A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[JamMan]

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".

We need to realize that these "extra" things are just that: extra. Do corps NEED props? Not at all. Do they NEED electronics? Nope. Corps were scoring just fine in 2004-2007 while electronics were getting phased in without taking a penalty. All that's needed is a reasonable-sized hornline, guard and percussion section.

I'd favor a spending cap that was inversely correlated to the previous year's finish. So Pioneer could spend the most, and Blue Devils the least, in 2013. :thumbup:/>

Seeing as Pioneer isn't exactly rolling in cash...I'd actually find it funny to watch the G7 run their show with old uniforms, no props and broken sticks.

While a spending cap wouldn't necessarily assuredly level the playing field, it sure wouldn't hurt.

However, I also agree that the spending cap should ONLY apply to staff. With (x) amount of dollars left over, the corps can do whatever they want - it's their money. However, if each corps had to be prudent on who they're flying in when, and where from, and how much they're getting paid, it sure would help.

Sure, you'd have corps that staff members would "take less money to work for" just like pro sports. Also, just like pro sports, the teams with the highest salary won't always win, and the teams under the salary cap would have a shot as well.

I like the proposal. Here's a twist, though - beyond Staff salaries, let the corps spend whatever they want on everything else. If one corps wants to overspend on the best busses, and another corps wants to have the best food, or the best rehearsal facilities, or horns, or letting the kids sleep in hotel beds... cool. Whatever.

I, too, have long thought about posting this idea on these forums...

So, the only thing being capped is the staff salaries? Are staffs forming a dissolving constantly based around money right now?

a judging system weighted towards performance over the book will be the thing that can best help

Be right back. I'm just going to design a show that's an arc stand-still and only one note at mp. Perfect score, please!

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

If the team won...they probably don't need to re-haul their roster, and they won't be hurting for money, so it's not really "penalizing".

[Mello Dude]

How do we manage to disagree on EVERYTHING? Every wonder? That's pretty incredible!

Corps are equal on the field and under rules. There is nothing on the sheets or the way that judges judge that show otherwise. There is usually every year a wide consensus that the judges "get it right" (at-least to the extent where no one thinks a 12th place corps should have won 1st). So maybe you want to explain how there is a perception that corps are not equal under the rules?

There are rules that limit flexibility. And you hear almost every year changes/proposals to those rules to be more flexible. By staying "relevant" I mean being able to compete for the attention of the nations youth. Even if ALL the fans over 21 love drum corps for what it is in 2013... it won't matter if the incoming generation of young children don't find a spark of interest. And what interests them is always changing especially with all they are exposed to... And what about the college students? DCI's main group? They are being given even more opportunities than ever before and DCI can't afford to be on the tail end of making a Drum Corps experience worth it. What's it going to attract college student in 10 years? Better staff? Higher Prestige? I think DCI understands this and I don't mean to say DCI isn't relevant now... Did people know that a vast majority of DCI participants would be Music Majors? What will be the next demographic shift?

I'm just saying that I think the big picture competition in terms of DCI's continued and sustained relevance to future youth is more pressing than the competitive limitations of today. I don't think Drum Corps can be as timeless as "Baseball".

I highly doubt we disagree on EVERYTHING.

The point is we are not talking "on the field" are we, when we are talking spending CAP. Yes and every year we hear more cries that we need more "flexibility" to be creative which is bunk at best. People have been painting for 1000's of years and yet we still see new art all the time with the almost the same restrictions. Creating incredible works under limitations is what makes it great. The point is you should be attracting kids in Jr. High and High School's first THEN college to remain in your terms "relevant". Working from a top down model is "of course" killing the activity. Having corps with exceptional fund raising making the rules (or having a large say), creating the tour models and other things that cost more and more money to remain "competitive" is a recipe for disaster.

We already have programs in the country that have competitive rules also address this very issue (spending CAPS) as well as talent pools in drafts. Putting this in place for DCI wouldn't be at all that radical IMHO.

[Mello Dude]

We need to realize that these "extra" things are just that: extra. Do corps NEED props? Not at all. Do they NEED electronics? Nope. Corps were scoring just fine in 2004-2007 while electronics were getting phased in without taking a penalty. All that's needed is a reasonable-sized hornline, guard and percussion section.

No, but corps most certainly take a penalty for NOT having that equipment (electronics) today. On a subjective judging system, there is no way to get around this.

[Fred Windish]

No, but corps most certainly take a penalty for NOT having that equipment (electronics) today. On a subjective judging system, there is no way to get around this.

Therein lies the problem, Mello Dude. If the continuous addition of "toys" is a problem, then someone needs to step up and say "enough is enough." Who's in control here?

[MikeD]

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.

Drum corps and professional football have nothing in common, so that comment came out of nowhere and was unrelated to the discussion under way, IMO, hence my question.

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.

Finders fee for what? The person auditioned and marched for the season in corps A, paying his or her dues as required by corps A. If they choose to march corps B next year...that is their business. If I eat at Burger King (heaven forbid) today and then McDonald's tomorrow (bigger heaven forbid!) do you think McD's owes BK a finder's fee for training me how to eat hamburgers? That's a terrible idea.

[MikeD]

It would only be fair if fees applied to those transfers too.

As I said before, I consider the concept worthy of discussion. I am neither in favor nor opposed at this time, just interested in exploring the pros and cons.

There are no pros, so its a short trip.

Edited February 6, 2013 by MikeD

[MikeD]

No, I'm not talking about any category of spending at all. I don't propose limiting what any corps spends on any category, but I am talking about limiting TOTAL program service spending.

So, is creativity expanded by spending or not?

No.

[MikeD]

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.

Every corps operates under the same set of rules, so it is completely fair as it is now. This discussion is about penalizing certain corps so they have to operate under more restrictive rules than other corps, just because they have achieved success over time.

[N.E. Brigand]

To make a comment like "a judging system rewards money" is just ignorant and uninformed on the reality of this activity.

OK... Blue Devils won last year because overall they marched and played better than everyone else that season. Carolina Crown won brass (edging out BD for the brass trophy) because in that caption they performed better. BD also had a better design, sure people didn't think it made any sense but if one understood the Dada movement than the show made perfect sense.........again you may not have liked it but it made a lot more sense than Aaron Copland and Super Heroes. Groups win because they are better and have better designers.

Don't "better designers" generally cost more money than "worse designers"? And if so, doesn't the judging system therefore reward money? (If better designers cause groups to win, as you have said.)

[charlie1223]

I highly doubt we disagree on EVERYTHING.

The point is we are not talking "on the field" are we, when we are talking spending CAP. Yes and every year we hear more cries that we need more "flexibility" to be creative which is bunk at best. People have been painting for 1000's of years and yet we still see new art all the time with the almost the same restrictions. Creating incredible works under limitations is what makes it great. The point is you should be attracting kids in Jr. High and High School's first THEN college to remain in your terms "relevant". Working from a top down model is "of course" killing the activity. Having corps with exceptional fund raising making the rules (or having a large say), creating the tour models and other things that cost more and more money to remain "competitive" is a recipe for disaster.

We already have programs in the country that have competitive rules also address this very issue (spending CAPS) as well as talent pools in drafts. Putting this in place for DCI wouldn't be at all that radical IMHO.

What I enjoy in a drum corps isn't the creativity in restraint. I'd like for them to maximize everything they can to produce the most amazing spectacle on a football field. If they want to use props... Great! But expect they look high quality. And if they decide not to use props... Great! But I hope they don't strain to portray a concept that would have been aided by props. I use props as a small example. I do not mind sone corps spending more money on their program than another. I feel it gives the activity atleast a variety because there is a comfort in knowing that lots of money or no money have their ups and downs from a creative perspective and BOTH can be successful in their own way.

When it comes down to the sheets it comes to how well you design your show and what you do with your members... not how much money you spend.