A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[JamMan]

I don't understand the point of this. Why do we want all the corps to spend the same amount? Won't this just put them in a creative box? Don't we, as fans, deserve whatever the corps wants to produce?

[MikeD]

I think you and Mike on the one hand, and I on the other, are having this misunderstanding in part due to my being loose with the term "fact". I apologize. The wording I should have used is "statement of fact", i.e., something which is verifiable (for someone with access to the right information) as either true or false.

And so, "No corps has folded due to the additional expense caused by amplification" is a statement of fact. So is "Some corps have folded due to the additional expense caused by amplification". One of them must of course be an untrue statement of fact, but each statement could be proved or disproved if we had access to, say, detailed financial records and testimony from officials at all the corps which have folded since 2004.

I should be clear that I am not making any such claim.* My point is to establish if Jeff Fiedler's comment could be reasonably understood as a provable or disprovable statement, along these lines: "Some corps will not be able to afford to keep up with the various changes that have been approved over the past few years." That is: he was making an honest analysis of the state of the field, a statement of fact that may or may not have been proved to be true (or false) in the subsequent years.

I hope that makes sense. Please let me know if not.

I'm not sure that something as fluffy as "Some corps...." would qualify as a statement of fact. That sounds more like a statement of opinion, since I'm not convinced that even having access to records would allow anyone to point at the purchase of an amp or synth as THE single item that caused a corps to fold.

*Even so, I would not automatically rule out the possibility that that amplification or electronics were the most important factor in some corps' demise. Is that really so inconceivable? A corps that consistently had revenues slightly exceeding expenses could very well blow most of its small cash reserve on amplification to "keep up with the Joneses" because they knew, like Fiedler, that not having amplification would cost them on the sheets, would "tie their hands behind their backs" as Jeff R. likes to quote Jeff F. Then some accident happens during the season, or for whatever reason revenues are down a little, and the cash reserve is gone, and the death-spiral begins. And while MikeD says "a corps was that close to the edge of folding [...] would not be a corps I'd want to see traveling all over the country throughout the summer", garfield's long look at the 990s indicates that several of the top corps (by general acclamation or self-proclamation) are cash-poor enough that even spending a couple thousand on Music in Motion seems dangerous.

I do find it inconceivable actually. and as for what Jeff F said...Jeff R always fails to mention Jeff F's clarification about what he meant.

Now, to return to the question of time lag, as expressed in this exchange:

And:

Do I correctly guess there is no chance you'd allow that events may have unfolded like this:

2003

Corps A-L: "Let's allow amplification."

Corps M-T: "We don't want the added expense."

Corps A-L: "You lose. In fifteen months, you'll need to find another $25K each for your budgets, or be found wanting by the judges. But don't worry, this won't lead to electronics later."

2008

Corps A-K: "Let's allow amplification."

Corps M-S: "We don't want the added expense. Plus you said we wouldn't have to worry about this cost."

(Corps L and T have folded in the interim.)

Corps A-K: "Suckers! We've been saving up for this. Why didn't you? But don't worry, once synthesizers are allowed, there'll be no reason ever to allow woodwinds."

You are right...no chance.

[mobrien]

Years ago I would have been in favor of looking at budget caps, but on further review, that idea is just dancing around two issues that no one really wants to address, but are probably more to blame for the current competitive stasis.

1. A judging system where so much of the score relies on totally subjective evaluation of designers' work, compounded by a calcified group of judges in those captions, and too many past working relationships between certain judges and some staff members to pass the neutrality sniff test..

2. A certain number of lower-ranked corps whose managers don't seem to be able to lead them up the ladder competitively, despite years of trying.

For my money, I'd prefer to see the standards change so that GE, as a caption, goes away completely, replaced by a catchall Design, Effect, & Coordination caption (which considers how well the music and visual programs work together and how well they connect with the audience), with two judges in the box averaging scores to reach a 25 point total. The other 75 points would all be execution, technique, and uniformity driven, putting more of the score directly in the hands of the performers.

As for the second...it might be harsh, but if World Class Corp X has had a director in place for more than 5 years, and he has yet to find a way to move his kids up into the Top 18 at least once in that time, then his corps should be told that it's time to make a change and bring in someone new to try and revitalize the program. That seems to be a more direct solution to the problem of competitive inertia than trying to handcuff the corps directors and programs that are the most successful in raising money, selling t-shirts, etc, etc.

Edited February 9, 2013 by mobrien

[drumcorpsdrummerman2012]

I read the entire original post then half of the first reply, yawned and then stopped reading.

[charlie1223]

Ergo, unlimited spending means the quality of the product is better. Ergo, quality is determined by spending.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees that the circular logic makes the point you're not trying to make.

Lets say that corps spend money for quality....

Unlimited spending does not mean that quality is better. Eventually you get negative returns on the money you are spending and even if you paid a designer 50,000 dollars his services may really only be worth 20,000. Because of this quality is NOT determined by spending completely. There is a point where by spending 10,000 more dollars you get a big rise in quality... but maybe the next 10,000 don't increase it as much... And eventually you'll reach a point where spending a certain amount of money reduces the quality (for a number of reasons on how that money is being spent etc.) So unlimited spending technically won't always increase quality indefinitely.

This point, where spending more on a product won't produce better quality, is not ubiquitous among all corps and not all corps have the means to spend at that point. For example for one corps could have less expensive access to TOP designer (if they were an alumni or friend) than another corps... And maybe a corps needs to spend more to get to the same quality that another corps receives for less... Because of circumstances like this each corps has different amounts that they would need to spend in order to maximize their specific quality that can be achieved. And while you can find that point "technically" for any corps... any cap that is under that corps' point would be inefficient in-terms of receiving maximum quality from the corps.

I feel that each corps should spend which ever amount they feel maximizes their quality since quality is the only thing being judged on the field. If troopers hope to be in Finals again they should be able to spend as much as money as they feel they should to achieve that. While it may not seem "fair" that Troopers need to spend more money to be in Finals than maybe Blue Stars... how fair is it that you cap how much Troopers can spend effectively limiting them from moving up since their quality will not increase if they are already spending under the cap. You assume that most corps are spending under the maximum amount of dollars they need to achieve "maximum quality" and you also assume that Troopers are already being as efficient as possible with their spending so that they are receiving the maximum quality for their spending (though it is not the maximum quality achievable) given their circumstances. So Troopers will likely STILL be stuck out of finals because the cap did nothing to increase quality. Because Troopers is in the position where their quality will stay the same... If Troopers WERE to make Finals it would be because the quality of the other corps in Finals have dropped not because Troopers is "better".

"quality is determined by spending" is true at least in my example of understanding the cap... but as stated it depends on a lot of other factors where inefficiencies and abnormalities influence the spending decision and the effective "exchange rate" for how much quality you receive for the spending put out. And if the point of the cap is to control spending then it would achieve that easily... but then there is a possibility that you are restricting a corps current quality AND restricting a corps potential quality. This is true not just for the top corps but also the lower corps essentially transfixing themselves in a point where their quality will stagnate if they are already being as efficient as possible with their limited funds. The spending cap does nothing to guarantee their quality will go up which is the only thing that indicates a corps placement. And under the cap all corps are "equal" only in their handicap not in their ability.

I'm under the impression that a world with high parity but low quality is not beneficial for the activity. And as long as corps have the ability to directly "compete" with the corps directly ahead of them then a corps can move up. I don't expect Troopers to compete with BD but I do expect them to compete with The Academy... and move up from there.

I don't think we should ever expect that all 22 world class corps be completely equal in talent, design, spending etc. And the difference is merely reflective of the free market and the ability of designers, staff and members to choose the corps that maximizes their utility. Part of what's taught in drum corps is the success off the field is really the only thing that influences success on the field. And that's true for every part of a drum corps organization. Jersey Surf DOES have the potential to win DCI but it will take an investment of resources no doubt in a number of "off-the-field" endeavors that go beyond just show spending. But it's possible... it just needs to take time, money and efficient allocation of resources. And I'm not sure that's such a bad thing because there is really no other way to do it.

Edited February 9, 2013 by charlie1223

[Mello Dude]

Good post charlie1223. What you said is fine BUT, at what point do you draw the line where the corps that have disposable income are driving rules changes that ONLY help them score better and put the hurt on other corps trying to compete with them?

[JamMan]

Good post charlie1223. What you said is fine BUT, at what point do you draw the line where the corps that have disposable income are driving rules changes that ONLY help them score better and put the hurt on other corps trying to compete with them?

When has this ever happened? Was the G to Bb thing cost-driven?

[Jeff Ream]

I'm not sure that something as fluffy as "Some corps...." would qualify as a statement of fact. That sounds more like a statement of opinion, since I'm not convinced that even having access to records would allow anyone to point at the purchase of an amp or synth as THE single item that caused a corps to fold.

I do find it inconceivable actually. and as for what Jeff F said...Jeff R always fails to mention Jeff F's clarification about what he meant.

You are right...no chance. :smile:/>

Mike it was clear as day what Jeff F was talking about. He wasquestioned why Cavies added amps mid season. hence the answer that blew up DCP that summer and has been referenced to ever since. Just as Bluecoats sold shirts saying no to A&E, then rolled em right on out.

It's on the sheet. ergo, it's perceived as needed. sadly, it's still not judged right.

[charlie1223]

Good post charlie1223. What you said is fine BUT, at what point do you draw the line where the corps that have disposable income are driving rules changes that ONLY help them score better and put the hurt on other corps trying to compete with them?

Your dealing with politics. You are assuming that if a rule was passed by a majority of corps that the hurt on the minority is some how greater than the upside to the majority. Then maybe your saying that the minority did a poor job of explaining their case or the majority simply ignored the minorities concerns. In either case these things get settled while the rule is being deliberated. And lack of attention to minority corps is a concern which is why U.S congress has the filibuster.

But honestly in DCI you've had a mix of bottom corps rising to the top while rule changes were implemted and you also have corps at the top fall as rules changes were implemented. And in terms of dealing a massive blow through rule changes that disrupts a corps financial and placement stability hasn't really happened.

Look DCI world class is expensive and it's turning into a spectacle where is HAS to be so it can be competitive for the dollars of fans/new fans and members especially with all the ways they can spend their time and money now. (Which is why I harp on quality). I think it's great what DCI has become and while DCI level of entry used to be low in the 70's, now it's very high and this is true of a lot of industries that have taken off with the advent of technology and accumulation of capital over time. Starting and becoming a competitive drum corps is also harder because of the thousands of highschool marching bands that have replaced the old market for local corps. When you are in this position and want make sure there are always corps to compete in WC you lower the barrier to entry... And I feel that this is being achieved with SoundSport which MAY be a great place to start a new drum corps (or start something from nothing).

What I'm trying to say I guess is that not all rule changes will be 100% fair because of costs they may impose but some need to be made because constant investment in the product corps produce is necessary for the sustainability of public interest and money. (You'd have to think how popular a 1970's show today reproduced exactly with no change will fair with DCI fans today) In an old school pageantry event the debate is how much investment and "which" members of the public and how and we'll continue to have that debate.

Edited February 9, 2013 by charlie1223

[N.E. Brigand]

"No corps has folded due to the additional expense caused by amplification" is a statement of fact. So is "Some corps have folded due to the additional expense caused by amplification". One of them must of course be an untrue statement of fact, but each statement could be proved or disproved if we had access to, say, detailed financial records and testimony from officials at all the corps which have folded since 2004.

I should be clear that I am not making any such claim.* My point is to establish if Jeff Fiedler's comment could be reasonably understood as a provable or disprovable statement, along these lines: "Some corps will not be able to afford to keep up with the various changes that have been approved over the past few years." That is: he was making an honest analysis of the state of the field, a statement of fact that may or may not have been proved to be true (or false) in the subsequent years.

I'm not sure that something as fluffy as "Some corps...." would qualify as a statement of fact.

"Some corps in DCI have 200 members" is a statement of fact, just one that happens to be untrue, while "some corps have more members than others" is also a statement of fact. But I think there's no point in arguing further over semantics.

That sounds more like a statement of opinion, since I'm not convinced that even having access to records would allow anyone to point at the purchase of an amp or synth as THE single item that caused a corps to fold.

You've done this twice now: when asked if it was possible that the addition of "amplification" expense could push a corps over the financial cliff, you've responded that "an amp" is too small a purchase to cause such harm. Do you not recognize the difference?

And as for what Jeff F said... Jeff R always fails to mention Jeff F's clarification about what he meant.

Could someone tell me what this clarification was? I wasn't here then, and I can't find it.

Do I correctly guess there is no chance you'd allow that events may have unfolded like this:

2003

Corps A-L: "Let's allow amplification."

Corps M-T: "We don't want the added expense."

Corps A-L: "You lose. In fifteen months, you'll need to find another $25K each for your budgets, or be found wanting by the judges. But don't worry, this won't lead to electronics later."

2008

Corps A-K: "Let's allow electronics."

Corps M-S: "We don't want the added expense. Plus you said we wouldn't have to worry about this cost."

(Corps L and T have folded in the interim.)

Corps A-K: "Suckers! We've been saving up for this. Why didn't you? But don't worry, once synthesizers are allowed, there'll be no reason ever to allow woodwinds."

You are right... no chance.

Score! But the part about corps L and T folding between the 2003 and 2008 Januals at least should be correct, given the voting went from 12-8 to 11-7.