A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[garfield]

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.

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.

[MikeD]

Was he wrong?

There is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong'...he was right for himself. Just like Hoppy, Gibbs, and those who voted amps, etc up were right for themselves.

[mobrien]

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.

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.

Edited February 6, 2013 by mobrien

[MikeD]

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.

No, it would not be fair, as you are looking to put artifical constraints on some corps while permitting others to operate as they wish.

[cixelsyd]

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.

I disagree.

1. Laws governing charitable gaming vary from state to state, giving corps in some areas a fundraising advantage over other areas.

2. The drum corps activity funding model includes several categories (i.e. souvenir sales, equipment endorsements, DCI revenue sharing payouts) where there is an inherent financial benefit to placing higher, and therefore, a tendency to maintain that competitive hierarchy with or without managerial skill.

3. The nature of the DCI tour creates a disparity in travel costs due to geography.

[corpsband]

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.

Salary caps are all about the media markets. So let's talk about the mass media market in drum corps.

Oh.

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.

But, but, but...we all know those corps are just spending their way to success :-\

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,

I agree. Assessing "what" and "how" should have equal weight to design.

I'd add a very strong look at the make up of the judging community. Perhaps emptying the cupboards and focusing on injecting fresh blood into the ranks would be the best thing DCI could do.

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.

Wow. This is spot on. Look at what MEG did at Madison. Teach better + Design better = Score better.

Write for your performers. Again look at Madison. And look at what the Oregon Crusaders did last season. I liked that show more than some World Class productions. Why? Performers owned it and it showed.

[mobrien]

2. The drum corps activity funding model includes several categories (i.e. souvenir sales, equipment endorsements, DCI revenue sharing payouts) where there is an inherent financial benefit to placing higher, and therefore, a tendency to maintain that competitive hierarchy with or without managerial skill.

Uh huh. So in other words, those whose work allowed them to improve their lot should be punished. Perhaps some corps sell more t-shirts than others because their product selection is more interesting and because people like their organization more.

So they should find themselves told to .....what? Don't sell as many t-shirts? Stop rehearsing? I mean, at what point do we find the equilibrium that lets some corps whose directors simply aren't that good at what they do "catch up" to those whose managers understand how this thing works?

Let's take the exact inverse of the "success penalty" route. How about DCI institute a rule that any member corps who has failed to make top 16 for more than 5 years in a row be required to hire a new director? Wouldn't that do more to shake up the competition?

Edited February 6, 2013 by mobrien

[Lead]

No, it would not be fair, as you are looking to put artifical constraints on some corps while permitting others to operate as they wish.

I disagree, but it's ok.

To me, the ultimate fairness is not allowing whoever to do whatever they please - in fact, this theoretically only leads to self-cannibalization - the very thing that is ultimately compromising the activity today. These guys work together, but in all honesty, they all wouldn't trust each other as far as they could throw each other, because it's a cutthroat activity and money is the be-all-end-all. The corps with the better financial situations clearly dominate the activity. Maybe not to 100% truth, but by and large, that's what's going on. The corps with the best fundraising and most sponsorships etc are dominant.

To me, everyone operating under similar (we obviously could never say "THE SAME") circumstances is a way to create parity in an activity that, let's be honest, has very very little parity. Parity is defined in the dictionary as the quality or state of being equal or equivalent, sometimes I've seen added under equal economic circumstances.

The question is... what does the activity want and what do the fans want?

Would more parity make the activity better? Would more fans enjoy DCI more if there were more of an opportunity for every corps to achieve higher results competitively?

In the NFL, for example, the very best teams in the league lose. A lot, actually (comparatively). Same in the NBA and MLB. Once the DCI season starts, after 3 shows you can write down Finals placings with fairly good success. While you can probably do that in NFL/NBA/MLB, there's still the "any given Sunday" aspect of it that the Yankees CAN (and do) go down to a lowly team.

(disclaimer - below, I'm not slamming, just using recent competitive results)

Is there ever a real chance that anyone other than Cadets or Crown or Phantom is going to beat Blue Devils? Is there ever any chance that... Academy is going to beat Crown? The Patriots got beat by the stinking Cardinals this year. Could it happen in DCI? No way.

I think the idea of a cap is something to be considered. Maybe not done, but at least given consideration.

I'm also not one for "limiting artistic endeavors." I love the product we get by and large. Just wonder if there's a way to make the competitive aspect of it a little more exciting to fans. More excitement = bigger draw = more ##### in seats = more cash spent = better DCI.

[Mello Dude]

*duplicate post*

Edited February 6, 2013 by Mello Dude

[Mello Dude]

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.

Again, you are talking about 7 corps that have been having a (major) say in DCI and the activity for decades (and won't own up to bad decisions)? All it has done is widen the field rather than bringing everyone up due to things that are completely off field. Either you want to grow the activity to have it continue forward (and actually see this as an issue) or you want it to be an activity for the few by the few (and dying).

I would also like to point out that corps and DCI know they have problems, why wouldn't people here agree with them on this point? I suppose it's like walking past some homeless guy on the street (even though he may have been a sound tech in a corps in the mid 2000's for a corps) and not caring because you have.