A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[Stu]

I did specify "graduates" of those schools (since Charlie's original premise was 18 yr olds). So I wasn't talking about taking a 15yr HS Freshman. It's an interesting thought experiment. I think the mental aspects would be more challenging. Most HS kids probably aren't prepared for the expectations a top-tier program would have for a performer. I get what you're saying about the physical demands. But performers in top-tier corps have rigorous off-season programs to help prepare performers for the physical demands. Hypothetically they could get them in shape for spring training.

Not making any claims -- I just think it would be very interesting to see what they could do.

Ok, let's say we are talking the best 18-19 year-old University Freshmen and compare them to the best 21-22 year-old University Seniors within another physical demanding activity: Football. Even the best average age 18-19 year-old All-Star University Team would not stand much of a chance against the best average age 21-22 year-old All-Star University Team. This is why both mental and physical maturity has such a powerful competitive impact even within the youth drum corps activity with groups like the Blue Devils.

[corpsband]

Ok, let's say we are talking the best 18-19 year-old University Freshmen and compare them to the best 21-22 year-old University Seniors within another physical demanding activity: Football. Even the best average age 18-19 year-old All-Star University Team would not stand much of a chance against the best average age 21-22 year-old All-Star University Team. This is why both mental and physical maturity has such a powerful competitive impact even within the youth drum corps activity with groups like the Blue Devils.

We're going *way* OT so this will be my last indulgence.

1. Collegiate football and drum corps aren't really comparable at all. (But to answer your question I agree the HS All-Stars would have no chance against College All-Stars). Might be better off comparing say gymnastics, swimming or cross-country (where sheer physical size is not a desirable attribute).

2. I didn't claim physical maturity doesn't matter. I just said I think the hypothetical young corps might have a larger struggle with the mental aspects. An 18-yr old is capable of meeting the physical demands of drum corps. (Of course the older participant might meet those demands with less effort. ) But as a drum corps rookie, the mental demands are something they're probably not as well equipped to meet.

The stat concerning the oldest average winning every single time is interesting. To see what significance it truly has, it might be interesting to see the average ages of each corps. If the winning corps' average age is 20.21, 2nd place is 20.19, and 3rd place is 19.55, how much weight would you give that average-age-always-wins stat? Perhaps other factors might be considered more significant.

Anyway this is wandering far afield. Back on topic...

[perc2100]

There may be some of that sentiment here. How about we put that aside?

Never mind what I think. Never mind what you think. Say a DCI policy was created where corps could set transfer fees, so that when a member hops from corps A to corps B, corps B must pay corps A that fee each year they march corps B. Bear in mind the dynamics of this situation. Corps A can set the fee as high as they want, but it has pros and cons from their perspective:

- A high fee makes money for them if their members continue to move onto other corps. Too high a fee makes no money if corps B chooses other auditionees instead of those from corps A.

- If the fee makes corps B less likely to accept corps A alumni, that might cause less kids to march with corps A in the first place.

Again, never mind what either of us thinks. What do the corps As think? Do they believe they perform a valuable enough service recruiting and training kids that corps B would pay for it? And do they believe they can continue recruiting enough kids under this policy? Offered the chance, it is entirely possible they would balk and set their transfer fee at $0 - but at least they would have the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are.

So you're assuming that, for the most part, kids will continue to march with lower-achieving Corps B because their preferred Corps A doesn't want to pay a compulsory "transfer fee" for said kid. I think a few things could happen, all of which would negative impact the lower-achieving corps:

1) it will cause people to not march the lower-placing corps. If you're goal is to marching SCV, but you have zero experience and want to marching somewhere for a year or two, as it stands now maybe that kid will march Pacific Crest to get that experience. If Pacific Crest is charging a $500 transfer fee for corps wanting one of their members (who, I should point out, has fulfilled their season contract) don't you think that kid will look elsewhere for experience? That certainly doesn't help PC much

2) that kid decides to not march period. They might determine that in the long run it's not worth the extra effort. That's a kid the activity loses: one that doesn't get the awesome experience. One who doesn't become an alumni. One that now has a cynical, negative view on the activity.

3) if this fee becomes 'standard' for the lower-achieving corps, you can bet that corps will get a negative rep, and could very well drive kids away in droves. Why pay more to march corps B when you can go to another corps with a smaller transfer fee?

4) could this financially screw up more corps? As we saw in the 990 thread lots of corps are barely holding on financially. This could very easily put them over the edge if they're having to pay dozens of extra financial fees.

5) this could also cause top corps to not even consider members from other corps. If, say Star of Indiana knows that accepting a vet from Limited Edition while cost them $600, but accepting a vet from Railmen is only $300, it would make better business sense to not take LE kids and instead focus on other corps with cheaper transfer fees. Just like some pro sports teams tend to want to avoid players with certain agents, knowing that agent stubbornly drives the prices up, the same could happen in drum corps.

People tend to think that it's a bad thing for kids to "corps hop." As someone who marched a non-Finalist corps, I 100% know how frustrating it is to have good members not return and march a higher-achiving corps. It sucks to know how much better the corps would be if members stuck around. But let's think of this from a different angle:

* a talented member is giving their services to a corps. That corps utilizes that member for the year (or more). It's not like the corps is training a kid from November-May, and then that kid jumps ship and goes to Blue Devils. These kids put in their time, fulfill their contract, and help the corps get where they did the previous season.

* shouldn't a corps be hyped that they are able to train kids to get to the next level? For example - a kid gets cut from Cadets because they lack experience, or aren't quite as good as others. They go to Jersey Surf, have a good summer learn a lot, etc. The next year that kid makes Cadets easily. When this is a common thing, it's something to be proud of as the corps giving kids the tools needed to make a high-achieving corps.

I honestly can think of minimal positive aspects of a transfer fee type thing, and MANY negatives.

[perc2100]

But I do remember a corps Magically making top 12 after sitting out two years.

That's true, and that corps folded due to poor financial management. If the tradeoff is coming in 11th for two seasons = folding in five, that's not worth it at all. And I honestly think that kind of alls under my theory that giving more money or resources to a corps that can't manage it's fiances only means they will mismanage at a larger level. Magic at that time had a pretty substantial history of poor finances: they took the gamble that great staff = finals placement = more members = more money. That clearly wasn't the case, and to be blunt the more apt model in this case was corps has financial problems = take a few years off to try and regroup = now we're back and need to make a splash to attract more kids/money = corps folds due to continued more financial mismanagement. I would stipulate that if a corps is struggling financially giving them more money means they only have more funds to mismanage. Maybe that's cynical, but in this activity it seems pretty plausible.

Now that you have described it so clearly, it is obvious that the trick is to do exactly what you say above with one difference - change "overspend" to "spend".

That's the real trick, isn't: spending within your means while hiring great staff & recruiting talented kids in order to have financial & competitive success. It seems obvious that many corps don't know how to do this at the highest levels, and for the ones who have figured it out why take money from them?

[Jeff Ream]

if you want parity, cash isn't the way to do it.

the sheets and how they are judged are.

[Bruckner8]

if you want parity, cash isn't the way to do it.

the sheets and how they are judged are.

Although I tend to agree with this sentiment (i.e., sheets/judging is the most broken aspect of drum corps), overall placement wouldn't change all that much. For the corps that put "Winning" above all else, they will adjust to the new system, no matter what is, and use their influence in the same ways they do now. Dollars have nothing to do with it; Egos do.

(I'm not passing judgment; just reporting "what is." If I had the ego-drive of these successful directors, I'm sure I'd try to use that to my best advantage, too.)

[cixelsyd]

I don't think it's true. Successul design seems to have more to do with synergy/chemistry than individuals. There are plethora of "names" who've been at one corps or another and did not ramp that program straight to the top. It's all about getting the right combination of people together at the right time and then sustaining that team.

- which requires money to be spent.

The other part of success is the instructional staff.

- which requires money to be spent.

Anyway my point is that you can't guarantee competitive success no matter how much you spend.

True. But when you look at the 990 data, placement order and spending order are in nearly exact correlation.

[cixelsyd]

So you're assuming that, for the most part, kids will continue to march with lower-achieving Corps B because their preferred Corps A doesn't want to pay a compulsory "transfer fee" for said kid.

No. I do not make that assumption, because:

- there may be another corps A that will pay that transfer fee

- kids may not march corps B to begin with, if their transfer fee discourages movement to the corps A they ultimately want to march with

I think a few things could happen, all of which would negative impact the lower-achieving corps:

1) it will cause people to not march the lower-placing corps. If you're goal is to marching SCV, but you have zero experience and want to marching somewhere for a year or two, as it stands now maybe that kid will march Pacific Crest to get that experience. If Pacific Crest is charging a $500 transfer fee for corps wanting one of their members (who, I should point out, has fulfilled their season contract) don't you think that kid will look elsewhere for experience? That certainly doesn't help PC much

It sure would help PC if, say, they have 50 members leaving for other corps each year. That would add $25,000 to their annual budget.

Yes, there is the concern that kids will not march a corps B whose transfer fee is high. So corps B will not be wise to charge a high transfer fee (or any fee!), unless they are in such high demand or so skilled at recruiting that they know they can fill their ranks anyway. If that is the case, then they really are performing a service to the entire activity by bringing so many kids into DCI and training them to move onto the corps they could not make otherwise.

2) that kid decides to not march period. They might determine that in the long run it's not worth the extra effort. That's a kid the activity loses: one that doesn't get the awesome experience. One who doesn't become an alumni. One that now has a cynical, negative view on the activity.

If we imagine that kids are already marching in HS band and one or more corps Bs in order to get the necessary edge to win that corps A audition, they are already making tremendous extra effort. A transfer fee system requires no additional effort on the part of the marcher.

3) if this fee becomes 'standard' for the lower-achieving corps, you can bet that corps will get a negative rep, and could very well drive kids away in droves. Why pay more to march corps B when you can go to another corps with a smaller transfer fee?

I lost you there. Why would any of this require the marcher to "pay more to march corps B"?

4) could this financially screw up more corps? As we saw in the 990 thread lots of corps are barely holding on financially. This could very easily put them over the edge if they're having to pay dozens of extra financial fees.

No one has to pay transfer fees. They all have the option of recruiting their own members, instead of auditioning the alumni of other corps, if finances are really that tight.

5) this could also cause top corps to not even consider members from other corps.

Why is that a negative? If top corps take more recruits from outside the activity, that means more kids get to march DCI. That is a positive!

If, say Star of Indiana knows that accepting a vet from Limited Edition while cost them $600, but accepting a vet from Railmen is only $300, it would make better business sense to not take LE kids and instead focus on other corps with cheaper transfer fees. Just like some pro sports teams tend to want to avoid players with certain agents, knowing that agent stubbornly drives the prices up, the same could happen in drum corps.

Yes. But that is not a problem - it is an opportunity. A corps desperate for members could use a free transfer policy as a recruiting enticement. Meanwhile, a corps more interested in loyalty could set transfer fees high, and weed out the corps hoppers.

People tend to think that it's a bad thing for kids to "corps hop." As someone who marched a non-Finalist corps, I 100% know how frustrating it is to have good members not return and march a higher-achiving corps. It sucks to know how much better the corps would be if members stuck around. But let's think of this from a different angle:

* a talented member is giving their services to a corps. That corps utilizes that member for the year (or more). It's not like the corps is training a kid from November-May, and then that kid jumps ship and goes to Blue Devils. These kids put in their time, fulfill their contract, and help the corps get where they did the previous season.

* shouldn't a corps be hyped that they are able to train kids to get to the next level? For example - a kid gets cut from Cadets because they lack experience, or aren't quite as good as others. They go to Jersey Surf, have a good summer learn a lot, etc. The next year that kid makes Cadets easily. When this is a common thing, it's something to be proud of as the corps giving kids the tools needed to make a high-achieving corps.

Sure. There is also the benefit of learning from a greater variety of instructors when you march more than one corps.

Do not misunderstand me. I have no problem with kids moving from one corps this season to another the next season. Some corps directors, however, do have a problem with it. They feel that, because of a wide variety of factors that have mired the current competitive placement order in rapidly drying concrete, their corps are essentially serving as feeder units for the corps above them. They feel that they perform a service to the activity by recruiting these kids and training them, to the benefit of whichever corps they subsequently march with. I am not sure how true that is - but if it is true, then the corps above them would be willing to pay for that service.

A free market transfer fee system would settle this matter once and for all. By allowing each corps to set their own fee levels, they choose their own fate. Top corps with hundreds of auditionees to choose from will only pay transfer fees if the training provided by corps B is worth that money.

The main reason I bring up this topic is to flesh out the details. It is entirely possible that a proposal along these lines might be made within DCI. I would not want to see a simplistic approach like a mandatory transfer fee set by DCI for all corps - that would hurt some corps.

I honestly can think of minimal positive aspects of a transfer fee type thing, and MANY negatives.

It could have nasty negatives if done the wrong way (like a one-size-fits-all fee imposed by DCI - ugh).

In any case, thank you for the intelligent discussion. You clearly gave this some thought, and have a good grasp for the details.

[cixelsyd]

That's true, and that corps folded due to poor financial management. If the tradeoff is coming in 11th for two seasons = folding in five, that's not worth it at all. And I honestly think that kind of alls under my theory that giving more money or resources to a corps that can't manage it's fiances only means they will mismanage at a larger level. Magic at that time had a pretty substantial history of poor finances: they took the gamble that great staff = finals placement = more members = more money. That clearly wasn't the case, and to be blunt the more apt model in this case was corps has financial problems = take a few years off to try and regroup = now we're back and need to make a splash to attract more kids/money = corps folds due to continued more financial mismanagement. I would stipulate that if a corps is struggling financially giving them more money means they only have more funds to mismanage. Maybe that's cynical, but in this activity it seems pretty plausible.

My understanding of the Magic situation is slightly different. In 2002 and 2003, they had money from Brigadiers bingo, and they hired top designers. Starting in 2004, they did not have money from Brigs bingo, and they did not have any of those same top designers either. It seems possible that they were hiring to match their budget, but I do not have the numbers. Do you have better information?

[frachel]

If you want parity, have all corps do the same show, have a round-robin "draft" to fill all corps so talent is spread out evenly, and maybe pick the staffs at random. Of course all money should be spread evenly so nobody has more or less. Also remove any name or identity from individual corps, just have corps a, corps b, etc since we know there is some bias in judges' minds for certain corps histories. What an exciting season that would be..