A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[Lead]

And to your examples about caps. Should DCI ban corps from receiving sponsorships from Yamaha, etc because it creates an imbalance?

I thought about this too. Like the NCAA, maybe the corps should not be receiving 'free' things that they then turn around and sell for $1000s.

Danielray - yes, I know most corps staff members get paid beans. But the designers don't, for one. *hint*

Maybe there should be a 'budgetary' limit, like the original poster said, a 'spending' cap. Maybe DCI comes in and says something like "no corps can spend over (x) dollars on one competitive season," and/or "no corps may charge more than (x) amount for membership in a corps."

Maybe those would be more productive ways to achieve a similar result?

[MikeD]

" the system" seems to come before all else, imo. It comes before " money", or " leadership".

For example, if Hoppy's ability to raid lower placing Corps of their best experienced talent was curtailed,

Members march where they choose to march, and they pay for the privilege of doing so. A person marching one year with corps A and the next with corps B has always happened, and IMO is a good thing. It is not 'raiding' when a person chooses to move to another corps...it is personal choice of the person making the decision.

I do not accept the premise at all that he could start from scratch with a new start up DCI Corps and replicate the success he had with The Cadets.

C2 started as a local weekend nontouring corps aimed primarily at HS students in a commutable distance to the Lehigh Valley area. In their very first year they placed 5th at DCA champs.

[mobrien]

Can we get one thing straight? Corps do not raid other corps for kids. Those kids are rational consumers who have free will and find that they maximize their utility in another corps. The main competition is not on the field. It's in November when corps sell their product. THAT influences the success of the corps more than anything.

Can I plus 10 that?

If you want the most competitive members to come to your corps, do a better job of creating a unique identity that they think they'd like to be a part of. While there are ring-chasers aplenty out there, there are also a lot of potential members who understand that the likelihood of NOT winning it all is much greater than the chance to win, and that what they really want is the experience in marching in Corps X, because Corps X has the attitude and approach they like.

Edited February 5, 2013 by mobrien

[perc2100]

I thought about this too. Like the NCAA, maybe the corps should not be receiving 'free' things that they then turn around and sell for $1000s.

I'm 99.9% sure that doesn't happen now. What typically happens is either:

1) corps buys instruments from company at a discount. When a corps decides to get new equipment they sell old instruments to get money to buy new ones

2) instrument company "loans" equipment to a corps for a year or two. Corps uses instruments at no cost to them. Instrument company sells the instruments used through a dealer, usually in conjunction with the corps (for example, it's obviously in everyone's best interests that the instruments sell, so Cadets will advertise "percussion equipment for sale" just as Yamaha will advertise "percussion equipment for sale").

I'm pretty sure nobody gets 'free' equipment and then sells it for profit (that is actually specifically against an artist's endorsement contract)

[cixelsyd]

what is 'unfair' is to penalize success.

Is it your opinion, then, that major sports leagues like the NFL "penalize success" by awarding preferential draft picks to the less successful teams?

[MikeD]

Is it your opinion, then, that major sports leagues like the NFL "penalize success" by awarding preferential draft picks to the less successful teams?

Are you now suggesting that potential members not be permitted to audition for the corps they want? That THEY are paying to march with?

[perc2100]

Is it your opinion, then, that major sports leagues like the NFL "penalize success" by awarding preferential draft picks to the less successful teams?

We're talking about professional sports, where athletes get paid. This is a voluntary "extra curricular" activity where members actually pay their own money to march.

I.E. we're talking about two completely separate things that couldn't be more different

A more apt comparison would be professional symphonies. Symphonies have open auditions, where anyone essentially can apply for any open position. The major symphonies in the United State, say New York or Chicago or San Francisco, attract the best musicians, accept the best musicians, and pay very well. Non-major symphonies, say Columbus OH, or Dayton, don't attract the top musicians of the world, and don't pay comparable to Chicago Symphony. They also, to be fair, don't put out the same product as the major symphonies.

Also, not coincidentally, the smaller symphonies tend to have more financial problems than the major symphonies.

Would it be fair to "force" the New York Phil to lower their operating costs (much of which, like drum corps, is raised via donations and fund raising)? For them to lower the pay of their musicians to match the non-major symphony pay? To penalize fans of the major symphonies who have come to enjoy, and support a high quality symphony because other cities do not?

The answer is no. Which is the same answer as capping drum corps.

[drumcorpsfever]

I understand the spirit of the spending cap idea. I think there would be some inherent challenges to it though. There would be some expense categories that are going to vary widely by corps. Travel expenses for one would be different for some corps based solely on where they're from. I suppose you could limit some expense categories, but overall this could be difficult to achieve.

What may be more achievable is in drawing a direct correlation from the P&L's bottom line of the corps to the budget for the next year or so. As such, a financial review would be required of each corps every year (not sure if this happening now). So, if the corps is covering their expenses, then they would be able to continue with a similar budget for the following year. If not, then the corps would be required to reduce expenses or demonstrate that any projected deficits could be made up to cover the difference. In this case, perhaps a more limited show schedule would be required or something similar to avoid catastrophic failure. An added challenge here is that this type of scenario could be difficult to do every year. We wouldn't want members to find out late that show schedule for their current year is going to be limited.

[cixelsyd]

Are you now suggesting that potential members not be permitted to audition for the corps they want? That THEY are paying to march with?

I was simply asking you a question, as part of a conversation. Here is how that works:

- You could answer "yes", in which case I point out that the precedent for "penalizing success" has been set by the NFL and other sports leagues. We can then discuss the relative merits of ideas for DCI, understanding you will favor those which do not penalize success.

- You could answer "no", in which case I inquire further about how we distinguish between actions that do/do not penalize success, and in the process, narrow down our search for ideas that might work for DCI.

Oh, and to answer your question - no, kids should be permitted to choose which corps they audition for.

However, I am open minded concerning what happens after they make that choice. The activity used to have release rules to prevent the destructive practice of corps stealing members from each other. In some circles, the practice of switching from one corps to another, even between seasons, was not permitted without a release. I doubt that the "release" concept would make sense in the more mobile society of today, but it is worth hearing about even if just for historical context.

Something else I have heard mentioned is a finder's fee - which, as I interpret it, would allow kids to hop from corps B to corps A between seasons, but corps A would then owe corps B a percentage of the dues that corps hopper pays. In this manner, credit is given to corps B for bringing that kid into the activity and training them to where they can make the next level. I think this concept is worthy of further discussion.

[cixelsyd]

We're talking about professional sports, where athletes get paid. This is a voluntary "extra curricular" activity where members actually pay their own money to march.

I.E. we're talking about two completely separate things that couldn't be more different

A more apt comparison would be professional symphonies.

How so?

Symphonies have open auditions, where anyone essentially can apply for any open position. The major symphonies in the United State, say New York or Chicago or San Francisco, attract the best musicians, accept the best musicians, and pay very well. Non-major symphonies, say Columbus OH, or Dayton, don't attract the top musicians of the world, and don't pay comparable to Chicago Symphony. They also, to be fair, don't put out the same product as the major symphonies.

Also, not coincidentally, the smaller symphonies tend to have more financial problems than the major symphonies.

Would it be fair to "force" the New York Phil to lower their operating costs (much of which, like drum corps, is raised via donations and fund raising)? For them to lower the pay of their musicians to match the non-major symphony pay? To penalize fans of the major symphonies who have come to enjoy, and support a high quality symphony because other cities do not?

Your last paragraph helps show why your comparison does not work. No one is even suggesting that larger symphonies be forced to cut back. The only reason I can even imagine that happening would be if professional symphonies had an organized league that sanctions a season of symphony contests culminating in a national symphony championship. (Of course, if that were the case, then your comparison might have relevance.)