A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[garfield]

While we're seeing topics (mostly from DanRay) about out-of-the-box ideas to "fix" DCI, I have a thought that seems to make sense: A spending cap on program service.

Say, for instance, that a corps could spend no more than (pick a number) $800,000 to field a corps for competition. The smaller corps, which spend, say, $400m to $600m now, would find themselves in competition with the "top-corps".

For the big corps that raise millions per year, there is nothing stopping them from fielding two, or three, corps - BD-2, SCV-2? - in addition to all the other outreach programs that they develop.

Capping the spending limit on a single corps per season could level the competitive field. Doing so would increase the excitement of the competition by allowing smaller corps to challenge the bigger corps.

As long as the judging sheets are designed to reward spending, a spending cap is the only reasonable approach to increasing the competitiveness up and down the spectrum of corps sizes.

[danielray]

Putting caps on spending would be no different than putting a cap on performance ability... where corps would be forced to cut any performers with above average skills to make it fair to other groups.

Competition is competition and making money is just as much a competition as what is out there on the field.

The issue here has nothing to do with lack of fairness or parity... it has to do with management of some groups not being as good as others at making and managing money.

The solution, instead, should be to create a culture that generously rewards management of organizations that are able to generate more revenues than required for sustaining the organization on a competitive level.

What actually needs to change:

1) Shift from non-profit mentality

2) Performance bonuses to attract experienced management

3) Corps management needs to understand that they don't necessarily need to make money in the same location they operate their educational programs in. The world is a pretty big place.

[garfield]

Putting caps on spending would be no different than putting a cap on performance ability... where corps would be forced to cut any performers with above average skills to make it fair to other groups.

Competition is competition and making money is just as much a competition as what is out there on the field.

The issue here has nothing to do with lack of fairness or parity... it has to do with management of some groups not being as good as others at making and managing money.

The solution, instead, should be to create a culture that generously rewards management of organizations that are able to generate more revenues than required for sustaining the organization on a competitive level.

What actually needs to change:

1) Shift from non-profit mentality

2) Performance bonuses to attract experienced management

3) Corps management needs to understand that they don't necessarily need to make money in the same location they operate their educational programs in. The world is a pretty big place.

But Dan, somewhere in here you said that a corps should focus on its "purpose". What of a corps whose purpose is not money-centered but kid-centered and experience-centered (Pio and Surf come to mind)? No credit given?

[garfield]

Putting caps on spending would be no different than putting a cap on performance ability... where corps would be forced to cut any performers with above average skills to make it fair to other groups.

Competition is competition and making money is just as much a competition as what is out there on the field.

The issue here has nothing to do with lack of fairness or parity... it has to do with management of some groups not being as good as others at making and managing money.

The solution, instead, should be to create a culture that generously rewards management of organizations that are able to generate more revenues than required for sustaining the organization on a competitive level.

What actually needs to change:

1) Shift from non-profit mentality

2) Performance bonuses to attract experienced management

3) Corps management needs to understand that they don't necessarily need to make money in the same location they operate their educational programs in. The world is a pretty big place.

I would suggest that if all corps in all states had bingo operations that they inherited from previous management, we'd not have the disparity of income and opportunities that we now have. It's no secret that we're really only talking about 3 or 4 corps that have the kind of depth you're suggesting represents "money making and management" capabilities, while many lower-placing corps have balance sheets and directors' focus on finances that put some of the big corps to shame.

The entire activity can't be restructured based on a few corps that have external funding capabilities not available to other corps, unless we want all corps to move to CA, or start band competition circuits.

I think there's a bias, unspoken but none-the-less clear, that's focusing on bingo operations that have roots longer than the terms of existing directors. Yes, those directors have the depth to do outreach and send kids around the world. But what of 'Coats or Crown (and the others) that still spend every dollar every year to be seen as competiive on the field? I don't see 7 corps sending kids around the world, while I do see Pio supporting developing countries' exposure to drum corps.

There's a disconnect there that has to be addressed.

Edited February 4, 2013 by garfield

[danielray]

But Dan, somewhere in here you said that a corps should focus on its "purpose". What of a corps whose purpose is not money-centered but kid-centered and experience-centered (Pio and Surf come to mind)? No credit given?

They have chosen their own purpose and have chosen the parameters they are comfortable working within.

All groups other groups should not be forced to have the same limitations.

[perc2100]

As long as the judging sheets are designed to reward spending, a spending cap is the only reasonable approach to increasing the competitiveness up and down the spectrum of corps sizes.

Huh: don't remember the "money" caption on the sheets.

I'm just going to be blunt:

a corps with a poor financial manager at the helm is going to poorly manage the finances of their corps, regardless of a spending camp, buying props, etc. As has been pointed out many times, the bulk of the annual budget isn't props, or electronics, or staff: it's transportation & feeding costs. Not much any corps can do to change that, and a spending cap wouldn't do much to lower the costs for driving the convoy down the freeway or feeding 150 members + staff & volunteers.

[Mello Dude]

Huh: don't remember the "money" caption on the sheets.

I'm just going to be blunt:

a corps with a poor financial manager at the helm is going to poorly manage the finances of their corps, regardless of a spending camp, buying props, etc. As has been pointed out many times, the bulk of the annual budget isn't props, or electronics, or staff: it's transportation & feeding costs. Not much any corps can do to change that, and a spending cap wouldn't do much to lower the costs for driving the convoy down the freeway or feeding 150 members + staff & volunteers.

No, but it would level the playing field. We have done this in about just about every other competitive sport and would start taking into consideration the "extra" things that cost money that you and some others write off as "nothing".

[charlie1223]

Do people think Blue Devils won last year because of they spent more money on their production? Those horses were made of PVC! They had just as many keyboard/synths/electronic equipment as Surf. And what they decide to pay their staff is THEIR business.

Very against this idea.

[Michael Boo]

They have chosen their own purpose and have chosen the parameters they are comfortable working within.

All groups other groups should not be forced to have the same limitations.

I feel so conflicted when you state something with which I agree. It kind of makes me feel dirty.

[barigirl78]

I've often thought this idea is a good one, but never was brave enough to post it.