jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 The top corps aren't good because they spend more money. They spend more money because they raise more money ... because they are good. A spending cap is silly ... as are most comparisons of drum corps to multi-billion dollar sports leagues. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Seriously? Do you really think Bingo is the only way there is to raise money? If that is the excuse people are giving for why some groups have more money than others, they are lying. There are tons of ways to raise money that don't involve gambling. This is the perfect example of how poor management is to blame for low revenue groups. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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". Ummm ... no we haven't. We have only done it in TWO professional sports (football and basketball). It works great for football, where each team brings in billions every year. It doesn't work so well in basketball. Nothing else does it. Please know what you are talking about next time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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? The spending caps in professional sports (for the few leagues that actually have them) are high enough to allow each team to be elite if they want to be. If there is a spending cap for Drum Corps it should be like $5 Million per corps. I think that would be reasonable. Anything less will artificially punish good corps for absolutely no gain to anyone else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 If money is the reason why corps like Pioneer aren't competitive, do we really want to bring everyone else down to that level? Really? How is this even debatable? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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? Huh? That isn't how the NCAA works. In fact, most college football teams (if not all) get their uniforms (and equipment) free from Nike, Adidas, or Under Armour. You'll need to find a better example than the NCAA to support this silly idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I agree. If a lower-tier corps wants a current marching member to remain with their corps, they should consider why that member is leaving and address those issues. If the corps is unwilling to address those issues, they should expect to see members leave. It's that simple This theory that somehow upper-tier corps are 'stealing' talent from lower tiers is hogwash. Those members are getting up and leaving of their own accord; it's not the result of some clandestine poaching scheme. Retention is entirely in the hands of each corps. Create an experience that encourages members to return. Exactly. I think Crown is the perfect example of this. Crown is a relatively recent success story in DCI. They didn't "steal" any talent from other corps, they built their success and are now seeing the payoff. This is true in any competitive activity. Stifling excellence is not the way to make bad corps better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Been lurking over this threa like a troll, watching the comments, and I wonder... Many of the rebuttal comments center on the perceived unfairness of limiting the creativity of the bigger corps just because the smaller corps are (terrible managers, incompetent, on a different path, idiots, whatever), but... By making this statement, isn't one confirming that creativity and, hence, the ability to win under sheets that reward creativity, is, in fact, linked to dollars spent? Is the activity reduced ONLY to creativity via spending? If each corps were limited to spending $750,000 per season on their show, therefore, they would not be as creative? Aren't you making the case that spending = creativity? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Success on the field breeds success in the bank account. You have everything absolutely backwards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Actually more than all that, Drum Corps is a competitive activity. If corps are not perceived as "equal" under the rules how do we make that happen? There are already rules that "limit" flexibility (show time, limited instrumentation etc). Could you please elaborate on staying "relevant" and what that means. How are the corps not "equal under the rules"? What rule favors rich corps? What on earth are you talking about? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 ... Success on the field breeds success in the bank account. Do you really want to test this premise? We can name for you quite a lot of DCI corps over the years which have had top twelve 'competitive' success yet failed miserably in their finances to the point of folding. 1 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.