Mello Dude Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I've often thought this idea is a good one, but never was brave enough to post it. You should NEVER be afraid to post what you think, even though you know the same 3 or 4 people will be against it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) 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. In essence what you are maintaining is that spending caps have greatly limited pro sports teams from acquiring the best of the best as it applies to performers? Competition is competition and making money is just as much a competition as what is out there on the field. a) While I am a free market capitalist I am also for a check/balance type system to prevent any monopolies from forming. b) While I agree that non-profits certainly do, and should, compete for resources I also believe that those who 'choose' to join a Collective such as DCI should honor that Collective by helping at some capacity; not one of helping financially, but to help educate, train, and monitor struggling corporations who also 'choose' to be within that same DCI collective. 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. True; but again there is also a responsibility of those who again 'choose' to be a part of the non-profit collective (DCI). 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. [/size] If that is the case (reward management of organizations that are able to generate more revenues than required for sustaining the organization) The Academy and other fiscally sound corps should be in the top 5 and those seeking the ring while teetering on instability each season should be out of the top 12!!!! 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. 1) Agree in that corps need to be ran and managed as a business not a musical enlightenment organization. 2) Agree as long as the revenue for staff bonuses are generated by the individual corps and not by the collective. 3) Agree; this is where I commend BD and Crown for beginning to think outside the box in creating revenue streams. Edited February 4, 2013 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StickTrick Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 The corps that pay the staff the most aren't necessarily the top competing groups. It's not quite like the NFL where a caption head is looking to jump to wherever he is going to get the biggest paycheck. A big part of what makes a staff successful is the compatibility, cohesiveness, and "the hang"... If a staff has the same vision and enjoys being with each other on/ off the field, it can go a long way into keeping great people at the same drum corps. Much like why a member might stay at a corps. Also, some groups (BD, Cadets, Crown, SCV, Colts?) are much larger organizations than drum corps. They are complete organizations that have the goal of enhancing music education in their area YEAR ROUND, not just through a summer drum corps. They do marching band clinics, winterguard shows, concert band clinics, etc. They are also the store for all things marching arts in their area. The success of these groups is something to celebrate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 If the goal is equity of corps on the field, then a spending cap is a great starting point. DCI could lay out the cap and devise some rules for implementation, and the corps would all have to sign on. DCI would also need power to fine, fix, sanction corps that broke the rules. So what do you do to a corps that overspends.....take the rings away? If every corps went into it on the same page, the idea has promise. But as it stands now, this would be a giant mess to put into practice. DCI is not the NFL and does not have the resources to make this idea work. What we just really need to realize is that DCI is an activity that is not about the final score of a group of kids that pulled it together over a summer and against the odds won a medal. The final placements are written in pencil years in advance, and the eraser is seldom used. More than a good bunch of performers trying really hard, drum corps is ALL about the administration of a corps ability to fund itself year in and year out. Make no mistake, the final standings graph can be laid over a graph of corps budgets and little difference would be noticed. DCI's customers are the members, DCIs real medalists are the corps administrations, and the DCI fans are the benefactors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 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. I don't see any reason to put a drag on excellence. The goal should not be to drag the best down; it should be to maximize the capabilities of all the corps to the best of their abilities. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 b) While I agree that non-profits certainly do, and should, compete for resources I also believe that those who 'choose' to join a Collective such as DCI should honor that Collective by helping at some capacity; not one of helping financially, but to help educate, train, and monitor struggling corporations who also 'choose' to be within that same DCI collective. True; but again there is also a responsibility of those who again 'choose' to be a part of the non-profit collective (DCI). 2) Agree as long as the revenue for staff bonuses are generated by the individual corps and not by the collective. DCI is not a collective, but a consortia. There is a very big difference. A collective is a group of interdependent organizations that do not necessarily function independently, but share work, resources and revenues in pursuit of a shared result. A consortia is a group of independent organizations that simply pools resources to collaborate on specific initiatives in pursuit of a common goal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 If the goal is equity of corps on the field, then a spending cap is a great starting point. DCI could lay out the cap and devise some rules for implementation, and the corps would all have to sign on. DCI would also need power to fine, fix, sanction corps that broke the rules. So what do you do to a corps that overspends.....take the rings away? If every corps went into it on the same page, the idea has promise. But as it stands now, this would be a giant mess to put into practice. DCI is not the NFL and does not have the resources to make this idea work. What we just really need to realize is that DCI is an activity that is not about the final score of a group of kids that pulled it together over a summer and against the odds won a medal. The final placements are written in pencil years in advance, and the eraser is seldom used. More than a good bunch of performers trying really hard, drum corps is ALL about the administration of a corps ability to fund itself year in and year out. Make no mistake, the final standings graph can be laid over a graph of corps budgets and little difference would be noticed. DCI's customers are the members, DCIs real medalists are the corps administrations, and the DCI fans are the benefactors. I have no issue with spending caps in drum corps, so long as the cap is $1 billion per organization. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I'd favor a spending cap that was inversely correlated to the previous year's finish. So Pioneer could spend the most, and Blue Devils the least, in 2013. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) Riddle me this... How is limiting the spending power of corps that have their #### together going to cause other poorly run orgs to magically figure out how to make (and properly spend) more money? The problem is not the corps that have their #### together.... it is the corps that don't have their #### together spending like they're ghetto rich. Edited February 4, 2013 by danielray 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I don't see where a spending cap helps on-field parity. At the end of the day, if you want organizations to attract better performers, they need to have the ability to actually be rewarded for their success. Sorry for the sports analogy, but thanks to, say, MLB having very clear rules that apply to everyone about how competition works, it doesn't matter if the Kansas City Chiefs are the low-spending punchline of the league. If they go out and drive in more runs than the other team, they're going to win. As it stands in DCI right now, Pioneer could put on the show of their lives, and the greatest performance the corps has ever seen - and there is no way they'd beat a top corps. None. Regulate what happens between the end zones to the utmost of your ability. It's a competition - there are rules, and that's perfectly fine. But why in the world punish a 5M/yr organization because a 400k/year org can't (or won't) make as much? Mike 2 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.