Liahona Posted August 21, 2011 Author Share Posted August 21, 2011 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. I can only guess what the rules will be this coming season or WHO will be included or not...and I'm going to be presumptuous and predict that DCI will probably buckle under whatever pressure they get from them as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahox Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) From day one of DCI, these have ALWAYS been the rules . Thats not going to change. 1 Corps... 1 vote. DCI does not have 2 Corps, 3 Corps, 7 Corps, or 8 Corps. It has 41 Corps. Maybe all the Corps don't all have the same talent and abilities. But their vote is the same. And thats NOT going to change from what I'm hearing. So it'll be a most interesting off season to see what happens. The fact that DCI has a new Executive Board of Directors in which membership replaced these plotters on the Executive Board, and gave a vote of confidence to the current Executive Director ( the 2 plotters wanted replaced ) is a healthy sign to me that some degree of control and stability has been established now by the full DCI membership body. Really? From day one all corps have had a vote? I seem to remember, the top twelve corps were considered DCI corps, the next thirteen were considered associated members, with no votes. And the rest were ............ Edited August 21, 2011 by fahox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I seem to remember, the top twelve corps were considered DCI corps, the next thirteen were considered associated members, with no votes. And the rest were ............ No. DCI voting on rules, regs, etc proposals ( which G7 would have entailed as a change in policy's rules and regs, etc ) is not restricted to former season's Top 12 Finalist Corps vote alone. The G7 principal architects, for one example, were voted off the DCI Executive Board Of Directors in emergency meeting. Such ouster and replacement on the BOD could not have occured had the votes only been allowed to occur from just the " TOP 12 " Corps. Logically, if only 12 votes could occur from just the TOP 12 Corps voting, the G7 would have had a plurality in such an election and no doubt would have prevailed in such an election resticted to just the Top 12 being allowed to caste votes. Edited August 21, 2011 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcifanforlife Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 With the format that the TOC used eight corps is to many. The shows are to long. They should cut back to the top six plus a regional add on. Show in the Midwest add Bluecoats or Madison. Show in South add Spirit, Show in East add Boston, Show in Texas add Crossmen. At the end of the day the G7 got what they wanted. TOC clearly demonstrated that fans will pay top dollar to see the top corps perform. Hopkins and Gibbs are smiling all the way to the bank and you can bet they will be pushing their concept for DCI at the next board meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahox Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 No. DCI voting on rules, regs, etc proposals ( which G7 would have entailed as a change in policy's rules and regs, etc ) is not restricted to former season's Top 12 Finalist Corps vote alone. The G7 principal architects, for one example, were voted off the DCI Executive Board Of Directors in emergency meeting. Such ouster and replacement on the BOD could not have occured had the votes only been allowed to occur from just the " TOP 12 " Corps. Logically, if only 12 votes could occur from just the TOP 12 Corps voting, the G7 would have had a plurality in such an election and no doubt would have prevailed in such an election resticted to just the Top 12 being allowed to caste votes. That may be true now, but in your original post, I believe you said from day one all corps have always had a vote, and I don't think that is correct. In the beginning I believe only the top 12 corps were considered DCI corps, the next 13 were associate members and the rest were not taken into consideration. 1972 was a long time ago, and I could be wrong, but I really don't think all the corps had a DCI vote back then. In the beginning of DCI the power was held by 12 men who wanted more money for their corps efforts and to change the direction of the activity to their vision, which is kind of what the G7, and that includes ALL seven not just two, were looking to do. Agree or disagree with the G7, I'm not seeing much difference from the original intent of DCI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 At the end of the day the G7 got what they wanted. TOC clearly demonstrated that fans will pay top dollar to see the top corps perform. Hopkins and Gibbs are smiling all the way to the bank and you can bet they will be pushing their concept for DCI at the next board meeting. I don't think they got what they wanted at all. IMO, the main points of their proposal was to essentially take over DCI completely, giving them all the voting power and firing the DCI leadership. IMO the shows are actually the least important part of the proposal (and the part of the proposal I can see myself supporting, with some tweaks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) That may be true now, but in your original post, I believe you said from day one all corps have always had a vote, and I don't think that is correct. In the beginning I believe only the top 12 corps were considered DCI corps, the next 13 were associate members and the rest were not taken into consideration. 1972 was a long time ago, and I could be wrong, but I really don't think all the corps had a DCI vote back then. In the beginning of DCI the power was held by 12 men who wanted more money for their corps efforts and to change the direction of the activity to their vision, which is kind of what the G7, and that includes ALL seven not just two, were looking to do. Agree or disagree with the G7, I'm not seeing much difference from the original intent of DCI. Yes, I see what you mean now. I should have been a bit more clear when I said above " from day one " above, as when taken literally it can be interpreted exactly as you did. You are correct that the orginal founders of DCI really were quite restrictive in voting privleges of membership Corps at first formation of DCI. They did open up in subsequent years, but initially you are correct, that voting was not open to all the Corps initially. The main difference ( among many ) between the G7 proposal and the Founders of DCI was that the Founders of DCI wanted to grow the Corps membership of DCI and believed they were putting in place provisions that would lead to the growth of Corps, and the ability of ALL DCI membership Corps to receive higher percentages of the show gate receipts simply by virtue that DCI membership would provide in leverage with local show sponsors. The Corps did not have such unified negitiating leverage with the Veterans Groups, and the founders of DCI believed they were acting on behalf of all Corps to make them all stronger eventually with their formation of DCI. ( Their National Touring Model adoption however negated this opportunity, but this was an implementation error, not an error in intent and belief.)..... The G7 scheme however was different in that the architects literally called for the expulsion of an entire group of Corps from DCI membership. They also acted in a manner that was in their own selfish self interests in that the G7 ( unlike the founders of DCI) wanted their own show venues, their own hand selected judges, their own special marketing, and called for a reduction in gate receipts to non G7 Corps, and also to eliminate already agreed to voting rights and privleges, among a host of other draconian measures as well. Voting privleges aside, the difference in how the original handful of the Founders acted in their initial formation of DCI is in stark contrast to the G7. Finally, one read of the original Mission Statement of the Founders of DCI with the G7 Power Point Presentation of what this small group believe in, could not be more striking in contrast in how each perceive themselves in relationship to their colleagues in other Drum Corps. The temper and tone of the Founders of DCI was essentially one calling for togetherness, camaraderie, and the need to try and work together for the betterment of all. The temper and tone of the G7 Power Point presentation however was one of clear intimidation, threats, and intimidation of other colleague Corps if this cadre did not get their way. It was a most threatening and highly divisive approach.It demanded the ouster of the current DCI Executive Director. It was organized behind closed doors too. The Founders of DCI never attempted the extortion or intimidation of other Corps in such a manner. Nor for the expulsion of anyone, or any Corps or group of Corps. This is a HUGE difference between what the Founders of DCI believed in, and what a handful that created the G7 believe in. Edited August 21, 2011 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted August 21, 2011 Author Share Posted August 21, 2011 With the format that the TOC used eight corps is to many. The shows are to long. They should cut back to the top six plus a regional add on. Show in the Midwest add Bluecoats or Madison. Show in South add Spirit, Show in East add Boston, Show in Texas add Crossmen. At the end of the day the G7 got what they wanted. TOC clearly demonstrated that fans will pay top dollar to see the top corps perform. Hopkins and Gibbs are smiling all the way to the bank and you can bet they will be pushing their concept for DCI at the next board meeting. I think G7 have higher aspirations... "The Tour of Champions would present 12-14 events per year that are on Fridays and Sundays in the vicinity of the Saturday Super Showcase! .These Tour of Champs events will draw 7K to 10K per event … generating interest, and therein allowing for special presentations, additional event activity, and additional community tie-in." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 they also wanted to ban the other corps from performing on Friday and Sunday, which they did not get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I think you will see TOC in 2012, with the clarification being that there is no 3 year top 8 requirement, just the previous years top 8. 1 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.