Liahona Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 They've been pretty much completely selling out, and then some, so no more fan base is really needed. And I think they need to find some larger venues if they are thinking of doing this. The venues at Ft. Mill and Rockford were just ridiculously small for a competition of that caliber. It was almost a joke. Parking was a nightmare for both the fans and the corps. I agree with your logic....BUT larger venues cost larger amounts of money to operate. IMO it is probably better to sell out a smaller venue then to have empty seats in a larger one. Logic would dictate, if your overhead for a show is less, but you still charge the same premium pricing for that show( more than what you were able to sell a ticket for previously not being a TOC event)...You will probably make more money in the end IMO than just licensing a huge venue. Of course I don't know the hard numbers because I've never promoted a show personally. I'd really like to hear perhaps others who know more about the specifics to chime in on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyWonder1911 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Yeah you do have a valid point, but like the show in Murfreesboro, that was about perfect. The show at Cypress, TX was decent, very nice venue for a competition in any regards. But those stadiums at Ft. Mill and Rockford were just way too small...small even for a normal competition. Places like the New Meadowlands, I could see where it would be hard to make a profit, but they did sell a lot of seats. I wonder what the fee is??? I think the only other large professional stadiums we used were the Georgia Dome and of course Lucas Oil. BTW, the sound at the New Meadowlands was pretty good. Almost better than the U of Minn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCCGrifle09 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 My thing with the whole tour of champions is this - with the exception of the Blue Stars, all the corps in the TOC have reached the top 3 (even if just once or twice) in the last ten years. Thus, I agree with the statement that Madison should be allowed back in - they are getting back to championship form, even if they haven't gotten back to the top yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 My thing with the whole tour of champions is this - with the exception of the Blue Stars, all the corps in the TOC have reached the top 3 (even if just once or twice) in the last ten years. Thus, I agree with the statement that Madison should be allowed back in - they are getting back to championship form, even if they haven't gotten back to the top yet. Your logic does not make any sense...Based upon your logic(and your logic only) how does Madison fit into the equation? Let's look at the last 12 seasons: Madison Scouts 2000 10 2001 11 2002 14 2003 8 2004 8 2005 6 2006 9 2007 15 2008 12 2009 15 2010 10 2011 10 12 year average 12th Boston Crusaders 2000 5 2001 9 2002 5 2003 6 2004 9 2005 9 2006 10 2007 9 2008 10 2009 7 2010 9 2011 8 12 year average 8th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyWonder1911 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Madison is getting back into championship form? They were still 10th, and they scored even less than last year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 The Blue Stars were included in the 2010 Tour of Champions events because they had finished in the top 8 for the three prior years - 2008, 2009 and 2010. Not just 2010. So, just because Boston finished in the top 8 in 2011 does not mean that they will be included in any TOC events for 2012. I think it does mean that Blue Stars are out for 2012. We may have TOC shows with just 7 corps. Stay tuned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) The Blue Stars were included in the 2010 Tour of Champions events because they had finished in the top 8 for the three prior years - 2008, 2009 and 2010. Not just 2010. So, just because Boston finished in the top 8 in 2011 does not mean that they will be included in any TOC events for 2012. I think it does mean that Blue Stars are out for 2012. We may have TOC shows with just 7 corps. Stay tuned. The G7 decided on another Corps for political reasons and chose the Blue Stars to make it 8, and then afterwards made up the 3 year consecutive 8th place finish as the qualifyer reason to justify it. The 3 year look back made it work, as had they adopted a one year look back ( 2009 ) Boston would have been in over the Blue Stars. But Boston, (along with the Madison Scouts), did not like the G7 proposal for DCI 's future AT ALL. The Blue Stars Corps Director was more on board.. or at least neutral on it... in the beginning. Once the G7 evolved into the TOC as a DCI Membership agreed too compromise, it became a 1 year experiment with the ONLY agreed to provision that they'd be a revisit of the TOC concept at the end of this season. One can not speculate beyond anything more than that, as there has been no agreement on anything regarding the TOC beyond this one experimental season. We could see a TOC of 3, a TOC of 5, or something else, or no TOC at all. Its all up for discussion ( to look at revenues derived vs. extra travel costs incurred, etc ) and then a decision. Edited August 21, 2011 by BRASSO 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted August 21, 2011 Author Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) The Blue Stars were included in the 2010 Tour of Champions events because they had finished in the top 8 for the three prior years - 2008, 2009 and 2010. Not just 2010. So, just because Boston finished in the top 8 in 2011 does not mean that they will be included in any TOC events for 2012. I think it does mean that Blue Stars are out for 2012. We may have TOC shows with just 7 corps. Stay tuned. I really do not like it. According to the "original" G7 proposal unfortunately you are correct. In the proposal it was vague at best as to which years would be included, but did use the words "permanent status". I have a hard time with ANY attempt of making this retroactive (before even the original proposal itself). It's an obvious ploy to make it extremely difficult for any non-G8 groups to break into this supposed classification... The G7 proposal stated: "Note on Assertion 4 AAA( Tour of Champions) .Blue Devils.Carolina Crown.Cadets.Cavaliers.SCV.Bluecoats.Phantom Regiment.TOP OF Tier 2 ( three years in top 8 equals permanent status)" Edited August 21, 2011 by Liahona Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobe Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Tour of Champions including those who have yet to win a championship. Hmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I really do not like it. According to the "original" G7 proposal unfortunately you are correct. In the proposal it was vague at best as to which years would be included, but did use the words "permanent status". I have a hard time with ANY attempt of making this retroactive (before even the original proposal itself). It's an obvious ploy to make it extremely difficult for any non-G8 groups to break into this supposed classification... The G7 proposal stated: "Note on Assertion 4 AAA( Tour of Champions) .Blue Devils.Carolina Crown.Cadets.Cavaliers.SCV.Bluecoats.Phantom Regiment.TOP OF Tier 2 ( three years in top 8 equals permanent status)" Even the original G7 proposal was ill thought out for status qualification in the TOC. I like Phantom Regiment. However, they finished 9th in 2009, and thus any 3 year look back qualifyer of being in the top 8 for three consecutive years naturally would have disqualified them from qualifying participation. Then the G7 follow that up with a provision that makes other Corps jump through hoops the others did not have too. Then they create an ill thought out name of " Champions " for their grouping when other more appropriate names would have fit better. I also think that its likely that once the 8 Corps were selected, they believed that these 8 would have a competitive placement advantage for the following season, ( recruiting, marketing, better show venues, etc ) and that the chance that some other Corps or two being able to penetrate the slotted World Class Subdivision they attempted to permanently create, would be nil or very small. Boston however finished 8th this year. Neither Regiment, nor Boston have finished all 3 years within top 8. ( both Regiment and Boston finished 9th, one year ) But if there is a 3 year look back, its hard to see how Phantom or Boston qualify, and if there is a 1 year look back it is hard to see how the Blue Stars qualify. The G7 created this mess themselves by not having a qualification standard that equally applies to each Corps possible participation. But the G7 was never about equal application of the rules to begin with, so this is only part and parcel of the whole G7 scheme. Is the G7 once again going to try and move the goalposts yet again here this off season for potential qualifications to the TOC of 8 Corps that THEY established ? Well, we are about to find out in this off season, and it should make things quite interesting, imo. Edited August 21, 2011 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.