Jeff Ream Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Still thinking about applying the WGI model (loosely) to DCI, one thing that might make promotion and relegation between Open and World (the middle and top divisions) less painful is if those two divisions do have similar tour and payout requirements. That way a corps that, say, got moved out of World Class down to A doesn't take a severe financial hit to go with it. In many ways, this isn't that far off from what the G-7 was asking for in on-the-field concessions - having a separate elite division. However, the mindset behind it that I mentioned before - looking at it as a 1/1a/2 instead of 1/2/2a... that's the real difference. Mike (And this is my second season as a soccer / EPL fan. If my Arsenal avatars for the last few months didn't signal that. :) ) in theory it is similar to the G7 except in one way....$$$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 That'd be why I specified "on-the-field concessions." Clearly the G7 proposal went so-far-off-track-it-was-in-the-field on some off field issues. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Those who give it value when it is inapplicable are doomed to do something stupid. I seriously fail to see how analyzing the way things operated in the 70's are of any value for supporting strategic business decisions for the present or near future. There is nothing there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 No corps has the mythical "independent draw" you imagine. Take the top 6 corps in World Class as lineup for a show. Take the bottom 6 in the same class for another show. See which does better. There is no myth here. OK, here we go. Throw out some of the lower-placing WC corps. Divide the DCI pie into fewer, bigger slices. The rich get richer, and the rest....well, who cares? You certainly don't....you've said as much here. And to MikeN....if you sense a resistance to the idea of relegating some WC corps to another division, this is why. If these corps don't like such status... they simply can get better. It is not a caste system. As for rich getting richer? Are you serious? No one is getting rich in drum corps. If you think the budgets of these corps is actually a lot of money... and that staff is getting paid even near fair market value for what they do... I don't know what to tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Audio...I've been trying to keep up with you obviously more-knowledgeable guys discussion, and I've lost, or missed, your rationale for paying homage to the past, and that there are lessons for us to learn in thinking about a new class structure. You'll probably say "Have you been reading?" And yes, I have, but in the details I've lost your main message of learning from the past. Would restate it, please? Why should we care about the past on the issue of class structure? Not being snarky, really asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 This line of the discussion contains two theories which are both flawed. This first is that DCI can "legislate" non-frivolity by substituting "services" for some portion of cash payments. Following this train of thought, a "frivolous-spending" corps will act more acceptably because their available cash will be lower due to the fact that they receive services instead. In addition, those same services will cost less due to the economies of scale attained due to whittling down the number of corps entitled to such services. This is nonsensical on both points. Substituting services for cash ostensibly restricts cash available to the corps, but it does not; it simply transfers the payment for services from the corps to the tour director (unless we're talking about a corps that would otherwise spend food and transportation funds on frivolity - highly unlikely in the ranks of corps being discussed). The corps may have slightly more cash available to spend frivolously due to the, supposed, economy of scale gained by DCI purchasing bulk services. But, in fact, these corps allegedly spend excess cash above and beyond basic necessities like food and transportation on frivolities that drive up the costs for all corps wishing to compete in this class. Secondly, the idea of gaining scale by limiting the class to a smaller group of "high performers" is contrary to the nature of scale. Gaining scale is a matter of higher production of numbers, not quality of product. Including a lower-placing corps in the "scale" bucket attains better pricing than limiting that bucket to a select group of corps performing in the upper ranks. The food provider doesn't care if they're providing food to Crown or Cascade, they simply know they're providing more food to greater numbers. They don't care where either corps finishes the season or whether Crown out-draws Cascade. Simply, if the "scale" bucket is limited to only the high-performing corps, DCI limits scale. It does not increase it. By this logic then, scale will be maximized by limiting the bucket to only the one or two highest-earning corps. Clearly, that's not the recipe for attaining scale. Similarly, by limiting the scale bucket only to those who draw enough to pay for the benefit of scale, the effect of scale are neutralized. DCI can't limit the frivolous use of funds by providing cheaper services. Scale is attained by increasing the numbers of corps in the bucket, not by limiting inclusion to only those who can pay for it. DCI can't.... but.... if someone else steps in to foot the bill and guarantee payment, a condition of that can be how cash is spent. Again, the structure and scale of it can be negotiated by a private investor. It is their call if the top corps would be on board with this... and that would simply be how it is. I just see the future of the activity as something a bit different... a much pared down tour in terms of number of corps participating, but more at a higher level. Too much emphasis on corps performing on a lower level is just not in the interest of a private investor and corporate sponsors. Also, the more I think about it... DCA is probably a better environment for nurturing regional corps... as the rehearsal structure and model is better suited for this. Let DCI just be the corps touring nationally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 if a financial option were to be put in place to go along with a realignment of who is classed where, the WGI model makes perfect sense. But first you'd have to get WC directors to vote on it, and get 7 of them to be a little more flexible in their views of OC or OC and AC and their truth worth. Practically speaking, unless it is a directly affiliated feeder corps... why should the top 7 corps care that much about corps in an open or A class? I don't see what's really in it for them. Again, if corps want more cash.... perform better. Not rocket science. It takes money to make money. Also not rocket science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) Practically speaking, unless it is a directly affiliated feeder corps... why should the top 7 corps care that much about corps in an open or A class? I don't see what's really in it for them. Again, if corps want more cash.... perform better. Not rocket science. It takes money to make money. Also not rocket science. You're asking many corps to change their mission statements. Those same corps are producing amazing young adults regardless of their ability to be good at playing music while prancing on a football field. EDIT: Sorry! "Mission statements" isn't the right phrase. SOME corps aren't willing to make the changes necessary for competitive gain at the expense of their core values. Edited December 3, 2011 by DrillmanSop06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 You're asking many corps to change their mission statements. Those same corps are producing amazing young adults regardless of their ability to be good at playing music while prancing on a football field. EDIT: Sorry! "Mission statements" isn't the right phrase. SOME corps aren't willing to make the changes necessary for competitive gain at the expense of their core values. Again, the more I think about it.... maybe DCA is an outlet that is better aligned with the goals and philosophy of may corps currently competing in DCI. The corps don't change what they do.. just the circuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Again, the more I think about it.... maybe DCA is an outlet that is better aligned with the goals and philosophy of may corps currently competing in DCI. The corps don't change what they do.. just the circuit. But those DCI corps aren't washed up yet...I don't understand? 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.