Restructuring Classes

[audiodb]

Not really. Right now there are too many world class corps to give that kind of level of support to in terms of underwriting. The math just doesn't work out, as some of these corps don't have the independent draw on their own to make it work.

No corps has the mythical "independent draw" you imagine.

In order to make it work, one of the conditions would be paring down WC and boosting numbers in OC. This would leave a number of corps that aren't really on par with the rest of the OC corps, so, there should be an A class to accomodate these corps, which should not tour outside of a region or have finals.

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.

[garfield]

no they don't. But in your quest to make a better business model, you do realize those who continue to fly by the seat of their pants will continue to do so even with more spoils.

you can't legislate common sense and fiscal responsibility. If you could, the world would be a better place

No, but what you can do is provide compensation in a mix of cash and services. For example... organization and payment for food, fuel, transportation, etc. would no longer be done individually by the corps, but provided by the tour operator. It is infinitely more efficient in terms of cost and resources to have one single entity organizing all of this.

It would essentially be provided as part of tour... done.

By flipping this around, you get increased efficiency and economy of scale, you also get more influence on how cash is being spent.

you can do that without restructuring the classes

Not really. Right now there are too many world class corps to give that kind of level of support to in terms of underwriting. The math just doesn't work out, as some of these corps don't have the independent draw on their own to make it work.

In order to make it work, one of the conditions would be paring down WC and boosting numbers in OC. This would leave a number of corps that aren't really on par with the rest of the OC corps, so, there should be an A class to accomodate these corps, which should not tour outside of a region or have finals.

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.

Edited December 2, 2011 by garfield

[audiodb]

We need more corps, not less.

[garfield]

We need more corps, not less.

I agree.

(And I appreciate your brevity )

[MikeN]

And to MikeN....if you sense a resistance to the idea of relegating some WC corps to another division, this is why.

Yeah, I kinda figured that out.

Still, though, especially as we're still talking in theory here, there's nothing in the world that says a newly-created second division has to spell the death of a corps. It's not like you can't create fiscal rules that look after them in similar fashion.

I still maintain that, for example, putting Pioneer, Jersey Surf, Cascades and Pacific Crest in the same division as Phantom Regiment, Cadets, Blue Devils and Vanguard makes no sense. The only success the former corps is going to achieve on the field will be limited and local, and their on-field growth will have to be measured in decades, not years. Which is not in the best interest of the corps, I feel. Pioneer kind of got caught in that spiral - the on field losses led to talent drain which led to a shift in philosophy to training WC members for other corps, which led to on field losses... (I know that's an armchair one-sentence analysis, but that's how it looks from afar in a nutshell.)

I would rather see them achieving success - or at least having the opportunity for actual success - in a Class A (to use the WGI model) than continuing to be stomped in World Class.

Again, we already have this in Open vs World Class. We recognize that scoring Open corps on World sheets doesn't do the corps any favors - the Open corps designed a sheet that more accurately reflected and rewarded what they do. I just happen to feel - and still do - that there's a middle class in there that's neither one nor the other.

Mike

[perc2100]

Yeah, I kinda figured that out.

Still, though, especially as we're still talking in theory here, there's nothing in the world that says a newly-created second division has to spell the death of a corps. It's not like you can't create fiscal rules that look after them in similar fashion.

I still maintain that, for example, putting Pioneer, Jersey Surf, Cascades and Pacific Crest in the same division as Phantom Regiment, Cadets, Blue Devils and Vanguard makes no sense. The only success the former corps is going to achieve on the field will be limited and local, and their on-field growth will have to be measured in decades, not years. Which is not in the best interest of the corps, I feel. Pioneer kind of got caught in that spiral - the on field losses led to talent drain which led to a shift in philosophy to training WC members for other corps, which led to on field losses... (I know that's an armchair one-sentence analysis, but that's how it looks from afar in a nutshell.)

I would rather see them achieving success - or at least having the opportunity for actual success - in a Class A (to use the WGI model) than continuing to be stomped in World Class.

Again, we already have this in Open vs World Class. We recognize that scoring Open corps on World sheets doesn't do the corps any favors - the Open corps designed a sheet that more accurately reflected and rewarded what they do. I just happen to feel - and still do - that there's a middle class in there that's neither one nor the other.

Mike

What's interesting about this to me, comparing WGI's classification model to DCI's, is the difference in perception of class movement from DCI to WGI. As a recent former staffer/administrator of a WGI finalist unit, as well as a current judge of a local winter circuit, I can tell you that the vast majority of units will do everything they can to NOT move up to a higher class.

If a group is over-achieving in A class and gets moved to Open class, the director and staff will typically pitch a fit and argue, appeal, and downright beg circuit administrators to not be moved UP. Why is that? Because they want to be competitively successful. If a group is in medal contention (especially gold medal contention) in, say, Open class, they know that they likely won't be anywhere NEAR medaling in World and would rather keep their group in Open, competing on a 'lesser' level, than move up to World Class. In DCI, a corps administration will have seemingly no problems placing last or close to last every show/every season for years (stretching into the decade mark), before they would even consider moving down a class (or, will have poor competitive success and still not consider moving down).

Obviously there are substantial financial considerations to consider when deciding DCI class, and that is something that I think is almost something 100% unique to DCI vs. other circuits. WGI doesn't have prize money, or pay its performance groups to compete like DCI does.

I wonder if the financial philosophies of DCI changed considerably (non-member corps receiving very little to perform compared to World groups, for example) if we'd see a shift in class philosophy. If moving down to Open from World class didn't also mean a significant income differential, perhaps some of the less-achieving corps would be more prone to consider moving to Open (and Open groups would perhaps be less prone to moving up to World).

The more time goes on, the more I begin to believe that the WGI season model is beneficial to all. I sometimes convince myself that DCI will eventually shift their model to mimic WGI's at some point, but that's a totally different discussion :)

I guess what I'm trying to say is the classification 'stigma' of not being at the World level is something that is fairly exclusive to DCI, and while I get the financial considerations of that decision I don't think talking about restructuring classes is something that is a crazy, corps-killing taboo.

Edited December 2, 2011 by perc2100

[audiodb]

Obviously there are substantial financial considerations to consider when deciding DCI class, and that is something that I think is almost something 100% unique to DCI vs. other circuits. WGI doesn't have prize money, or pay its performance groups to compete like DCI does.

I wonder if the financial philosophies of DCI changed considerably (non-member corps receiving very little to perform compared to World groups, for example) if we'd see a shift in class philosophy. If moving down to Open from World class didn't also mean a significant income differential, perhaps some of the less-achieving corps would be more prone to consider moving to Open (and Open groups would perhaps be less prone to moving up to World).

No kidding. Note that since division I became members-only, no one has voluntarily moved down from it. And who can blame them, when they'd be giving up $75,000 in appearance fees, more $$$ in additional revenue-sharing, and probably lost dues from kids leaving for other WC corps?

The more time goes on, the more I begin to believe that the WGI season model is beneficial to all. I sometimes convince myself that DCI will eventually shift their model to mimic WGI's at some point, but that's a totally different discussion :)

How would you see that happening? Would DCI stop paying corps? Would open-class corps suddenly get $2500 per show? Or would some sweeping compromise be worked out as top corps decide they're getting more than their fair share right now? (Seriously....if there's a plausible way to make that happen, I'd like to hear it.)

[audiodb]

Still, though, especially as we're still talking in theory here, there's nothing in the world that says a newly-created second division has to spell the death of a corps. It's not like you can't create fiscal rules that look after them in similar fashion.

Yes....but as I indicated in my previous post, dropping to open-class doesn't appear to be a viable transition, and I'm having trouble imagining how we'd create one. Suggestions?

I still maintain that, for example, putting Pioneer, Jersey Surf, Cascades and Pacific Crest in the same division as Phantom Regiment, Cadets, Blue Devils and Vanguard makes no sense.

Conversely, forcing Spirit of Newark, Blue Saints, Racine Scouts and Stentors to compete with Pacific Crest, Surf, Cascades and Pioneer makes even less sense.

The only success the former corps is going to achieve on the field will be limited and local, and their on-field growth will have to be measured in decades, not years. Which is not in the best interest of the corps, I feel. Pioneer kind of got caught in that spiral - the on field losses led to talent drain which led to a shift in philosophy to training WC members for other corps, which led to on field losses... (I know that's an armchair one-sentence analysis, but that's how it looks from afar in a nutshell.)

I would rather see them achieving success - or at least having the opportunity for actual success - in a Class A (to use the WGI model) than continuing to be stomped in World Class.

Many will agree with you. However, the opinions that count are those of Pioneer's own administration, staff and members. As long as they'd rather be 23rd in the top division than a lower-division medalist (and they meet the financial/organizational criteria of world-class), shouldn't they get to choose?

Again, we already have this in Open vs World Class. We recognize that scoring Open corps on World sheets doesn't do the corps any favors - the Open corps designed a sheet that more accurately reflected and rewarded what they do. I just happen to feel - and still do - that there's a middle class in there that's neither one nor the other.

Then the question to ask is....if there was a middle class with the same pay as WC, full member status/voting rights, and the only difference being that they no longer compete head-to-head with the top corps (whether by scoring system or separate tours), would corps be interested?

[Jeff Ream]

Not really. Right now there are too many world class corps to give that kind of level of support to in terms of underwriting. The math just doesn't work out, as some of these corps don't have the independent draw on their own to make it work.

In order to make it work, one of the conditions would be paring down WC and boosting numbers in OC. This would leave a number of corps that aren't really on par with the rest of the OC corps, so, there should be an A class to accomodate these corps, which should not tour outside of a region or have finals.

then you mean the current OC model has to be redone, because as it is now, this will kill off corps left and right.

[Jeff Ream]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

haven't we said that about DCI time and time again?