Stu Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) question: since the only golf I follow is Happy Gilmore or small course with windmills, waterfalls etc, how does the PGA do it? This is a simplistic description: a) The PGA tour itself s a non-profit entity which heavily supports local charities wherever the tournament is being played. b) The sponsors, which are for-profit companies, pay for the player prize fund, sponsor individual players, as well as donate to local charities through the PGA. c) The portion of ticket sales that does not go toward expenditures goes to the local charities. d) The players compete for huge prize money; so in essence the players are in-of-themselves for-profit entities, but they also donate some of their winnings back into the local charities. From the PGA website: The players, partners, sponsors, volunteers and fans of the PGA TOUR, Champions Tour and Nationwide Tour team up to contribute millions of dollars to thousands of local charities each year. The majority of the funds raised are directed back into the local community where the tournament is held. This means that there isn’t one specific beneficiary of the PGA TOUR. Instead there are nearly 3,000 charities and countless individuals worldwide who are touched by the TOUR’s goal of giving back. Edited October 24, 2011 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 The beauty of Fathom's thinking (which negotiates theaters like Regal) is that they can negotiate regional shows. There's nothing in their model that mandates "national" coverage and, in fact, they excel at booking non-national events. What if better tour management allowed BOA to extend their circuit to include underserved areas and expand inclusion? BOA is not good for all bands, nor all areas, and I think what they do with their schedule set up is wise...they stick to areas they know they will have success in. In my area, we have 3 circuits fighting for the same number of bands every week. Adding BOA into the mix not only limits who they get, but may also weaken the other 3 circuits, as there's only so many weekends available to go out on. One band director of a smaller band told me three years ago, he took his band to a BOA show and came home with a 68. The next week he went to a local circuit and got a 90. His adminstration asked why the difference. he explained different tolerances, different sheets, etc, as well as the fact that BOA hasa rep for catering to the big bands. His adminstration said "ok, cool. no more BOA for you". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 NOTHING CHANGES except consolidation of redundant overhead and administrative tasks. You are reading way too into things and inventing challenges. Did you get the part about wanting to make money outside the activity so that, for example, bands don't pay to enter shows? Kids march drum corps for free? Both of those things would be a boost to the activity, but... they cannot happen without corps and DCI looking OUTSIDE of the activity for revenue, while focusing on corporate sponsorship from outside the activity. I get about making money outside the activity. You still havent given much to go on there. but as one reads about your consolidation...you may as well use the word merger, because as you describe it, thats basically what it is. consolidation of activities that you list...ARE INSIDE THE ACTIVITY. kinda goes against your constant hammering of needing to find money OUTSIDE the activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 I get about making money outside the activity. You still havent given much to go on there. but as one reads about your consolidation...you may as well use the word merger, because as you describe it, thats basically what it is. consolidation of activities that you list...ARE INSIDE THE ACTIVITY. kinda goes against your constant hammering of needing to find money OUTSIDE the activity. It is technically a roll-up, not a merger (I think other opportunities could be interesting later.. for example PASIC). Point is... I have described it about 20 times. If you didn't get it at 2, you're not going to get it at 200. Really no point for me to go on about this... as the audience that this was intended for, to get an offline discussion going, already got it at 2 (apparently, they can play from lead sheets). I'm ready for a new topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 BOA is not good for all bands, nor all areas, and I think what they do with their schedule set up is wise...they stick to areas they know they will have success in. In my area, we have 3 circuits fighting for the same number of bands every week. Adding BOA into the mix not only limits who they get, but may also weaken the other 3 circuits, as there's only so many weekends available to go out on. One band director of a smaller band told me three years ago, he took his band to a BOA show and came home with a 68. The next week he went to a local circuit and got a 90. His adminstration asked why the difference. he explained different tolerances, different sheets, etc, as well as the fact that BOA hasa rep for catering to the big bands. His adminstration said "ok, cool. no more BOA for you". I am not defending BOA here, but what that administrator told the director is in essence stating this: "I do not want these kids to be exposed to a higher national level of performance expectation; and moreover, I only want them to receive praise where their current performance level is rated as a 90+ value". IMO, completely secluding the kids from a national performance scale is not a good form of education and can lead to a false sense of internal quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 This is a simplistic description: a) The PGA tour itself s a non-profit entity which heavily supports local charities wherever the tournament is being played. b) The sponsors, which are for-profit companies, pay for the player prize fund, sponsor individual players, as well as donate to local charities through the PGA. c) The players compete for huge prize money; so in essence the players are in-of-themselves for-profit entities, but they also donate some of their winnings back into the local charities. From the PGA website: The players, partners, sponsors, volunteers and fans of the PGA TOUR, Champions Tour and Nationwide Tour team up to contribute millions of dollars to thousands of local charities each year. The majority of the funds raised are directed back into the local community where the tournament is held. This means that there isn't one specific beneficiary of the PGA TOUR. Instead there are nearly 3,000 charities and countless individuals worldwide who are touched by the TOUR's goal of giving back. cool, did not know that. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 It is technically a roll-up, not a merger (I think other opportunities could be interesting later.. for example PASIC). Point is... I have described it about 20 times. If you didn't get it at 2, you're not going to get it at 200. Really no point for me to go on about this... as the audience that this was intended for, to get an offline discussion going, already got it at 2 (apparently, they can play from lead sheets). I'm ready for a new topic... thank you for proclaiming your superior intellect when in fact, I have asked questions many times, and your usual response to belittle that which was not written as clearly as you claim. but hey if it got people talking, I'm all for DCI the stuffed animals, DCI the shoe horn, etc. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I am not defending BOA here, but what that administrator told the director is in essence stating this: "I do not want these kids to be exposed to a higher national level of performance expectation; and moreover, I only want them to receive praise where their current performance level is rated as a 90+ value". IMO, completely secluding the kids from a national performance scale is not a good form of education and can lead to a false sense of internal quality. Not entirely disagreeing....but the rep is out there BOA is skewed to favor bigger bands. So the message sent to many schools ( and heard it once at a BOA show is) small can't often be good, and on the local level I've seen many school bands kick bigger bands ##### on quality, but take the same teams to a BOA regional, and the reverse happens. Also, I've seen a level of accountability in local circuits that BOA, and at times even WGI doesn't have. The locals realize hey these guys are our teams, we have to make sure we're consitent and have our #### together, and the big names fly in for the gig, put down whatever number they want, get their check and go home. Trust me, as an instructor, there's one WGI judge I never want my kids to see again. When asked to explain a comment he made, the reply was "I'm a WGI judge, you need all you need to know". Yet the guy keeps getting work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 cool, did not know that. thanks I also did not know the inner workings of the PGA until someone here on DCP had me do some research. The more I find out about the PGA system the more respect I have for PGA; and I think it would be very wise for the powers at be within DCI to study the PGA!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Not entirely disagreeing....but the rep is out there BOA is skewed to favor bigger bands. So the message sent to many schools ( and heard it once at a BOA show is) small can't often be good, and on the local level I've seen many school bands kick bigger bands ##### on quality, but take the same teams to a BOA regional, and the reverse happens. Also, I've seen a level of accountability in local circuits that BOA, and at times even WGI doesn't have. The locals realize hey these guys are our teams, we have to make sure we're consitent and have our #### together, and the big names fly in for the gig, put down whatever number they want, get their check and go home. Trust me, as an instructor, there's one WGI judge I never want my kids to see again. When asked to explain a comment he made, the reply was "I'm a WGI judge, you need all you need to know". Yet the guy keeps getting work This is why I stated at the onset that I am not trying to defend BOA. Jackson Academy is a prime example of the problem within the BOA system which maintains bigger is better; but many local shows also have that same issue. What is needed is consistent set of rules which all circuits follow (just like football). Sort of like it is for a HS football team in Penn which plays with the same type of rules as a HS team in Calif. 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.