A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[MikeD]

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?

What you are looking for here is, IMO, the goal...to maximize what every corps does. What this cap idea does is minimize what every corps can do, economically speaking.

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.

People would never have put Crown in that list a decade or so ago. Sure, it is hard...but that is fine. The best get to be the best over time by maximizing everything they do. Others place themselves in the mix by getting better and better...and you can add the Bluecoats to that "risig star" list, IMO.

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.

That is the goal, as stated...to maximize the activity. On that we agree.

[jjeffeory]

I totally agree... but is it a matter of mindset?

I mean, if we don't want to drag the top corps down, yet George says he needs saxophones for the creative process to be fully realized, then... ?

In the long run, all corps would benefit from parity, through simply longstanding success of the activity.

I think it goes back to what other posters alluded to earlier, which is that money is buying creative design is buying scores is buying championships.

Whether we like it or not, or want to admit it or not, it's true.

Ok, I'm confused. How do saxophones equate to dragging top corps down? That would just make them something a bit different than a drum corps (something that doesn't fit into our niche activity under the current rules too)... Sorry, just trying to understand.

Adding saxophones isn't creative show design. It's been done many times before in marching bands. It would simply be another expense and another way to possibly grab some more paying membership.

...and yes, I'm truly trying to understand what you're trying to say because I "think" I agree with you; at least some of what you're getting at, but I'm not quite sure yet.

I do agree with MikeD in that a cap like this would minimize what corps can do financially, which is probably not the best thing.

Edited February 6, 2013 by jjeffeory

[MikeD]

OK, but beyond the both predictable and ridiculous need for you to come on and ignore everything I posted by stating the obvious fact that I intentionally left out because everyone knows it, you STILL get my point. My point was not to list every single corps in DCI's 40-year history that has ever beaten the Blue Devils. :thumbdown:/> :thumbdown:/> :rolleyes:/> :rolleyes:/> :thumbdown:/> :thumbdown:/>

That is how it has always been, including pre-DCI. There have always been a relatively small handful of corps at the top of the heap, with the rest at varying levels below.

[Lead]

[/size]

That being said, let me try to respond to a few thoughts I had about your response...

In the end, does it matter what we, the fans, want? I think it does, but I'm not sure that the activity cares as much as we...

At the end of the day, it's what does the paying performer wants.. IF the members/performers were being paid, then I believe that it's a different story...

Better for who? For the fans, the performers, or designers? Each would probably have a different answer. More parity would mean that the "better" corps wouldn't be able to pull off "better" designs, but the lower performing corps were be able to raise their performance levels.

Some performers wouldn't want to participate with members who are clearly less advanced than themselves and may just forego participation and move onto something else. Designers may be tempted to do this as well, who knows?

Fans would likely see more consistently "average" performances, but these performance may be better overall.

Some may argue that this has happened already with the homogenization of DC shows compared to the past.

See, that's the thing. Every corps wouldn't achieve higher results. Some would be lower, some would be higher, and some would be the same.

How do we know that this hasn't been considered?

I want the activity to be more [/size]exciting as well, but for the average "consumer" of the marching arts, I think that's more a function of design than performance levels once we got to box 4 type scores. However, people will always pay attention to the winner...

Thanks, now we can talk :)

And honestly, I agree with everything you said.

This is why it's worth discussion... because it's got some merit.

[MikeD]

I totally agree... but is it a matter of mindset?

I mean, if we don't want to drag the top corps down, yet George says he needs saxophones for the creative process to be fully realized, then... ?

In the long run, all corps would benefit from parity, through simply longstanding success of the activity.

I think it goes back to what other posters alluded to earlier, which is that money is buying creative design is buying scores is buying championships.

Whether we like it or not, or want to admit it or not, it's true.

No, it is not true, IMO. Corps that have no chance of 'winning'...or placing at the very top, can be extremely creative...more than some of those near the top. Blue Knights spring to mind off the top, esp in 2012.

[Lead]

What you are looking for here is, IMO, the goal...to maximize what every corps does. What this cap idea does is minimize what every corps can do, economically speaking.

I agree, but I'm sure the Lakers would argue that an NBA salary cap is minimizing what they COULD theoretically do if they were allowed no restraint on their spending capacity for players.

In the short term, yes, budgets come down and aren't what they were last year. Some corps who would theoretically exceed a theoretical cap might have that argument.

Maybe there's another avenue to a similar result?

[cowtown]

it worked well for baseball

[corpsband]

I think it goes back to what other posters alluded to earlier, which is that money is buying creative design is buying scores is buying championships.

Whether we like it or not, or want to admit it or not, it's true.

I don't think it's true. Successul design seems to have more to do with synergy/chemistry than individuals. There are plethora of "names" who've been at one corps or another and did not ramp that program straight to the top. It's all about getting the right combination of people together at the right time and then sustaining that team.

The other part of success is the instructional staff. Performers at top-tier corps receive instruction that lets them perform at a top-tier level. I strongly believe the whole 'talent' thing is a little overblown. Every program has their own technique and pedagogy that they use to mold each performer into part of the ensemble. There was a post earlier about BD being unable to win with a corps full of drum corps rookies. I'm not so sure that's true. Let them audition enough rookies and they'll find enough talent . They'd write a program to match those kids perfectly, teach them well and perform the snot out of it. The only thing a drum corps vet really brings is a pretty strong indicator they won't wash out during spring training and perhaps a certain degree of maturity. Their training from other corps may or may not be much help.

Anyway my point is that you can't guarantee competitive success no matter how much you spend. Perhaps you can continue competitive success with money by retaining a successful team. But once that chemistry is in place, they'll probably *want* to stay :-)

OTOH I suspect spending on the operations side can make a significant difference. Reliable transportation, high-quality nourishment, superior tour management, good equipment, strong administrative support: all these things (or lack thereof) can help or harm a corps competitively. The fewer issues a performer has to deal with outside of rehearsal, the better chance they have to rehearse and perform at a high level. Broken down on the side of the road is not a great recipe for success.

Edited February 6, 2013 by corpsband

[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:

[...]

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.

Actually, Fiedler was arguably not speaking of himself or the Cavaliers, who were in a better position to add new expense (they are the "Joneses", not the others trying to keep up with the Joneses), but of drum corps as a whole, or the poorer corps in particular. Here's that quote again:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So in opposing amplification and other changes, he arguably was "wrong" for himself, but "right" for drum corps overall.

[charlie1223]

I don't think it's true. Successul design seems to have more to do with synergy/chemistry than individuals. There are plethora of "names" who've been at one corps or another and did not ramp that program straight to the top. It's all about getting the right combination of people together at the right time and then sustaining that team.

The other part of success is the instructional staff. Performers at top-tier corps receive instruction that let's them perform at a top-tier level. I strongly believe the whole 'talent' thing is a little overblown. Every program has their own technique and pedagogy that they use to mold each performer into part of the ensemble. There was a post earlier about BD being unable to win with a corps full of drum corps rookies. I'm not so sure that's true. Let them audition enough rookies and they'll find enough talent . They'd write a program to match those kids perfectly, teach them well and perform the snot out of it. The only thing a drum corps vet really brings is a pretty strong indicator they won't wash out during spring training and perhaps a certain degree of maturity. Their training from other corps may or may not be much help.

Anyway my point is that you can't guarantee competitive success no matter how much you spend. Perhaps you can continue competitive success with money by retaining a successful team. But once that chemistry is in place, they'll probably *want* to stay :-)

OTOH I suspect spending on the operations side can make a significant difference. Reliable transportation, high-quality nourishment, superior tour management, good equipment, strong administrative support: all these things (or lack thereof) can help or harm a corps competitively. The fewer issues a performer has to deal with outside of rehearsal, the better chance they have to rehearse and perform at a high level. Broken down on the side of the road is not a great recipe for success.

Well actually the post you are referring to about BD was mine. And I didn't say rookies. I said if their average age was 18 they would not be champions. I'm saying there is a difference between age levels and rookies with high talent. BD probably has a high percentage of their corps as rook-outs