DCI Competition Participation Requirements

[84BDsop]

Well, they are going to Guatemala next month. Bet you they aren't treated there like they have been here.

Probably be more like the reception for the 83 Japan trip....I heard ALL ABOUT that one when I marched!

[HPUEuph]

This reminds me of when people were complaining that corps that competed less and had a shorter tour schedule were beating full tour corps and it was thought unfair. I remember hearing this debate back when I was marching and before. Personally I don't have a problem with however a corp wants to structure their tour if they think it's advantageous to themselves.

[tariq.shah]

Are saying that World Class Division Corps should not be allowed to do limited tours as well ? What if they can't afford it ? What if they are good enough to compete in World Class but financially they do not want to take themselves on a full tour ? Under your " regulations " you would force them to go on a full tour, thereby possibly putting in danger their ability to future compete at all ? Why should a Corps be forced to compete in over 20 shows anyway ? Whether they do 24 shows or 35 shows its THEIR business. Should we say that some Corps should be " regulated " from perhaps putting their performers into too many shows as well ? Or should we just simply say, "as long as you are at certain required regional shows, you can be in as many or as few show competitions as you like ". Afterall, it is these Corps that primarily foot the financial bill for the travel, not you, me or DCI.

I'm saying we ought to make every effort to ensure the playing field is as level as possible. Maybe it is a good idea that corps who cannot meet a requirement of, perhaps 20-30 shows not participate. Maybe that's a worthwhile threshold to consider so as not to see corps fold mid-season. Maybe not.

The number of shows is less important than ensuring the amount of shows is the same.

[Kamarag]

I'm saying we ought to make every effort to ensure the playing field is as level as possible. Maybe it is a good idea that corps who cannot meet a requirement of, perhaps 20-30 shows not participate. Maybe that's a worthwhile threshold to consider so as not to see corps fold mid-season. Maybe not.

The number of shows is less important than ensuring the amount of shows is the same.

Well, let's take this thought experiment a step further.

The goal: Level the competitive playing field

Equalize show participation. Fair enough. Set number which all corps must meet. But that's not going to level things by itself. You're also going to have to...

Equalize rehearsal time. The means limiting spring training, and limiting the hours in a rehearsal day. Lower placing corps go on first, and by nature have a shorter rehearsal day, so we'll use that as our standard. Let's leave the winter program unrestricted. But starting, say, May 1, new rules are in place.

Let's limit spring training (defined as any rehearsal after May 1, but before the 1st show of the season) to 14 days. 12 hours per day, meal breaks not included. That should even things out between the corps that do over a month of every day spring training and those that only manage a week or so.

Once the tour starts, corps must participate in X number of shows (with an upper end, Y, noting maximum number of shows). Show day rehearsals are limited to 4 hours. Non-show days are limited to 8 hours of rehearsal. Every corps is required to take Z number of no-rehearsal "free days". Parades do not count as performances against the minimum/maximum rule.

Obviously, this is regulated and observed by DCI officials.

By equalizing official shows, you're only doing the job half way. Regulate rehearsal time and you're really leveling the playing field. Of course, corps now have to design accordingly.

[jasgre2000]

I appreciate the responses so far. The consideration of the budgets of smaller corps is certainly important, and travel costs pose a real challenge to all up-and-coming corps.

Not to dismiss those concerns, but I was more interested in examining this issue from the prospective of competitive fairness. In the data posted, it seemed there was a correlation between higher scores and fewer shows throughout the course of the season. I'm not saying there is- in fact I'm posing that question to you.

Generally, do corps tend to perform better when they have fewer shows to compete in?

It would seem, that at least in regard to top twelve drum corps, they do. Is it the consensus of dcp that this is okay? If not, what is the solution?

There have never been, to my knowledge, any requirements for corps to compete in a certain number of shows during a season. But it would be interesting to find out if The Cavaliers, Cadets, BD, etc, have, over a number of years, averaged fewer shows per season, and whether that had a positive impact on their placements over time.

No one is forcing the other corps to do as many shows as BD is doing. I don't see what the problem is. Blue Devils have a system and strategy that works for them, and anyone else that wants to can follow their pattern.

Edited August 15, 2012 by jasgre2000

[jasgre2000]

It's silly to talk about money as the issue here. Blue Devils spend the most money on their corps of any DCI member. Twice or more as much as anyone but SCV, Cadets, and Cavaliers, in fact.

Blue Devils are a big name and would have brought more attendance to shows they could have attended but did not. They may not need the performance fees, but the small show organizer on the edge of breaking even could have used their name. And DCI as a whole has an interest in keeping show sponsors in business, unless we all want to see how quickly we can make the whole thing fold up.

So, I don't see why it should be offensive to suggest that DCI might want to consider making special rules about minimum shows for ToC participants (who are getting large performance fees for those shows) to support show sponsors out there who are putting on World Class shows with one or zero finalists in some cases.

Of course, the ToC is itself a sop to the G7 corps to keep them from bailing (even though I've heard the ToC events themselves (sponsored by DCI) lose money due to the high performance fees), so I suppose DCI may have no pull over BD on this matter in any case.

Those shows aren't sponsored by DCI, are they? Why should DCI force corps to go to a non-DCI show? That doesn't make any sense. You might not like BD's decision not to support local shows, but it is THEIR decision. If they have such a big competitive advantage from doing less shows, other corps would follow their lead. They aren't, so it must not be a big deal.

[jasgre2000]

Well, let's take this thought experiment a step further.

The goal: Level the competitive playing field

Equalize show participation. Fair enough. Set number which all corps must meet. But that's not going to level things by itself. You're also going to have to...

Equalize rehearsal time. The means limiting spring training, and limiting the hours in a rehearsal day. Lower placing corps go on first, and by nature have a shorter rehearsal day, so we'll use that as our standard. Let's leave the winter program unrestricted. But starting, say, May 1, new rules are in place.

Let's limit spring training (defined as any rehearsal after May 1, but before the 1st show of the season) to 14 days. 12 hours per day, meal breaks not included. That should even things out between the corps that do over a month of every day spring training and those that only manage a week or so.

Once the tour starts, corps must participate in X number of shows (with an upper end, Y, noting maximum number of shows). Show day rehearsals are limited to 4 hours. Non-show days are limited to 8 hours of rehearsal. Every corps is required to take Z number of no-rehearsal "free days". Parades do not count as performances against the minimum/maximum rule.

Obviously, this is regulated and observed by DCI officials.

By equalizing official shows, you're only doing the job half way. Regulate rehearsal time and you're really leveling the playing field. Of course, corps now have to design accordingly.

You would also have to regulate the number of members that each corps can accept with X number of years of experience, so one corps isn't marching a bunch of experienced members while the other corps are training a bunch of rookies.

Sounds a lot like the NCAA (which I despise). Let the corps compete amongst themselves. If they provide a great experience and a chance to be competitive, they will attract the best marchers. If there is competitive unbalance, it is the result of a lot of hard work and effort put in by staff members and alumni of a particular corps over many years. Why should all the work be erased?

[jasgre2000]

You would also have to make sure the talented staff members and designers are evenly disbursed between corps.

Maybe DCI should have a draft, where each corps takes turns selecting staffers, designers, and members so there is a good competitive balance.

[tariq.shah]

Well, let's take this thought experiment a step further.

The goal: Level the competitive playing field

Equalize show participation. Fair enough. Set number which all corps must meet. But that's not going to level things by itself. You're also going to have to...

Equalize rehearsal time. The means limiting spring training, and limiting the hours in a rehearsal day. Lower placing corps go on first, and by nature have a shorter rehearsal day, so we'll use that as our standard. Let's leave the winter program unrestricted. But starting, say, May 1, new rules are in place.

Let's limit spring training (defined as any rehearsal after May 1, but before the 1st show of the season) to 14 days. 12 hours per day, meal breaks not included. That should even things out between the corps that do over a month of every day spring training and those that only manage a week or so.

Once the tour starts, corps must participate in X number of shows (with an upper end, Y, noting maximum number of shows). Show day rehearsals are limited to 4 hours. Non-show days are limited to 8 hours of rehearsal. Every corps is required to take Z number of no-rehearsal "free days". Parades do not count as performances against the minimum/maximum rule.

Obviously, this is regulated and observed by DCI officials.

By equalizing official shows, you're only doing the job half way. Regulate rehearsal time and you're really leveling the playing field. Of course, corps now have to design accordingly.

You bring up an interesting point: where do we draw the line? If there is indeed some correlation between fewer competitions and higher placement in the long run, I think corps would begin to trend towards having fewer shows, as a matter of logic. This is, generally, my concern and reason for exploring these ideas on dcp.

I don't think corps should be punished for working harder, just prevented from exploiting any unfair advantages as relate to their tour schedule.

[Kamarag]

You're never going to be able to regulate membership of staff. Won't happen. You get into employment and other legal issues.