jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 If there were a spending cap in place, then every corps would operate under the same set of rules and would be completely fair then, too. The only way that is true is if you set the spending cap so low that everyone could spend the max amount if they want to. That would cause DCI to fold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Part of the logic behind salary caps in pro sports is the fact that teams that operate in the largest media markets have the most money at their disposal to use in purchasing players. The Yankees or Cubs could bid up the price of talent because they have local audiences of between 8 and 30 million people to use as their fan base, and so have an inherent advantage in financial resources when compared to markets like Minneapolis and Kansas City, who are a fraction of the size. There's no data to indicate that any disparities in staff salaries, as they exist now, have any correlation to the area where a corps is from. They only have to do with managerial skill - corps directors who hire or nurture good instructional talent, then hold on to it. That being the case, the proposed cap here really would be handicapping based on success, and nothing else. If people want to shake up the competitive field, you'd have better luck working with the corps themselves to revise the judging system in such a way that more emphasis was placed on execution and measurable audience effect, and less on 'design.' But I think we all know that the top corps will still be able to work with that system too, so the challenge, even then, would be for the corps in the lower tiers to find a way to improve their programming ideas and instructional capabilities. Bingo. Notice that there is NO salary cap for coaches or staff in any competitive league that I am aware of. If we were paying kids to march in corps, that would be one thing. Otherwise, none of this makes any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Crown is also the perfect example of what can happen to an organization when power is left unchecked! The current administration of Crown, by signing onto the selfish money and power grabbing G7, is neglecting to pay tribute to those who helped them get to where they are in DCI; and they are now seeking to squelch most other corps instead of helping DCI by 'paying it forward'!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 No. Those are your words - not mine. That happens sometimes, too - which is why I do not suggest anything as silly as ... Souvenir sales, equipment endorsements, even the bingo revenue that some corps pull in - that is all fundraising performed by individual corps. I do not advocate limiting an organization from raising funds. If a director is not as good, they will probably not catch up. That is life. But what about the director that is just as good? If you want more stories like Teal Sound, I suppose. What is the point of raising money you can't spend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 What is the point of raising money you can't spend? I can give you close to 17-Trillion reasons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) 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? so the top corps are only good because they can spend more than the others? Edited February 9, 2013 by soccerguy315 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 9, 2013 Author Share Posted February 9, 2013 ABSOLUTELY NOT. Success on the field breeds success in the bank account. You have everything absolutely backwards. Really? Did you peruse the 990's thread? If this premise were true there would be hundreds of successful corps as a result of hundreds of directors with stars in their eyes and no money in the bank. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) The opponents to a spending cap posting here seem to have two distinct lines of reasoning: 1. That limiting spending unfairly limits the creativity of corps who can spend more, and "penalizes" them as a result, and 2. That even with a spending cap the corps who have always won on their creativity would still win, i.e. a spending cap wouldn't make a difference in placment. It's hard for me to envision that the answer is both of these, so I wish you guys would pick one. Maybe different people are making different arguments. And yet ... both arguments undermine your spending cap nonsense. What do you really think will be accomplished with a spending cap? Will it make weak corps better? Will it cause more skilled marchers go to weaker corps? Are people choosing corps based on how much they spend? I really don't get your theory. Salary caps make sense when talent is based almost entirely on salary. In the NFL, you play where you will make the most money possible. It is completely different in drum corps. First, marchers are not paid anything (they have to pay money). Second, marchers are all free agents and can go wherever they want (are you going to restrict free agency to make sure weaker corps get to hold on to people they want?). Third, spending is very tangential to why marchers choose to go to one corps over another. The best corps are the corps that attract the best marchers/talent. The best talent go to the corps that have the best history of success (and where they are marching with other people that are among the best in the world). When a corps is successful, they make more money through fundraising, sponsorship, and product sales. This allows them to spend more. Spending is at the end of the line ... it isn't causing anything. Please tell us how a spending cap will make anyone better. Edited February 9, 2013 by jasgre2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Really? Did you peruse the 990's thread? If this premise were true there would be hundreds of successful corps as a result of hundreds of directors with stars in their eyes and no money in the bank. Huh? I never said what caused success on the field. Clearly it isn't as easy as just choosing to be successful. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that when you perform better, you can raise more money. This is true in every single money-making/raising organization in the world. When you put a good product in the market, you make more money. This is common sense. A 10 year old could tell you that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) I don't think it has anything to do with creativity. And the amount of money spent CAN influences the talent of the saff in the corps. A spending cap is bad idea because the quality of the product will inevitable be worse. Especially in the transition from no spending cut to spending cut. The parity in drum corps you want can only happen if the average talent level of corps is exactly the same and if all shows were objectively designed at the same level. That will never happen and cutting spending on shows will make both of these factors worse across the board. Especially if your assuming the budgets of lower corps won't change... or the budgets of the higher corps will be the same as theirs... How do their shows currently compare? They have lower quality with a smaller budget so you can imagine that if bigger corps were forced to use that smaller budget ther quality will go down... This is key. Why does a salary cap work in the NFL? Because the NFL has a monopoly on elite football talent and the opportunity cost for not playing football when you are an elite football talent is relatively low. In other words, if you are an elite football talent, and can command a multi-million dollar salary even with the cap in place, then it is very likely (almost certain) that your best career opportunity is to play in the NFL. You are unlikely to be able to make more money in some other career. If the salary cap was set at a level where most elite NFL players would be better off not playing in the NFL and pursuing some other career, then the salary cap would destroy the activity. How does this apply to drum corps? Well ... the only place it really makes sense to cap spending is on designer costs (most staff members don't get paid anything anyways, so talking about them having their salaries capped is silly). In terms of parity, it makes some sense to tell everyone they have to cap their spending on staff and designers at a certain level. In order to make this "fair" (according to the definition of fairness the spending cap proponents throw around), the cap would have to be low enough to allow Pioneer and The Cascades to pay the max amount on staff/designers if they want to. So what happens in that case? Designers stop designing (or they stop spending as much time and effort designing, knowing they won't be compensated for the fair value of their work). This makes the general quality of design worse off. It brings the design level down to the level of design that Pioneer and Cascades have. It may even cause corps not to employ professional designers at all (I imagine many of the corps with less financial ability have their directors designing their shows). It destroys a market for great design that would exist without the silliness that would be a spending cap. The only time a salary/spending cap makes sense is when there is a significant amount of producer surplus, and elasticity is low. This means that a salary cap only makes sense when you can cap spending without losing talent. That is nowhere close to true with drum corps and this discussion should end there. Edited February 9, 2013 by jasgre2000 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.