Restructuring Classes

[MikeN]

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 hadn't really considered money as much until reading yours and perc2100's posts re: DCI vs. WGI. Definitely something that would have to be delicately worked out.

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

True, so you would need three divisions. Thinking out loud, going back to money the philosophical approach would have to be more of envisioning the concept as 1/1a/2 rather than we had before which was more 1/2/2a. (And then 2 and 2a eventually merged.) And that's really the biggest change - seeing it as two "main" divisions, rather than one.

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, borrowing from the WGI model, no, they shouldn't get to choose. It's not a new concept - my other chosen hobby of pipe and drum corps does it all the time, in circuits in many different countries.

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?

I think it would take some selling, and some reshaping of philosophy on org's parts. But I do think such a division would improve DCI. Especially if there was a system of promotion and relegation - though it does not have to be automatic based on score; it could be a committee - a mechanism, at least, by which corps could be moved up or down if they no longer fit where they are.

Mike

[Jeff Ream]

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.

thank you

[Jeff Ream]

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

the problem is more of a financial issue than a competitive issue.

as OC is currently run, there is no intelligent reason a corps would willingly agree to be reclassified. What has irked me for years is OC seems ok with it....I guess they like fighting with one hand behind their back everyyear.

[Jeff Ream]

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.

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.

World units in WGI realize that while they are the main attraction, without units in the lower classes, they lose out. Thats potential members, fans that spend money, fans that flock to shows. and for those groups that host, units to come to their shows.

I'm very familiar with Black Watch. a WCguard for years, but always kept their ties to TIA/NJA, where they started. They even host a TIA show annually.....there's no other close by WC group, but these local units, classed A thru novice, come to the show. Sure it's close by for many, but it's a chance to see Black Watch. Black Watch knows this. So does United Percussion who also will participate inTIA events.

In fact, most years, 2/3 weeks after WGI, both groups perform at TIA finals in Wildwood. Their season is done, why bother you ask?

a) it's a great recruiting tool, and b) they know they will help sell some tickets for TIA, and it's their way of saying thank you to TIA

[MikeD]

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?

This to me seems to be the most viable model, assuming, as you say, that the impacted corps are interested in such a new division.

[MikeD]

World units in WGI realize that while they are the main attraction, without units in the lower classes, they lose out. Thats potential members, fans that spend money, fans that flock to shows. and for those groups that host, units to come to their shows.

Has anyone mentioned have separate shows for the new "middle class"? I'd see it working in general (TOC aside) like MB shows, and WGI, where the show contains the various classes.

[audiodb]

True, so you would need three divisions. Thinking out loud, going back to money the philosophical approach would have to be more of envisioning the concept as 1/1a/2 rather than we had before which was more 1/2/2a. (And then 2 and 2a eventually merged.) And that's really the biggest change - seeing it as two "main" divisions, rather than one.

Yes. And with DCI's track record regarding other divisions (remember, they had guard contests before WGI even existed), that would be a significant philosophical change.

Again, borrowing from the WGI model, no, they shouldn't get to choose. It's not a new concept - my other chosen hobby of pipe and drum corps does it all the time, in circuits in many different countries.

(grumble)....well, maybe if....

Especially if there was a system of promotion and relegation -

Having learned about the world of professional soccer recently, I do appreciate the promotion/relegation model. It stimulates interest at all levels of competition. The trick, as this discussion demonstrates, is creating practical divisional transitions that enable corps to move from one division to another (in both directions) without spontaneously combusting.

[MikeN]

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. :) )

Edited December 2, 2011 by MikeN

[audiodb]

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.

Or a loss of access to shows. Agreed.

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.

More than that. The G7 was looking to create a large difference in payout and show access between themselves and their proposed second division, IIRC.

(And this is my second season as a soccer / EPL fan. If my Arsenal avatars for the last few months didn't signal that. :) )

Oh, cool. I have avatars turned off....and Premier League turned on.

[Jeff Ream]

Has anyone mentioned have separate shows for the new "middle class"? I'd see it working in general (TOC aside) like MB shows, and WGI, where the show contains the various classes.

you'd have to. And to be honest, DCi should include more OC corps now