Restructuring the DCI BOD

[Jeff Ream]

If a show can afford to put on a top-tier lineup, then why shouldn't they? If they can't afford to put on a top tier lineup, then they'll fill it in with what they could afford. This likely does mean stratified shows, but again, there's no benefit in Pioneer and Cascades getting killed by Bluecoats and Phantom every show, either, both score and performance wise.

Looking back on your examples, there, Pioneer, Cascades, Surf and Teal are all in the bottom of WC right now. Despite the fact you can argue (and I would) that they've gotten much better over that time. That suggests that at the end of the day they're just not in the same league with the top groups. (I know, hardly a revelation.) And don't get me wrong, I dearly love those groups.

The only "new" group I can think of that really made a charge up the WC ranks is Crown, and even in '94 during their first year in Division 1 they placed 17th, then 11th and onward. That's... pretty much it. Boston, of course, made a move into Finals in '99 and has never looked back, but who else? I appreciate the flexibility of an open system, but 2 corps in 20 years have made a major move (while others have drifted in and out of the bottom of the Finals group, I can't think of any other corps offhand to move from Day 1 participant to upper-tier finalist).

While I do not agree with the G7 particulars, and you and I have talked about that before, I do understand some of their frustration. Don't pay U2 the same as Kasabian at the festival just because Kasabian may one day be as popular. To tie this back in to the BoD, don't make band directors do the job of a tour management company - hire businessmen. Specialize. Square pegs in square holes and all of that. Don't put the Blue Devils in a Pioneer/Teal/Cascades-shaped hole - put them in a BD-sized hole. (Okay, that was a crap analogy. Sorry. :))

Mike

There won't be stratified shows. It'll be names only and screw the rest. Thats why DCI sells a package, and you get who they give you. Kind of like buying season tickets if you're Yankees fans....yeah you want to be there for the red Sox games, but sorry, you have the other 72 also.

Also....DCi currently DOES have a tiered pay system based on placement. There IS a difference between what 21st place gets and what 2nd place gets.

The problem is, they wanted MORE and to give the others LESS.

[danielray]

There won't be stratified shows. It'll be names only and screw the rest. Thats why DCI sells a package, and you get who they give you. Kind of like buying season tickets if you're Yankees fans....yeah you want to be there for the red Sox games, but sorry, you have the other 72 also.

Also....DCi currently DOES have a tiered pay system based on placement. There IS a difference between what 21st place gets and what 2nd place gets.

The problem is, they wanted MORE and to give the others LESS.

Here's the thing....

The only difference in a 21st place corps and a 1st place corps is management to not do what it takes to execute on the highest level.

Now, there are some corps that have a different philosophy and are not even going after the top tier and there are corps that are trying, but simply don't have the management skills to figure it out.

The reality is, neither of those segments that aren't quite there should not be in the same class or even on the same ticket going head to head with the top corps. There should be a new A class (few corps) and a larger open class that incorporates the lower placing corps in world class. World class does not need so many corps, unless there is greater parity.

People tend to get emotional about this point and can't seem to view it objectively. But, life is seriously ####### competitive. There are no tiers or clusters, only rankings. This is a good thing for young adults to start to get used to.

There are enough corps out there.... and the smart thing would be for several corps in open class or segments of world class to start merging to create stronger organizations, rather than diluted potential in loads of small corps.

There is marching band and winter programs out there... we don't need more corps, we need just greater stability and greater parity.

[danielray]

Just food for thought....

With most competitive things in life, there is no 21st place... but usually only 4th or maybe 5th at the most.

Can you name the 21st place mobile phone manufacturer? The 21st place computer operating system developer? The 21st place soft drink company? The 21st place auto manufacturer?

Add another class and have more fierce competition for the top positions in each

[audiodb]

If a show can afford to put on a top-tier lineup, then why shouldn't they? If they can't afford to put on a top tier lineup, then they'll fill it in with what they could afford. This likely does mean stratified shows, but again, there's no benefit in Pioneer and Cascades getting killed by Bluecoats and Phantom every show, either, both score and performance wise.

Yes, there is. There's at least some chance that, over time, a lower WC corps might ascend to overtake a higher WC corps. Stratification makes it even less likely (perhaps impossible) for that to occur.

Looking back on your examples, there, Pioneer, Cascades, Surf and Teal are all in the bottom of WC right now. Despite the fact you can argue (and I would) that they've gotten much better over that time. That suggests that at the end of the day they're just not in the same league with the top groups. (I know, hardly a revelation.)

Just because they're at the bottom now? Should we take the Detroit Lions and San Francisco 49ers out of the NFL, too? (Haven't been following football the past year or two....let me know if I missed any recent developments.)

And don't get me wrong, I dearly love those groups.

You might show that love more effectively by not writing them off categorically.

The only "new" group I can think of that really made a charge up the WC ranks is Crown, and even in '94 during their first year in Division 1 they placed 17th, then 11th and onward.

Fact check....Crown's first year competing in what we now call "world-class" was 1990. They finished last in prelims, trailing all the advancing class A/A-60 corps for an effective placement of 33rd. Moving to class A after that rookie season, they then placed 25th, 25th and 21st at DCI Championships in 1991-1993 as an advancing class A corps prior to going division I full-time in '94.

That's... pretty much it. Boston, of course, made a move into Finals in '99 and has never looked back, but who else?

Well, let's see....Blue Stars were literally in a different league as recently as '05. Academy didn't even appear at a DCI Championship until '06.

I appreciate the flexibility of an open system, but 2 corps in 20 years have made a major move (while others have drifted in and out of the bottom of the Finals group, I can't think of any other corps offhand to move from Day 1 participant to upper-tier finalist).

So we should stratify, and cast today's competitive hierarchy in stone?

While I do not agree with the G7 particulars, and you and I have talked about that before, I do understand some of their frustration. Don't pay U2 the same as Kasabian at the festival just because Kasabian may one day be as popular.

DCI isn't a concert tour....it's a competitive league, and it should have a level playing field. If individual corps think they're worth more than others on the open market, they are free to book some paying gigs on the side....just like they are free to sell more souvies, run more paid-admission clinics, or get more people to vote them up the Chase Community Giving ladder. But once the league itself begins picking winners and losers in advance by paying last year's winners more (which the revenue-sharing formula already does)....well, is it any wonder that competitive placement stays nearly the same from year to year?

[MikeN]

Ken -

Good points all, and well stated. (I think this is the first time you've deconstructed one of my posts - ack! )

Just because they're at the bottom now? Should we take the Detroit Lions and San Francisco 49ers out of the NFL, too? (Haven't been following football the past year or two....let me know if I missed any recent developments.)

The Lions and 49ers are doing quite well this year, actually. That's one of the things that actually supports stratification. Right now we've got the equivalent of the Packers all the way down to the semi-pro Austin Rattlers in one league. That's part of the reason that corps get "stuck" in their groupings - there is just very little opportunity for them to meaningfully compete against those outside of their group. Much as you'd argue that the Wisconsin Badgers shouldn't compete against the New England Patriots, no matter how well the Badgers develop their players and prepare them to play football.

You might show that love more effectively by not writing them off categorically.

Ouch. I get the point, but... like it or not, the top corps and bottom corps are not doing an equal job. I just don't think they have the same needs or abilities, and would much rather see them competing in divisions that allow them a greater opportunity to succeed.

Fact check....Crown's first year competing in what we now call "world-class" was 1990. They finished last in prelims, trailing all the advancing class A/A-60 corps for an effective placement of 33rd. Moving to class A after that rookie season, they then placed 25th, 25th and 21st at DCI Championships in 1991-1993 as an advancing class A corps prior to going division I full-time in '94.

What we call World Class is division 1. Crown's first year in D1 was 1994. They placed 17th. The next year, they were a finalist. As we've seen (and you do rightly correct me below), that's rare.

Well, let's see....Blue Stars were literally in a different league as recently as '05. Academy didn't even appear at a DCI Championship until '06.

Good point. Blue Stars did make finals, but haven't challenged the G7 on a regular basis. Academy hasn't made Finals yet.

So we should stratify, and cast today's competitive hierarchy in stone?

Why not? It's what we did when we split up Division 1, A and A60. It's what we did when we converted to Division 1, 2 and 3. It's what we did when we converted to World Class and Open Class. It's hardly a new concept to DCI or marching arts.

DCI isn't a concert tour....it's a competitive league, and it should have a level playing field. If individual corps think they're worth more than others on the open market, they are free to book some paying gigs on the side....just like they are free to sell more souvies, run more paid-admission clinics, or get more people to vote them up the Chase Community Giving ladder. But once the league itself begins picking winners and losers in advance by paying last year's winners more (which the revenue-sharing formula already does)....well, is it any wonder that competitive placement stays nearly the same from year to year?

I guess my point is that competitive placement stays nearly the same whether the corps were getting paid flat fees, tiered results or anything in between. Quite simply, the top corps (and I agree with you that the line there may be a moving target) have different needs and abilities than the lower corps. History has shown that very few corps have made waves with their progress. I see nothing wrong, either from a current standpoint or a historical one, with creating a new division.

Where this ties back in with the BoD, for me, anyways, is I'd like to see DCI the management company (as opposed to DCI the steward of the drum corps activity) be allowed more flexibility to treat this new division differently.

Just thinking out loud, Ken - maybe that's part of the issue right there? DCI has both the dual roles of caring for the entire junior corps activity while still trying to manage one national, a dozen regional and a hundred local events? This causes conflict when the folks who do well with one of those jobs is asked to look after the other?

Mike

[MikeN]

Sorry, one additional point of discussion.

DCI isn't a concert tour....

Yes it is. It's a competition, and a concert tour. That's part of the eternal problem - DCI is neither and both.

Mike

[audiodb]

Just food for thought....

With most competitive things in life, there is no 21st place... but usually only 4th or maybe 5th at the most.

I disagree. So do the kids auditioning for corps right now, where eighth place gets you into a snareline, and 20th into a baritone section.

Can you name the 21st place mobile phone manufacturer? The 21st place computer operating system developer? The 21st place soft drink company? The 21st place auto manufacturer?

Does anybody sit and watch mobile phone companies compete? No? Oh....no wonder we can't name the 21st-place mobile phone company.

For sports that people do watch, major leagues in this country typically contain 30-32 teams.

Add another class and have more fierce competition for the top positions in each

If you have a structural or logistical reason for putting corps into separate divisions, let's hear it. But dividing them up just to create more artificial titles is so lame, it might cost DCI audience on principle alone.

Also note that the only way divisional alignment would cause competition for any position to become "more fierce" is if more effort is made (i.e. more travel) to bring the closest-matched competitors together all the time. That's what DCI (prodded by the G7) did with their 2011 opening weekend. Apparently, it wasn't worth the cost, as they aren't doing it again in 2012.

[danielray]

DCI isn't a concert tour....it's a competitive league, and it should have a level playing field. If individual corps think they're worth more than others on the open market, they are free to book some paying gigs on the side....just like they are free to sell more souvies, run more paid-admission clinics, or get more people to vote them up the Chase Community Giving ladder. But once the league itself begins picking winners and losers in advance by paying last year's winners more (which the revenue-sharing formula already does)....well, is it any wonder that competitive placement stays nearly the same from year to year?

DCI absolutely is a concert tour. The ONLY thing it has in common with a league is that these concerts are adjudicated and scored. Absolutely everything else about it, structurally, organizationally, logistically, etc. is a concert tour.

Individual corps don't simply think they have a higher worth than some, this is a verifiable fact. Want to know the best current indicator of an individual groups contribution to ##### in the seats? Look at their merchandising revenues... there is a direct correlation between an organization's merchandising revenues at a given show and their audience draw.

You cannot keep pretending that all are equal or even should be equal. This is not reality, and this distorted thinking reinforces poor business decisions that cause problems down the road.

Also, if an organization's competitive potential is directly tied to performance revenues and they are not able to cover the gap through other means, this is a management issue of the organization itself... not DCI. The idea of paying corps more equally, rather than on their ability to contribute to revenue only reinforces poor management and doesn't strengthen the organizations themselves.

How confident am I that the difference between top tier and other corps are simply a management issue? I'd volunteer to step into any corps out there, any corps... even the lowest placing corps open class... and, without having to put in any personal cash, get them on the level of top 8 of world class within 3-4 years.

It is only a management issue separating the top tier from the others. Look at the corps that are growing slow and smart.... while they're not yet at the top tier, they are well managed and will continue a slow and steady climb, regardless of performance revenues. Again, it is only management and board.

[danielray]

Does anybody sit and watch mobile phone companies compete? No? Oh....no wonder we can't name the 21st-place mobile phone company.

I replied to this here.

[audiodb]

The Lions and 49ers are doing quite well this year, actually. That's one of the things that actually supports stratification.

I don't see how. The Lions/49ers were not stratified from the rest of the NFL.

Right now we've got the equivalent of the Packers all the way down to the semi-pro Austin Rattlers in one league. That's part of the reason that corps get "stuck" in their groupings - there is just very little opportunity for them to meaningfully compete against those outside of their group. Much as you'd argue that the Wisconsin Badgers shouldn't compete against the New England Patriots, no matter how well the Badgers develop their players and prepare them to play football.

Well, one is a collegiate team and the other professional. If BD's players were paid as much as the New England Patriots, I'd favor a separate division for corps that don't pay their players.

If there is a similarly clear demarcation that can be drawn to establish more than one division among the corps we currently call "world-class", let me know.

Good point. Blue Stars did make finals, but haven't challenged the G7 on a regular basis. Academy hasn't made Finals yet.

Well, do you think they don't belong in the same division with the top corps?

Why not? It's what we did when we split up Division 1, A and A60. It's what we did when we converted to Division 1, 2 and 3. It's what we did when we converted to World Class and Open Class. It's hardly a new concept to DCI or marching arts.

True....but generally speaking, each of those divisions had clearly defined criteria (i.e. size, touring ability) that could be used to identify whether a corps belonged in that class or not. I'm not as big a fan of creating arbitrary divisions just to give middle-of-the-pack corps a mid-level "title" to shoot for.

Just thinking out loud, Ken - maybe that's part of the issue right there? DCI has both the dual roles of caring for the entire junior corps activity while still trying to manage one national, a dozen regional and a hundred local events? This causes conflict when the folks who do well with one of those jobs is asked to look after the other?

Perhaps....but that's water under the bridge now. I raised the same issues when it was happening....directors defended their approach....some of what has transpired has validated their claims....and I don't see us turning back now.