DCP DCI Round Table Discussion

[audiodb]

When a sports franchise sits on the bottom of the standings year after year, the devotees of the sport generally recognize that they do so because they are poorly managed. At one point, Cavaliers' Board voted to fold the corps at the end of that season (did you guys know this?) - what turned it around was a stroke of very good luck in the guise of Rosemont's pledge to help, and a totally new management team and staff that decided that being competitive (not "winning", but being competitive) had to become important again.

I'm sorry....in what year was "being competitive" not important to the Cavaliers?

I'd love to see Spirit battling it out with Crown and Cadets. Pioneer being able to look down on 10 other corps who placed lower than them in prelims would be great. But until they decide to go there, all the hoping in the world ain't gonna matter.

Um, until you decide to acknowledge and condone the existence of "lower-placing corps", your philosophy isn't going to have much practical potential.

There can be only one champion. To have a competitive league of over 20 corps, many of them will have to be satisfied with something less.

Or, say you define "success" by the current fad....top 7. Not all 23 world-class corps can be top 7 (only 7 of them can be at any one time). And with the disparity and competitive inertia that has become status quo in today's drum corps activity, it would be a very long time before all 23 corps could get a turn in the top 7. (And never mind about open-class....I guess they have no chance at "success" by your standard.)

If there's one thing I learned in this activity, it is that being 8th, or 12th, or 17th best in the whole world is still something to be proud of. And we'd better make sure more people learn that lesson, because if only 7 corps can ever be considered "successful", we'll soon have only 7 corps....and that is not enough to sustain this activity.

[mobrien]

If there's one thing I learned in this activity, it is that being 8th, or 12th, or 17th best in the whole world is still something to be proud of. And we'd better make sure more people learn that lesson, because if only 7 corps can ever be considered "successful", we'll soon have only 7 corps....and that is not enough to sustain this activity.

By this philosophy, waking up in the morning is enough to qualify a person as "successful." Achievement means nothing. Unfortunately, when you are involved in a competitive activity in which you ALSO have to compete for the best performers, saying "hey we showed up!" is a lousy recruiting tool.

Patting those who never make the move on the head by saying "it's ok, it's only about showing up" only enables the type of stratification and achievement gap that is killing off the fan interest (and by extension, the growth of the whole activity). You want to say that the problem is that the good corps are TOO good, but that's simply lame - the kids who march in BD or Cadets are physically no different than the kids who show up at Spirit or Crossmen - they simply get better shows to perform and are part of organizations who expect to be competitive at the top. Expect to win, and you're halfway there; hope to maybe make Finals, and you'll play at a different level. A three year play to become a top-5 corps that includes "making Finals" is one thing - having that as your year-in, year-out goal limits both the scope of your programming imagination and the level of commitment you'll get from everyone around you.

The Cavaliers weren't competitive in the late 70s, and they knew it. There was an attitude in-house that said "we used to be national champions, we're gonna play it like it's still 1970", which was self-defeating. They decided that being in 10th and 11th place had no particular glory attached to it, and adjusted accordingly.

Edited October 12, 2010 by mobrien

[thirdcoast]

Corps will be better this next year, or more competitive. Last year Blue Knights beat SCV at a show, when was the last time that happened? Its something I think that we as an activity can look forward to, a little parity in the standings in the future. I do think that all the Corps are trying to be more competitive, gotta start somewhere if you ask me.

[audiodb]

By this philosophy, waking up in the morning is enough to qualify a person as "successful." Achievement means nothing. Unfortunately, when you are involved in a competitive activity in which you ALSO have to compete for the best performers, saying "hey we showed up!" is a lousy recruiting tool.

Patting those who never make the move on the head by saying "it's ok, it's only about showing up" only enables the type of stratification and achievement gap that is killing off the fan interest (and by extension, the growth of the whole activity).

Now that was a very impressive job of distorting what I was saying.

You want to say that the problem is that the good corps are TOO good, but that's simply lame -

....and incorrect. If greater parity can be attained without impairing the quality of the top corps in the process, that is fine by me.

- the kids who march in BD or Cadets are physically no different than the kids who show up at Spirit or Crossmen -

They were different this season....but go on....

- they simply get better shows to perform and are part of organizations who expect to be competitive at the top. Expect to win, and you're halfway there; hope to maybe make Finals, and you'll play at a different level. A three year play to become a top-5 corps that includes "making Finals" is one thing - having that as your year-in, year-out goal limits both the scope of your programming imagination and the level of commitment you'll get from everyone around you.

I can't believe you're serious. Do you really believe the Cavaliers expected to win DCI in 1981? Or 1982? 1983? 1984? 1985? Anyone with their heart set on that expectation would have been bitterly disappointed with their Cavaliers experience in those years....and probably gone at season's end. If that had been the prevailing mindset, the corps would have dissolved from lack of personnel. And I am serious....history is full of examples of corps doubling down on a competitive goal that, when unmet, resulted in mass exodus and folding for lack of members.

And perhaps that "win or die trying" mentality of past eras (which you seem to advocate) was a valid operating model back then, when new corps sprang up every year to replace the "die trying" units....but it doesn't work in today's high-cost activity. We need more stable, long-term corps nowadays. Any corps interested in maintaining a competitive program long-term must have patience, and the perspective to enjoy the entire competitive experience, not just the end result....because not everyone gets the end result they want.

The Cavaliers weren't competitive in the late 70s, and they knew it. There was an attitude in-house that said "we used to be national champions, we're gonna play it like it's still 1970", which was self-defeating. They decided that being in 10th and 11th place had no particular glory attached to it, and adjusted accordingly.

I see. So ranking 11th....or 9th....or even 7th among the 200+ corps in the late '70s activity was not competitive?

[mobrien]

. Do you really believe the Cavaliers expected to win DCI in 1981? Or 1982? 1983? 1984? 1985? Anyone with their heart set on that expectation would have been bitterly disappointed with their Cavaliers experience in those years....and probably gone at season's end.

They were disappointed at finishing where they did in '81 - and the entire staff and management was replaced the next season. After a couple of years of mis-steps, they figured out the formula starting in '84. A new uniform, a new, modern, programming philosophy, a lot of new outside staffers in charge (and that was NOT popular with some of the old guard) and a determination to improve their finish each year until they finally got back to the top. They knew it would take a few years, but they started by deciding to play at the top level first, then built the program to support the goal.

8th in '84. 5th in '85. 3rd in '86, and they've never looked back.

It's not rocket science. Anyone could do it. Crown did it. Bluecoats have done it. Blue Stars are doing it - and in the process, reclaiming their identity from an earlier era.

You want parity? So do I. I want the managements of the corps who are hanging on to get a fire lit under their arses to start trying to BEAT Devils, Cadets and Cavaliers. Do what each of them did, and commit your program to becoming great rather than just good. THAT will be parity.

And if they can't do it, then I go back to my earliest point ; DCI needs to change themselves into an organization with multiple formats that can allow those without as much money or time to put groups of kids together and still do well. But it won't be at the WC level - it would be at a drum corps version of WGI.

Edited October 12, 2010 by mobrien

[audiodb]

They were disappointed at finishing where they did in '81 - and the entire staff and management was replaced the next season. After a couple of years of mis-steps, they figured out the formula starting in '84. A new uniform, a new, modern, programming philosophy, a lot of new outside staffers in charge (and that was NOT popular with some of the old guard) and a determination to improve their finish each year until they finally got back to the top. They knew it would take a few years, but they started by deciding to play at the top level first, then built the program to support the goal.

8th in '84. 5th in '85. 3rd in '86, and they've never looked back.

It's not rocket science. Anyone could do it.

Oh, please. There is no magic formula. Your own example proves it. So when the Cavaliers decided their 1981 finish (10th) wasn't satisfactory, they went all-out to improve things in 1982 (11th - oops). It took three tries to find a drum staff they could stick with. It isn't nearly as simple as "deciding to play at the top level".

Crown did it. Bluecoats have done it. Blue Stars are doing it.

After cracking top 12, it took Crown eight years to get out of the double-digit placements. Bluecoats spent a dozen years in the lower half of finals, then dropped out and had to climb back up again. Blue Stars went 20 years without fielding more than half the member limit. None of these corps lacked the ambition....but there is no magic formula.

You want parity? So do I. I want the managements of the corps who are hanging on to get a fire lit under their arses to start trying to BEAT Devils, Cadets and Cavaliers. Do what each of them did, and commit your program to becoming great rather than just good. THAT will be parity.

OK, then. Since you're picking on Spirit and Glassmen, why don't you tell us what each of those corps is doing to purposely avoid winning, and what changes they should make to fix that.

And if they can't do it, then I go back to my earliest point ; DCI needs to change themselves into an organization with multiple formats that can allow those without money, time or as much talent to still do well. But it won't be at the WC level.

That's what we have now (open-class).

[Jeff Ream]

well for Crossmen, we've had several threads showing their issues, but I do agree with you. Just saying you're going for broke will not produce results.

really, you want to see corps at the bottom get better...retain the kids that constantly jump to corps up the rankings.

[jpaul]

Oh, please. There is no magic formula. Your own example proves it. So when the Cavaliers decided their 1981 finish (10th) wasn't satisfactory, they went all-out to improve things in 1982 (11th - oops). It took three tries to find a drum staff they could stick with. It isn't nearly as simple as "deciding to play at the top level".

Achieving the goal isn't easy, but making the decision is that simple.

[mobrien]

Oh, please. There is no magic formula. Your own example proves it. So when the Cavaliers decided their 1981 finish (10th) wasn't satisfactory, they went all-out to improve things in 1982 (11th - oops). It took three tries to find a drum staff they could stick with. It isn't nearly as simple as "deciding to play at the top level".

It worked in stages. Brubaker was the first piece of the puzzle. He was given the visual programming job in '82 despite never having written a drill for a drum corps at that level - perhaps at any level. But the Board knew that he'd succeeded at the winter guard, and figured that what the hell - he was homegrown as an instructor, and perhaps better in tune with what the judges wanted than anyone else.

Brass arranging was done by a few different guys in '82, one old (Cliff Colnot), one new, for them (Tim Salzman). Percussion was given back to Dan Spalding, who'd done a great job in the mid-70s, and came up with a good line, but not ready to take on Bridgemen or Devils that year (no one else was either, so that didn't hurt too much). New unis were introduced mid-way through the season, replacing the mid-70s redesign. Lots of new 15 and 16 year old members moved up to the '82 corps from the feeder corps - so the staff knew that they have less skilled kids to work with, but they also knew that with the right training, those guys would eventually be ok.

Finished 11th that year - disappointing, but at least they could see some bright spots. It was clear that Brubaker and Salzman were keepers, and that the most successful musical element in the show was the part that was least like Cavaliers shows from the 70s and early 80s (drop the disco, add the Resphigi). So the year proved to be a step forward despite the finish.

'83 brought in a new drum staff with a Bridgemen background, in the hopes that some of what was new and exciting in DeLucia's lines would find its way into Cavaliers program. Didn't quite work out - and because of that, they went looking elsewhere for the next season.

'84 adds two very important pieces of the puzzle - a totally new, much more modern uniform design from Michael Cesario (to replace the previous 'new' one that wasn't effective enough - getting a pattern here yet?) and Jim Campbell as the new percussion caption head. Campbell's tastes and abilities were such that he was finally a strong third piece in the brass/visual/percussion puzzle, and the '84 show is built around a more serious approach to music than previous versions of the corps - all of which happens as Brubaker's design skills are maturing and the corps is being recognized as being a visual powerhouse.

By '85, the corps has dropped pop and jazz altogether, and committed itself to contemporary classical music, something they were able to ride for a long time.

So four years for all the pieces to come together - but NONE of that would have happened had there not first been a decision to improve the competitiveness of the organization. It wasn't an accident; it was a goal.

What should the others do? I don't know - start with an identity and a persona that is unique in the marketplace, and then program to meet the identity. And watch this week's episode of "Mad Men" - if they don't like the way they're being talked about, they have to change the conversation.

Edited October 13, 2010 by mobrien

[Jeff Ream]

while that may have worked for the cavies, that recipe may not be a universal one.