BRASSO Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Not to mention that BD and SCV (and Cadets with a little tweaking) are entirely capable of having second units march DCI as well, should they chose. Oh really ? Who says they are allowed to march DCI ? Maybe they get the votes for retention in DCI ... and maybe they don't. Like a poster just stated... " don't assume ANYTHING, either side ". It would take a huge a huge leap of faith to believe that if the BD and SCV leave DCI, that the remaining DCI membership Corps would allow these Corps to keep their other Open Class Corps in DCI, especially after being on board with killing off the Open Class Division and leaving DCI altogether. I would imagine that Gibbs and Fielder have anticipated the possible scanario of ending their " B " and " C " units, should they take their " A " Corps out of DCI. I f they believe that they could take their " A " units out of DCI, but leave their other units in DCI, they might want to rethink this. I don't have any inside info on this, but lets not assume ANYTHING . Edited January 11, 2013 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) One thing that people seem to be missing and why it is very clear that DCI and other corps overplayed their hand... The dangerous assumption here is that MIM would have the same structure, parameters, would play by the same rules. It won't. Aside from concentration manufacturer deals, an independent MIM would be unrestrained. - 200 member corps - no rules... literally... anything goes... electronics, pyrotechnics, lights, whatever Tours would be focused on key scholastic music clusters. DCI tours returning to the same areas would seem to have less of an impact than an unrestrained MIM. These areas are the bread and butter of the DCI tour. A remainder DCI tour with more strict rules and constraints would have a challenge drawing from the same audience if following unrestrained 200+ member MIM corps. The result for them would likely be worse than present. Think about this... If top 7 corps could add 50 more members each (which they can easily fill... no question), how would this impact the quality of the remaining corps? There is a certain reality that is not being acknowledged... What % of performers in corps not a part of G7 had a G7 corps as their first choice? Many could have been cut because of being young, went to another group and stayed (I was cut from my first auditions for a G7 corps). What if these guys were not cut to begin with because the corps had expanded their membership? Just pointing out that for many of these corps, 150 vs. 200 vs. 250... not that big of a difference for the bottom line, as core costs (design, instruction, etc.) are already covered in the 150 figure. It actually is MUCH easier to grow from 150 to 200, than 100 to 150. DCI overplayed their hand? DCI? Dangerous assumption? Actually the opposite is true. I'm so tired of the Hop and G7 threats, I want them to LEAVE ALREADY. Go. Make your big huge awesome changes. Go, be unrestrained. Play to your scholastic music clusters. Put your money where you big mouth is. Leave. And, at the same time, do you think DCI wouldn't change their rules after the "7" leave? Edited January 11, 2013 by HockeyDad 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Oh really ? Who says they are allowed to march DCI ? Maybe they get the votes for retention in DCI ... and maybe they don't. Like a poster just stated... " don't assume ANYTHING, either side ". It would take a huge a huge leap of faith to believe that if the BD and SCV leave DCI, that the remaining DCI membership Corps would allow these Corps to keep their other Open Class Corps in DCI, especially after being on board with killing off the Open Class Division and leaving DCI altogether. I would imagine that Gibbs and Fielder have anticipated the possible scanario of ending their " B " and " C " units, should they take their " A " Corps out of DCI. I f they believe that they could take their " A " units out of DCI, but leave their other units in DCI, they might want to rethink this. I don't have any inside info on this, but lets not assume ANYTHING . Calm down Brasso. Reread my post. I said they were capable. And they are capable. I didn't speculate on DCI's willingness to allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Calm down Brasso. Reread my post. I said they were capable. And they are capable. I didn't speculate on DCI's willingness to allow it. If a Corps is " capable " of something, but has no outlet to allow it to happen, then in reality it really isn't " capable " of anything at all. Thats was my point if you were calmed down enough to grasp that reply point. I see no assurance that if SCV or BD take their A Corps out of DCI that they'd be " capable " of keeping their B, C Corps afloat. Without DCI allowing them a membership, they would dead to field competitition, no matter how " capable" they could be in membership, resources, staff, etc. And without field competition, these B,C Corps are a gonner, plain and simple, and not " capable " of anything at all come that stage. Edited January 12, 2013 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) It's difficult to parse, since it says nothing that you wouldn't expect of DCI: it could have been written this way even if there were no threats from the "7". I suppose specifying that DCI is "charged with the responsibility of ensuring that we are honoring and fulfilling the mission of our association and the pursuit of a bright and prosperous future" could be a reference specifically to Hopkins's proposal. I agree, and you picked out the words that seem to sum up the disconnect here between the DCI mission as DCI corps members sees it, and a sub group within DCI that has made it known that it shares its OWN mission quite apart from the 40 year Mission Statement embraced by DCI Membership Corps. This subgroup meets on its own and develops strategies not in keeping with the Mission Statement agreed to by membership upon admittance. I think that once the radical proposal to alter the bylaws regarding the vote to strip members of current voting privleges is defeated, ( as it surely will ) a 2nd proposal should be introduced by DCI to vote to oust this subgroup out of DCI... and immediately... for not working within the mission of DCI, and working in a deliberate fashion to actually undercut and sabotage the agreed to mission of DCI as understood by the full membership. Edited January 12, 2013 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 If a Corps is " capable " of something, but has no outlet to allow it to happen, then in reality it really isn't " capable " of anything at all. Thats was my point if you were calmed down enough to grasp that reply point. I see no assurance that if SCV or BD take their A Corps out of DCI that they'd be " capable " of keeping their B, C Corps afloat. Without DCI allowing them a membership, they would dead to field competitition, no matter how " capable" they could be in membership, resources, staff, etc. And without field competition, these B,C Corps are a gonner, plain and simple, and not " capable " of anything at all come that stage. I dont understand. Maybe you could explain it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Arnold states, "We are unified in our commitment to work together." Unified? Really? Depends on who "we" is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 * edit: it could also be posturing. Mark publicly stating, "DCI is united" could be a way of publicly saying to the 7 "we're not going to sit back and let you take over." that would be my hunch. My usual very good sources of info have gone into lockdown mode, so I know less than usual. should be fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 One thing that people seem to be missing and why it is very clear that DCI and other corps overplayed their hand... The dangerous assumption here is that MIM would have the same structure, parameters, would play by the same rules. It won't. Aside from concentration manufacturer deals, an independent MIM would be unrestrained. - 200 member corps - no rules... literally... anything goes... electronics, pyrotechnics, lights, whatever Tours would be focused on key scholastic music clusters. DCI tours returning to the same areas would seem to have less of an impact than an unrestrained MIM. These areas are the bread and butter of the DCI tour. A remainder DCI tour with more strict rules and constraints would have a challenge drawing from the same audience if following unrestrained 200+ member MIM corps. The result for them would likely be worse than present. Think about this... If top 7 corps could add 50 more members each (which they can easily fill... no question), how would this impact the quality of the remaining corps? There is a certain reality that is not being acknowledged... What % of performers in corps not a part of G7 had a G7 corps as their first choice? Many could have been cut because of being young, went to another group and stayed (I was cut from my first auditions for a G7 corps). What if these guys were not cut to begin with because the corps had expanded their membership? Just pointing out that for many of these corps, 150 vs. 200 vs. 250... not that big of a difference for the bottom line, as core costs (design, instruction, etc.) are already covered in the 150 figure. It actually is MUCH easier to grow from 150 to 200, than 100 to 150. no offense, but those 7, unless they sponsors to pony up seriously HUGE bucks, can't last long on their own. and here's the funnist thing...since they claim to be the act....well.....they won't all win. Someone has to go on under the lights. so it kind of kills some of their posturing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 DCI overplayed their hand? DCI? Dangerous assumption? Actually the opposite is true. I'm so tired of the Hop and G7 threats, I want them to LEAVE ALREADY. Go. Make your big huge awesome changes. Go, be unrestrained. Play to your scholastic music clusters. Put your money where you big mouth is. Leave. And, at the same time, do you think DCI wouldn't change their rules after the "7" leave? Of course! Because everyone knows that no self respecting non-G7 corps would ever use electronics. Oh, wait... 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.