A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[charlie1223]

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.)

No. Better designERS cost money. The designs themselves could have been thought up by anyone and there isn't "really" a cost for thinking of ideas (negating opportunity costs). A good design is more likely to come from a good designer but good designs can also come from anyone aswell. Plus a show design itself is not "better" just because it cost more to produce.

Edited February 6, 2013 by charlie1223

[charlie1223]

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.

At this point corps find it in their best interest of the performers to have those things. The pit kids will not join a corps in DCI that doesn't have microphones and conpetes with other corps who do. and te pit kids now have a preference of what kind if ensemble they want to be in... Guarantee cast majority of marimba players want to miced in their ensembles.

Once again not about fans or corps.... But the kids.

Edited February 6, 2013 by charlie1223

[PunkRawkBandGeek]

It is not 'raiding' when a person chooses to move to another corps... it is personal choice of the person making the decision.

Agreed. I have always wondered why this has been so, both historically and currently so prevalent.

C2 started as a local weekend nontouring corps aimed primarily at HS students in a commutable distance to the Lehigh Valley area. In their very first year they placed 5th at DCA champs.

They also had the brand and organizational strength of the maroon and gold behind them.

Perhaps there's a correlation? And how does this phenomenon help the activity in terms of new units forming?

[N.E. Brigand]

At this point corps find it in their best interest of the performers to have those things. The pit kids will not join a corps in DCI that doesn't have microphones and conpetes with other corps who do. and te pit kids now have a preference of what kind if ensemble they want to be in... Guarantee cast majority of marimba players want to miced in their ensembles.

Once again not about fans or corps.... But the kids.

I'll concede that this has become a fact of life, with the stipulation that it didn't have to be this way, and that the kids might be doing just fine without amplification if the rules hadn't been changed to permit it, and a reminder that the then-director of the reigning world champions when the rule passed voted against it, and argued as follows:

I spoke in the past (at DCI board meetings, etc....) asking when the activity might put some moratorium or slow-down on constant state of change in the activity that never allows organizations with the potential of challenging the top groups to ever reach that potential, as they are always chasing the ball. Perhaps that was why the founders of the organization originally had the rules process convene every other year, to allow some constancy or "settle" or 'catch-up" time....

Consider the financial implications of keeping up with the "Joneses"... Bb instruments, amplification, saxes, 180 members... when does it end, and when do organizations spend more time strengthening their infrastructure, improving their instruction, food, experience for their members?... do we hire the better staff or buy the instruments, do we take more shows and parades and concerts and fundraisers so we can buy these things, or spend more time with quality practice, staff, food, sleep, fun?... what's more important... the generator for the amp or the truck tires?... that's not how the top DCI corps make their decisions, but some hungry, competitively-based organizations are driven to think that way by the nature of how we look and value different yet parallel items in our activity.

Was he wrong?

[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.)

No. Better designERS cost money. The designs themselves could have been thought up by anyone and there isn't "really" a cost for thinking of ideas (negating opportunity costs). A good design is more likely to come from a good designer but good designs can also come from anyone aswell. Plus a show design itself is not "better" just because it cost more to produce.

Surely you, dbg, and I are all saying the same thing? Better designs are likelier to win shows. Better designers are likelier to create better designs. More money is likelier to attract better designers. Ergo, more money is likelier to win shows.

[Jeff Ream]

Im going to be blunt and a bit unPC........the above comment is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on this site.

oh please. you obviously haven't been here finals week

[Jeff Ream]

DCI has 8 judges sheets at most shows. so take the 6 that are more performance based ( aka non GE) and weight them 70/130 like WGI used for some sheets in some classes, or 15/25 like WGI uses for PA.

The judges still use 100 in each box, and then the multipliers do the math. 20 you 95/94 is really a 665/1222=18.87.

only .3 off right? Now factor in if 5 other sheets are doing that and the judges maintain caption integrity and you dont see ranking per sheet tied to ranking over all. You'll get fun and games

10 to 1 that makes scores far more interesting and competitive across the board

Edited February 6, 2013 by Jeff Ream

[charlie1223]

Surely you, dbg, and I are all saying the same thing? Better designs are likelier to win shows. Better designers are likelier to create better designs. More money is likelier to attract better designers. Ergo, more money is likelier to win shows.

Well now you've changed what you said... you said "Doesn't it mean that the judging system REWARDS MONEY"

now you're saying "more money is likelier to win shows"

Those are two very different statements. You cannot take money out of the equation and I feel like some proposals here are trying to do that.... for what purpose? For an idealistic idea? Shows are supposed to be SPECTACULAR. And the shows that I want to see from drum corps costs money. If the Quality of shows goes down because the corps are forced to spend less on them I will be less inclined to see shows. It inhibits growth and for me it inhibits the potential of drum corps.

All corps, no matter their current financial status have an equality of opportunity. And if a lower corps WANTS to spend a lot more to get the BEST show designers and staff then they have an opportunity to WORK at getting the money to do so. Why is this any different than the competitive aspect on the field? And why do we see this as a huge "problem" when it's actually the driving force of many economies? Do the corps compete with each other because they want to all be "equal" or are they constantly trying to find an edge over everyone else?

I digress... The judging simply rewards good techniques and design. That may be a product of the services of highly paid individuals or it may not be. Pay for experienced designers/staff does make the chances of winning go up but that opportunity is open to ALL CORPS... if they have the money. And I don't think that just because some corps can afford it and others can't is not necessarily a BAD thing for drum corps.

In fact, our activity grows because people are willing to pay more and more for drum corps services.

Now I hate to use a number and letter together in this thread... but this KIND OF ties into a G7 idea... Splitting up the world class corps into other divisions. We all admit that there are discrepancies in how much corps can/are willing to pay for shows. And if that has influence on the field then maybe the competitive divisions should reflect that. Instead of limiting how much you can spend on a show... just have different divisions with SIMILARLY-ABLED Corps competing with each other. Maybe 1 class has unlimited spending another has a few grand, and another just a couple.

[N.E. Brigand]

Well now you've changed what you said... you said "Doesn't it mean that the judging system REWARDS MONEY"

now you're saying "more money is likelier to win shows"

Those are two very different statements.

Actually, those are two very similar statements; at least, I meant the same thing by both. The system usually rewards corps who spend more money. Surely there have been rare exceptions (when a group has such a brilliant idea or class of such strong talent they can overcome the monetary advantages of their competitors) and it's more a matter of ranges than specifics dollars --corps who spend $1,000,000 on their shows are likelier to do better than corps who spend $500,000 but not necessarily better than corps who spend $950,000 and so forth-- but it's broadly true. You agree with this point a few more times in the rest of your post goes on to agree with me on that point, so I don't see what we're arguing about. And I like the spectacular as well, and haven't actually voiced support for a spending cap, but I think it is possible that the rules or judging expectations have been skewed too far in that direction, so that fewer and fewer corps can afford to compete. Someone else mentioned that other limitations are already imposed on the corps in an effort to encourage equality of opportunity. Some people have advocated allowing any instrument and unlimited membership size. Both of those might very well make corps even more spectacular, or at least the two or three corps that still exist at that point. But it may be that some spectacle needs to be sacrificed to retain or increase the number of corps. (And since you brought up the SE7EN, I'll note once more that my major complaint about them is their intent to make their status permanent, so that they no longer have to earn what they demand of others.)

[garfield]

I'll concede that this has become a fact of life, with the stipulation that it didn't have to be this way, and that the kids might be doing just fine without amplification if the rules hadn't been changed to permit it, and a reminder that the then-director of the reigning world champions when the rule passed voted against it, and argued as follows:

Was he wrong?

I keep clicking ++++++++

This is my point.