, North Carolina take those Juniors and Seniors that have played basketball at other schools ? This way, when Duke or North Carolina win a national title, and their seniors graduate, the Coaches at Duke and North Carolina don't have to recruit High School players. They could take a look at all the experienced players that want to play at their school, and take a handful of the best. This way, Duke and North Carolina can be like the Blue Devils or Cadets, or Cavaliers every year. Players could play at ( say ) Temple, or Texas Tech, or wherever, be the best player on that team and league, and then move to Duke or North Carolina to help them win another Title. I agree with you... " a person should be able to go where they want, when they want".

Plus, look at Texas or USC in college football. Wouldn't it be great that when they lose their starting QB or best running back to the Pros or to graduation, that they could look around the country and see which QB or RB from any other team that is doing really well, might want to come and be the QB and RB for the Texas Longhorns or the USC Trojans. This would help Texas and USC be on top ever year, and who would be opposed to that ? Thus, maybe the NCAA could do away with their transfer rule and adopt the DCI model, where players can go wherever they want, whenever they want, just as you said. This way, just like DCI we should be able to have the same 2-3 win every year in basketball and football. This would be good for the fans to see such competition and help the sport to grow, just like DCI as grown over the last 30 years. People like to watch exciting competition at the top, and the DCI model should be something the NCAA should allow too. They might be able to eliminate the 64 round robin tournament called " March Madness " and just go to the " top acts " of the same Final Eight each year. No need for a Cinderella teams like Butler last year to gum up the works for the Top Acts of college basketball too.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or scream.

Am I correct in assuming a [/sarcasm] at the end would be appropriate?

Otherwise,

[Room_101]

I'm not sure whether to laugh or scream.

Am I correct in assuming a [/sarcasm] at the end would be appropriate?

Otherwise,

That's what I originally thought, now I'm not so sure...

[TerriTroop]

Don't listen to what anybody says. I thought it was GREAT that the Cascades made it back onto the competitive field last year, and wish the corps nothing but the best!! Pour your positive energy into the corps, and it will rub off on everyone around you. Again, best of luck, and you have a great attitude!!!

GB

HEAR HEAR! People can be really cruel - you turn the tables on them by doing exactly what GB says. Pour your heart and soul into your corps and your show. I can't tell you how many times I've heard members of other corps trash Troop - this goes all the way back to before I marched with them. Trash talk is just another way of people trying to feel superior. (heh - guess I'm trash talking trash talkers to feel superior, LOL! ) Anyway, it's been around forever, so just blow that stuff off and have a FANTASTIC season!

[TerriTroop]

I agree a lot with this... I think if you took the members of the 12th place corps* and switched them with the members of the 1st place corps, the 12th place members would contend for a championship.** Maybe not win, because they might achieve slightly less,*** but it would be close. And I think the first place members would probably finish close to 12th,**** maybe a little bit higher, with their new corps.

There are some asterisks that I would add:

*Those who were are in pretty decent physical shape already

**As long as they were willing to put in an extreme amount of off season work to meet the expectations of their 1st place staff members, otherwise closer to 6th-7th is likely

***because they will likely average out to be younger and not as fully developed physically, emotionally and musically as the average 1st place corps members were

****because the show design for a 12th place corps is not going to be up to 5th or 6th place performance level (because show design is, IMO, more than half the game right now)

[2000Cadet]

HEAR HEAR! People can be really cruel - you turn the tables on them by doing exactly what GB says. Pour your heart and soul into your corps and your show. I can't tell you how many times I've heard members of other corps trash Troop - this goes all the way back to before I marched with them. Trash talk is just another way of people trying to feel superior. (heh - guess I'm trash talking trash talkers to feel superior, LOL! ) Anyway, it's been around forever, so just blow that stuff off and have a FANTASTIC season!

But it's the same thing when people talk "trash" about people who want to go to corps that maybe a little more successful than others. I don't see the problem with either side. If someone wants to stay with a corps and strive to make them better, then I am all for it. If a person chooses to move on to what they may view as bigger and better, then that's fine too. I think there is too much of a focus being placed on some of the practices of some corps and not enough emphasis being placed on trying to do whatever it is possible to make the experience the BEST experience for that marcher.