G8

[Stu]

> "adjusting touring schedules for the new G-8 corps and the newly NON-G-8 corps would be a logistical nightmare for those groups."

Nawwwww..., there would not be a problem with this logistical stuff... DCI has already officially stated that the TOC eight will receive more contingency money to cover increased travel expenses; so DCI would just also cover the added logistical issues if the eight happened to change during the season. I mean DCI is all about the top eight anyway, right?!?!

Edited December 9, 2010 by Stu

[jwscv87]

If the G7 (or now eight, I guess) truly feel DCI is not meeting their needs, then they have two choices: 1. Leave DCI and start their own circuit, fully assuming the risks that this entails. 2. Remain within DCI, abiding by its founding principles while working to change to benefit of all its members. What caused such a furor was the suggestion by one or two of the G7 directors that it would be really cool if they could have it both ways -- essentially creating a new circuit within the safe, comfortable confines of DCI and reaping all the benefits while burdening the non-G7 corps with all the risk. Maybe it was just a proposal, but it did offer a vision of at least one man's ideal future and it had the tacit approval (though one wonders whether or not the other G7 corps had any idea what was in the original proposal before it was presented in May) of the other elite corps. This was enough to frighten the non-G7 corps into taking decisive action.

I think the TOC is a good (if predictable) solution to the DCI civil war that began back in May. It's probably the only thing most of the G8 corps wanted in the first place. Ideally the lineups for these shows would be based on the current season's results, but in a compromise not everything is going to be ideal. It seems to me that the TOC represents a willingness on the part of the G-7/8 to work within the boundaries of DCI's principles, though others may disagree. But if the TOC ends up being wildly successful then this willingness to cooperate might start to break down, and the war will begin all over again.

That second, bolded, paragraph is precisely what I hope to be the case. I hope this turns out to be a rational compromise that all parties can live with, but I remain very wary that if the leaders of the top corps are not satisfied with the outcome they will revert to their original position and either destroy DCI as we know it today or exit DCI completely. I think it is incredibly naive to think those outcomes are remote based upon what we have heard to date.

[Jeff Ream]

So? If following the rules of DCI means that they risk going out of "business" then should stop following the rules of DCI or DCI should change the rules. Let's not say the G8 should just leave it all alone. The Non-G8 should counter with a proposal of their own. If DCI's current structure if failing to provide for the best and worst corps then we need a new model.

except going off on their own by the others was a move to put those corps out of business, or at least not help them any.

see DCI is supposed to be for all, not for the few, at least in World Class.

and, honestly, many of the 8 were the leaders in getting DCI into the mess it's currently in, so why should their example be followed?

[BOBSMYTH]

WARNING! LOGIC DISCONNECT AHEAD:

So? If following the rules of DCI means that they risk going out of "business" then should stop following the rules of DCI or DCI should change the rules. Let's not say the G8 should just leave it all alone. The Non-G8 should counter with a proposal of their own. If DCI's current structure if failing to provide for the best and worst corps then we need a new model.

So.

DCI is a cooperative fraternity of its member corps. The corps are DCI. DCI is the corps.

The DCI rules that you say are causing the corps to "risk going out of business" are rules that the corps have proposed and that the corps have voted to approve and that the corps have agreed to operate under. And now those corps are supposed to break away from their own system of rules because those rules are not working for them in some way by claiming that their own sysem of rules is broken and that fact justifies all of their G7 actions to grab power and money from the other corps in the fraternity.

To take it a step further: the chief rules proposer that has caused this untenable position for all of the corps is also the chief proposer of the G7 package of changes that you say are needed to fix the model of broken rules. He is the chief architect of the current environment and it is his system of rules that are ostensibly causing the corps to be at risk. It is his own system of brokenness that he used to justify the need for all of this drastic action and chaos.

This all very confusing.

If the system of rules is broken, there is already an agreed upon process to change the rules to better rules that are not broken - without a revolt, a hostile takeover or a secession.

And one more concept - the non G7 corps did counter with a proposal of their own. It was beautiful in its simplicity: NO!

[GUARDLING]

except going off on their own by the others was a move to put those corps out of business, or at least not help them any.

see DCI is supposed to be for all, not for the few, at least in World Class.

and, honestly, many of the 8 were the leaders in getting DCI into the mess it's currently in, so why should their example be followed?

As I remember it back then (as a member of one of those so called elite ) it wasn't all for one and one for all. It was even more elite then and even more about survival, and only the strong survived. It may have preached the so called Brotherhood BUT as in most things preaching one thing and really another.

DCI as I remember it was NOT all about EVERYONE and very much about the FEW!..But I guess we all have selective memory to some degree.

[Jeff Ream]

As I remember it back then (as a member of one of those so called elite ) it wasn't all for one and one for all. It was even more elite then and even more about survival, and only the strong survived. It may have preached the so called Brotherhood BUT as in most things preaching one thing and really another.

DCI as I remember it was NOT all about EVERYONE and very much about the FEW!..But I guess we all have selective memory to some degree.

to a point, you're right.

But.....

the leaders saying DCi is broken it needs fixed ARE THE ONES WHO BROKE IT!

These are the guys that pushed for national touring, the current pay system, the current BOD structure, the rules that alienate fans. These are the guys that voted that stuff in....and now they claim it's screwed up, yet claim NOT ONE IOTA OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MAKING IT SO.

You want selective memory, maybe we need to talk to the leaders of the 8 corps. They seem to be the ones showing it

[GUARDLING]

to a point, you're right.

But.....

the leaders saying DCi is broken it needs fixed ARE THE ONES WHO BROKE IT!

These are the guys that pushed for national touring, the current pay system, the current BOD structure, the rules that alienate fans. These are the guys that voted that stuff in....and now they claim it's screwed up, yet claim NOT ONE IOTA OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MAKING IT SO.

You want selective memory, maybe we need to talk to the leaders of the 8 corps. They seem to be the ones showing it

You are also right to a point. Also, people seem to forget when talking about DCI..They talk as if DCI is a seperate entity and it isn't....as you say......It is the Corps making these decisions. SO, if there is a screw up, it's the corps screwing up and the people in charge.

[garfield]

As I remember it back then (as a member of one of those so called elite ) it wasn't all for one and one for all. It was even more elite then and even more about survival, and only the strong survived. It may have preached the so called Brotherhood BUT as in most things preaching one thing and really another.

DCI as I remember it was NOT all about EVERYONE and very much about the FEW!..But I guess we all have selective memory to some degree.

Did anyone else catch this paragraph from the DCI announcement of Sal Ferrara's passing? Apropos to this discussion, I think:

"He is regarded as the architect of DCI’s policy and organizational structure and developed the revenue-sharing program that allowed drum corps to become self-financing. Rather than depending on the rapidly descending earnings setup that rewarded the top corps most of the prize money at contests, he created the system of performance fees that allowed all corps to benefit from appearing at shows."

Rest in peace, Sal.

[GUARDLING]

Did anyone else catch this paragraph from the DCI announcement of Sal Ferrara's passing? Apropos to this discussion, I think:

"He is regarded as the architect of DCI’s policy and organizational structure and developed the revenue-sharing program that allowed drum corps to become self-financing. Rather than depending on the rapidly descending earnings setup that rewarded the top corps most of the prize money at contests, he created the system of performance fees that allowed all corps to benefit from appearing at shows."

Rest in peace, Sal.

Yes . did see it and was a good guy.RIP..... BUT it also was what it was and a very elite structure back then.Many of us across the board were told that we were becoming the few that will go down in History and change the face of drum corps forever BUT also told that we would leave behind alot of our friends from Local circuits.

I'm not slamming or defending anything here just saying how it was for me as well as many who were in the position when it all started.When I speak of selective memory, it happens alot in all aspects of life, I'm sure with me also and we can all justify why things way back happened especially if we were on the winning side of something.

Jeff id right though, either way DCI IS, the corps and if there is something not quite right the corps are the ones holding the bag .Again, I will say people speak as if DCI is something more than the corps and it isn't.....IMO

[JimF-LowBari]

You are also right to a point. Also, people seem to forget when talking about DCI..They talk as if DCI is a seperate entity and it isn't....as you say......It is the Corps making these decisions. SO, if there is a screw up, it's the corps screwing up and the people in charge.

When you say "corps" are you talking about the entire group within DCI or the individual units.

IMO, this isn't about the leaders of the individual corps doing what is best for DCI. It's those people seeing the (mostly money) mess and saying "G8 is what I need to do to save my own group". Remember the old 3 Stooges line "All for one, one for all.... and every man for himself". IMO, we're seeing the last 4 words of that quote.

And comparing the number of corps lost in the past to today one glaring thought hits me. If DCI loses the percentage of corps like was done 1972-2009 what would we have left? Two... maybe three....

Edited December 10, 2010 by JimF-LowBari