A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[Mello Dude]

The problem is that the "sheets" are manipulated by the people that have. The constant rules changes and keeping up with the Jones's is not helping the activity esp at the lower end. It's like constantly shifting the goal posts and expecting miracles to happen in placement. I wonder if some of the rules changes proposed, pushed through and implemented are due to ONE corps designing an entire show around that change. Other people are always on the "catch up" with this being done yearly.

[charlie1223]

The problem is that the "sheets" are manipulated by the people that have. The constant rules changes and keeping up with the Jones's is not helping the activity esp at the lower end. It's like constantly shifting the goal posts and expecting miracles to happen in placement. I wonder if some of the rules changes proposed, pushed through and implemented are due to ONE corps designing an entire show around that change. Other people are always on the "catch up" with this being done yearly.

Didnt All these the rules changes had atleast a year grace period before they were implemented?

[MikeD]

Didnt All these the rules changes had atleast a year grace period before they were implemented?

In fact, weren't A&E on the request list, at least by the instructors, for a decade or more prior to being passed by the directors?

[Mello Dude]

In fact, weren't A&E on the request list, at least by the instructors, for a decade or more prior to being passed by the directors?

Big difference between request (asked for) and passed (actual rule) FWIW.

[N.E. Brigand]

Didn't all these the rules changes have at least a year's grace period before they were implemented?

In fact, weren't A&E on the request list, at least by the instructors, for a decade or more prior to being passed by the directors?

You're both right, of course. However...

(1) knowing that amplification (or other rule changes requiring additional expense) might someday be allowed is perhaps not sufficient justification to set aside that money now, when you could be using it for something else (should corps be saving money now to pay for woodwinds in ten years, so that they can buy a full set within a year of the decision?);

(2) as I noted previously, one year may not be enough to raise the necessary funds (the non-profit arts company I work for is developing a strategic plan that takes five years to fully fund--hey, didn't DCI pass a five-year plan in 2009?); and

(3) a series of changes in a short span of years may have compounded the problem -- this seems to be part of what Fiedler was concerned about: that corps were adding one expense on top of another.

[dbg]

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

[Jeff Ream]

Although I tend to agree with this sentiment (i.e., sheets/judging is the most broken aspect of drum corps), overall placement wouldn't change all that much. For the corps that put "Winning" above all else, they will adjust to the new system, no matter what is, and use their influence in the same ways they do now. Dollars have nothing to do with it; Egos do.

(I'm not passing judgment; just reporting "what is." If I had the ego-drive of these successful directors, I'm sure I'd try to use that to my best advantage, too.)

well, I do think if the sheets were weighted more towards performance, as well as either visual gives props for musical demands, or music doesnt have to devote so much attention to visual demands, I think some spots shift here and there, and numbers tighten up....spreads diminish.

Another factor IMO is by say Allentown, you have some corps that are outperforming their book. A lot. the judges need to grow the needed set to say so with numbers.

yes ego will always be an issue. maybe its time for the judging community to fight back at some egos.

[MikeD]

Big difference between request (asked for) and passed (actual rule) FWIW.

The point is that corps had a decade or more to prepare for the passage. Instructors had wanted A&E for years...and the directors voted them in when they felt ready. It was a very deliberate and considered decision...even more than the 5 years you noted. They only became legal when the majority of the board felt ready. Just as the board is supposed to work.

[MikeD]

You're both right, of course. However...

(1) knowing that amplification (or other rule changes requiring additional expense) might someday be allowed is perhaps not sufficient justification to set aside that money now, when you could be using it for something else (should corps be saving money now to pay for woodwinds in ten years, so that they can buy a full set within a year of the decision?);

(2) as I noted previously, one year may not be enough to raise the necessary funds (the non-profit arts company I work for is developing a strategic plan that takes five years to fully fund--hey, didn't DCI pass a five-year plan in 2009?); and

The directors waited until they felt the time was right..first for 'A' and then for 'E'...it was a slow and deliberate process until the majority felt ready to pass them...and not even all at once.

They exercised exactly the thought you seem to be asking for.

[perc2100]

Yes, there is the concern that kids will not march a corps B whose transfer fee is high. So corps B will not be wise to charge a high transfer fee (or any fee!), unless they are in such high demand or so skilled at recruiting that they know they can fill their ranks anyway. If that is the case, then they really are performing a service to the entire activity by bringing so many kids into DCI and training them to move onto the corps they could not make otherwise.

I'm sure you realize the irony in this, but let's talk this out:

* Star of Indiana charges a $500 transfer fee

* Bridgemen charge no transfer fee because they are financially solvent and don't need to charge the extra expense

* upper corps may be more inclined to take kids from Bridgemen, but turn away kids from Star, because there is no added expense to their bottom-line budget.

* Sky Ryders can't really afford to pay any transfer fees because they are on a tight budget. They are now limited in who they can recruit and whom they can accept because they can take kids coming from a corps who chargers a transfer fee

* conversely, Anaheim Kingsmen are a proverbial, constant Championship contender flush with cash. They can take whomever they want without worrying about paying the extra transfer fee

END RESULT:

* Sky Ryders become less competitive because they're limited in who they recruit

* Kingsmen continue to compete for a Championship annually, and are now BETTER off because higher-achieving kids who might've gone to Sky Ryders are now being turned away but are free to audition for Kingsmen.

* meanwhile, word is out that if you march Star, it is difficult to get into Sky Ryders because Sky Ryders can/won't pay the transfer fee. Now not only are Sky Ryders missing out on talent, but Star of Indiana is also losing talent. Bad trickle-down effect.

So in the attempt to bring parity via financial parity, we're only creating MORE disparity.

If we imagine that kids are already marching in HS band and one or more corps Bs in order to get the necessary edge to win that corps A audition, they are already making tremendous extra effort. A transfer fee system requires no additional effort on the part of the marcher.

I lost you there. Why would any of this require the marcher to "pay more to march corps B"?

Because you're missing the end side of the transfer fee coin. If Bridgemen are paying lowing-achieving corps' transfer fees, whom do you think will REALLY be paying those transfer fees? A corps is not going to just let tens of thousands of dollars eat a hole in their annual budget: that transfer fee cash needs to be reconciled somewhere, so they would likely average the cost of those annual payouts into membership fees for their corps. So now tuition is going up. Which limits the amount of kids able to march.

No one has to pay transfer fees. They all have the option of recruiting their own members, instead of auditioning the alumni of other corps, if finances are really that tight.

1) if no one has to pay transfer fees, why bother instating that rule in the first place?

2) so now you're saying as an alternative to taking auditions from vets upper corps who can't afford (or flat out don't want to) pay transfer fees need to be proactive and not let corps charing transfer fees to even participate.

3) lets look at this logic of yours - vets have fulfilled their service to their previous corps, have fulfilled their contract terms, and are free to seek membership anywhere. Also, it's not like upper corps are recruiting other corps' vets: other corps' vets are CHOOSING to not return and are auditions elsewhere. You're now essentially penalizing top corps for OTHER people's actions not their own.

4) how could this NOT create a crazy amount of (more) animosity. How not-happy are corps directors and staff going to be knowing that "inferior" placing corps are charging higher-achiving corps just for accepting FORMER members in to their organization. If this leads to a feeling of, "no way we can take kids from Star because we can't afford 'em, which means we're missing out on some talented kids going to our competitors" there will be all sorts of tension

I said, 5) this could also cause top corps to not even consider members from other corps

you replied:

Why is that a negative? If top corps take more recruits from outside the activity, that means more kids get to march DCI. That is a positive!

the negative is that a goofy compulsory transfer fee is now dictating where a kid could march: that's AWFUL! A kid isn't good enough to march Cadets? Bummer, get better. A kid can't afford to personally pay for BD? Bummer, but nothing is free. A kid can't marched Crown because Crown can't afford the fee someone else is charging just so Crown can accept a member who ALREADY FULFILLED THEIR OBLIGATIONS? Lame - NOTHING Crown or the other kid does is holding the kid from marching Crown. That's not cool.

Y

es. But that is not a problem - it is an opportunity. A corps desperate for members could use a free transfer policy as a recruiting enticement. Meanwhile, a corps more interested in loyalty could set transfer fees high, and weed out the corps hoppers.

This could, as stated above, lead to even more disparity. Also, this would be another way to 'job' the system where corps could strategically not charge fees in order to look more enticing - this would lead to disparity.

Sure. There is also the benefit of learning from a greater variety of instructors when you march more than one corps.

Do not misunderstand me. I have no problem with kids moving from one corps this season to another the next season. Some corps directors, however, do have a problem with it. They feel that, because of a wide variety of factors that have mired the current competitive placement order in rapidly drying concrete, their corps are essentially serving as feeder units for the corps above them. They feel that they perform a service to the activity by recruiting these kids and training them, to the benefit of whichever corps they subsequently march with. I am not sure how true that is - but if it is true, then the corps above them would be willing to pay for that service.

Given the state of most corps' financial situation, I would stipulate that corps would NOT be willing to pay for that "service." Upper corps love members with experience, but not if there is a "penalty" fee for them. Corps are not actively recruiting kids away form lower-achieving corps: kids are leaving on their own accord because their previous corps wasn't what the member wanted. This happens often form lower corps-higher corps, but it also happens with higher corps: the DM from Blue Devils wanted to go to Scouts. Someone from Cadets transferred to Blue Devils. This happened because kids wanted to go elsewhere, not because they were stolen or something. When you have hundreds of kids audition for dozens of spots, it is easy for a corps to take kids that won't cost them money over kids where they'd have to pay a transfer fee. Upon a kid getting cut for the sole reason of "we can't afford the transfer fee," there's no guarantee that kid will stay with the other corps. TWO corps might be out in that sense, which is again another big detriment.