Will The G7 Split From DCI?

[Fran Haring]

Why-a no chicken?

Now over her is a little viaduct...

"I'd walk a mile for a caramel...." LOL

[audiodb]

Rigged: really? That's like saying "since Blue Devils have not placed out of Top 4 in several decades, the only logical conclusion is that the judging is rigged." Or, "SCV has never NOT made DCI Finals, going back FORTY years: the only reason for that MUST be corrupt judging."

No. You are speaking past tense. Extending that to future tense is quite different.

I think it is just as reasonable, if not more so, that the majority of the G7 are considered 'elite' for a reason: they have a fairly long track record for being the best of the best. Except for Carolina Crown and Bluecoats, who have only recently (relatively speaking) turned into consistent high-achievers, there is a pretty darn long track record of excellence in the G7 corps.

Sure. And 27th Lancers had a long run, 11 years with 10 top-7 finishes. Madison Scouts went 27 years with 25 top-7 finishes, and since have only made it once in 13 subsequent years. Like they say on the financial commercials....past performance is no guarantee of future results.

[garfield]

No. You are speaking past tense. Extending that to future tense is quite different.

Sure. And 27th Lancers had a long run, 11 years with 10 top-7 finishes. Madison Scouts went 27 years with 25 top-7 finishes, and since have only made it once in 13 subsequent years. Like they say on the financial commercials....past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Hey! That's my line!

[Jeff Ream]

Since no one that actually has the answers instead of just speculation (on either side - the G7 or DCI) is commenting publicly on all of this, can't anyone get answers out of the DCI Roundtable Project or via an e-mail or something? The head of DCI marketing was able to provide answers to the sync rights issues - perhaps someone similar can shed light on this situation.

Don't get me wrong - I do enjoy reading 48 pages worth of speculation... :)

the answers you want won't be given publicly. just follow along for clues

[perc2100]

Not to get all Clintonian, but I think you two are using the word "any" in different ways.

I take Stu's "any G7" to mean "one of the G7". Understood that way, I think no one would disagree that at least one of the G-7 is likely to miss the top 7 in any given year, as happened for Phantom in 2009 and Cavaliers in 2012, and that it's at least probable that at least one of the G-7 will miss Finals entirely. As I noted in the Boston/ToC thread, there have been seven corps who arguably once could have claimed "G7" status that subsequently fell below that level (Blue Stars, Madison Scouts, 27th Lancers, Spirit, Suncoast Sound, Crossmen, Boston Crusaders) and besides, we know that two of the current G-7, Bluecoats and Crown, have missed Finals in the past fifteen years. (By my reckoning, it wasn't until 2009 that Crown could lay claim to being one of DCI's seven most consistently high-scoring organizations.)

I agree we're totally splitting hairs (though I think the chances of the current Music in Motion corps not making Finals is fairly absurd in the near future).

I'm kinda furthering the argument to try to slam home the point that he's making wild assertions that:

1) the G7 will be breaking away completely from DCI

2) the G7 groups will be a permanent group of corps in perpetuity. While that was (vaguely, IMO) mentioned in the leaked, rough draft powerpoint presentation we've all seen, I can't imagine that the MiM folks won't be continually tweaking the line-up in order to ensure they have the top corps performing in any given year.

For all we know in three years the G7 will morph into a completely different 'animal' than competitive drum and bugle corps, not field a DCI-type corps, and just churn out shows ala Blast. In that case it's a kind of moot point if they're the top corps or not, as they will be a different thing. At this point we have zero explanation on the long-term intent of the corps, and arguing hypothetical points concerning issues in the fairly distant future is just an exercise in goofy, IMO.

[perc2100]

However, some people have said that the missing corps, Boston, is absent by their own choosing. If that's true, does that mean that Boston is actually helping the G-7 to maintain their "elite" status -- by not shaking things up?

I think what's interesting, is let's play Stu (and other)'s hypothetical game combined with your above scenario (which is also, hypothetically, saying the G7 continue to compete at DCI Championships). Let's say Bluecoats have a series of bad seasons, and place an average of 9th over a four or five years span. Let's take it a bit further, and say their programming becomes not-as-crowdpleasing as well, and the G7 has an organization that has dropped out of the competitive elite AND is does not seem to draw the crowds. G7 moves to 'relegate'* Bluecoats, and extends the invitation to, say, Madison Scouts who in the same period of years has averaged 6th place. Madison refuses. Do the G7 drop Bluecoats, extend an invitation to the next highest placing corps not in MiM, or do they shrug their shoulders, keep Bluecoats in the group and hope Bluecoats rise up and get back on track?

No idea, and obviously this is just an discussion point, but kind of interesting. If the G7 corps assume that a corps consistently hits the placement standards (Top 7 or whatever over a specific numbers of years) will join their group, what happens when other corps don't want to? Boston has shown (supposedly) that there could be at least some faction of directors opposed to the G7 and will stick with DCI regardless of eligibility of performing in the G7.

* for lack of a better team, I'm using verbiage from the English soccer system. For those uninitiated, relegation in european soccer occurs each year when the lowest placing couple of corps in the top league get put into the next highest league, while the highest placing teams move up to the next highest league. That would mean that, say, in 2012 Pioneer would be relegated to Open Class and the winning OC corps is promoted to WC: if Pioneer wins OC the next season they will move back to WC and the last place place WC corps will be relegated to OC.

(Or was Boston counting on all this sturm-und-drang as a way of making the G-7 seem unjust?)

Since we don't know exactly what happened behind the scenes, I think it's impossible to really say for sure. You're hypothesis above could be accurate: maybe it was more BAC drawing a line in the stand, publicly showing their support of DCI and rejection of the G7 ideals. Maybe Boston is hesitant to get involved without a strong proof of concept. I.e. "we don't want to invest in the money of starting this organization, and the BAC director doesn't want to invest the time needed to to his share of starting this all up: if/when it is off the ground, proven to be profitable, and the hard work is ironed up we'll be more willing to participate." We might never know what the situation really is between Boston & the MiM.

[perc2100]

Fred,

Let's be honest.....we're just "marching band" to most of the world. And this may offend, but the guys currently in charge are not the guys to lead to some creative rennasiance that will draw the unwashed masses in. Remember, these are the guys that made DCI what it is, and now they cry it's broken. Well, no shot, they made it that way

I think, to be fair, we can stipulate that a good chunk of this pseudo-revolt has to do with the business end of DCI: how it's marketed, how its merchandise is created, profit sharing, etc. Reading that email posted on here, it's clear that there is frustration with the behind-the-scenes stuff, and folks are seemingly unhappy with how DCI is running things in regards to what I said above (and could include other aspects not mentioned). It's not just a "we're going broke because the tour model and show design model has blown out of control:" that might very well be part of it, but I'm not sure we can say with certainty that the G7 directors' problems and perceived issues with finance distribution is based solely on financial panic (i.e. Hop worried Cadets will fold without serious monetary dispersement changes): it's possible that the financial concerns have more to do with G7 directors disagreeing with how Dan A. & DCI manage finances as far as marketing, product royalties, what types of products DCI is/isn't committing to, etc.

[perc2100]

No. You are speaking past tense. Extending that to future tense is quite different.

True, but I am correlating past tense with proven track record. There's a difference. It's pure speculation to say "it's possible in 20 years the Yankees will be a consistent bottom feeder and the Cleveland Indians will be the dominant AL franchise in baseball." It's more legit to say, "the Yankees are a team that is consistently always in the hunt historically, going back several decades. Therefor, it is a reasonable hypothesis to say Yankees will continue to contend for the AL Champion flag ten years from now."

Sure. And 27th Lancers had a long run, 11 years with 10 top-7 finishes. Madison Scouts went 27 years with 25 top-7 finishes, and since have only made it once in 13 subsequent years. Like they say on the financial commercials....past performance is no guarantee of future results.

And if 2-7 were relevant to this discussion, or if Madison has proven recently they are CURRENTLY (i.e. the time when this plan was born and implemented) a consistent elite Top 7 corps. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a no brainer to include Madison in this venture: they are a seemingly timeless crowd pleaser, and would do nothing but bolster the support for the MiM idea.

That being said, and since this thread has turned more into speculation, interpretation of parts of conversions heard second-hand at best, and DCP fans trying to connect the dots with huge portions of the puzzle a mystery, who's to say that Madison wasn't originally approached. For all we know, the G7 were originally going to make this all about the draw and slightly less about placement: what if their thought was to have Super Shows as far as popularity, include Blue Devils, Cadets, SCV, Cavaliers, Phantom Regiment, Madison Scouts, and Crown and/or Bluecoats as the "newer" additions to the elite? Maybe that was the original plan (before it was presented publicly), and Madison rejected them, forcing Hopkins and Gibbs to tweak the original concept a bit to have a more cohesive line-up?

Again, we'll likely never know...

[skywhopper]

I know this has been alluded to on here, but I don't know that anyone has linked to actual evidence. However, the minutes from the Colts Oct 7 minutes (available on their website) state: "DCI report – G7 is now a non-profit, incorporated entity; G7 shows with only their corps now being scheduled."

And so as Jeff has recommended many times, I decided to search out the incorporation information. Turned out to be way easier than I expected. The site is not set up to be linked to directly, but to see for yourself, go to the California Secretary of State business search page choose "Corporation Name", enter "Music in Motion", and click "Search". The third item I see is "Music in Motion Performing Arts, Inc", Entity ID# C3470349, incorporation papers filed on April 19, 2012, and the "Agent for Service of Process" is David Gibbs.

The address listed is 4065 Nelson Ave, Concord, CA, which is also the Blue Devils' organizational address.

The April 19 date is significant, as I believe that came right after the "DCI Next" proposal Garfield has detailed in this or other threads which proposed a number of changes designed to bring the G7 and the rest of DCI together. My evidence for this is that the DCI Next proposal was referenced (in particular as a proposal to merge Open and World classes) in the Colts' April 28, 2012 minutes--also posted online.

Edited December 1, 2012 by skywhopper

[skywhopper]

At this point we have zero explanation on the long-term intent of the corps, and arguing hypothetical points concerning issues in the fairly distant future is just an exercise in goofy, IMO.

Regardless of the long-term issues, I think it's fair to critique the short-term moves that are reducing revenue to DCI, other corps, and other show sponsors. Organizing their own shows which are open only to them and which share ticket revenue within the G7 but not with DCI is no longer a hypothetical. The hypothetical discussions of whether they will split or not come down to whether it's fair for the G7 to try to play by their own rules while remaining within DCI.