MikeN Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I think the more apt correlation is the better executed & better designed show scores higher most of the time. Maybe you could say a corps that knows how to fundraise better than others has a bigger budget most of the time? Using Garfield's numbers (if anyone hasn't "The 990's" thread on here, it's an absolute must) for 2010, as it's the only year we have numbers for all corps on their returns, here is how the corps' placement stacks up against their program expense amounts (generally how much they're spending on the corps itself). (note, Blue Devils, SCV and Colts run multiple corps - that can skew the numbers. BD and SCV also run bingo, and YEA has a band circuit. So, take those with a grain of salt) Corps = Actual on-field rank / Spending rank Blue Devils = 1 / 1 Cavaliers = 2 / 5 Bluecoats = 3 / 11 Carolina Crown = 4 / 6 Cadets/YEA = 5 / 2 Phantom Regiment = 6 / 9 Santa Clara = 7 / 3 Blue Stars = 8 / 8 Boston Crusaders = 9 / 12 Madison Scouts = 10 / 14 Blue Knights = 11 / 7 Glassmen = 12 / 13 Colts = 13 / 4 The Academy = 14 / 19 Troopers = 15 / 10 Crossmen = 17 / 15 Pacific Crest = 18 / 16 Mandarins = 19 / 17 Jersey Surf = 21 / 20 Cascades = 22 / 21 Pioneer= 23 / 18 Bluecoats seem to do the most with less, and while it seems Colts do the least with most, remember, they're supporting 2 corps and other programs there. I think, in general terms, spending matches placement. But I also do not think this directly implies causation, at least between, say, first and second place or 10th vs 12th. Nothing quite so exact. But it does seem to imply that in general terms at least, you get what you pay for. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Well, what Fielder said could have been just his opinion, right or wrong, or it could have been a statement of fact. To help you appreciate it in the latter sense, allow me to briefly restate it as follows: --New rules are being implemented so quickly that some corps will be unable to keep up with the required expenses and will be relegated to non-competitive status (and may even fold).-- Now, he didn't state it that clearly, but he probably should have. [...] But it is, regardless, something veriable, and so not just an opinion. What Fiedler wrote is still opinion, not "fact", as is what you wrote above. It isn't verifiable that the cost of an amp or synth caused a corps to fold. Is the statement, "No corps has folded due to the additional expense caused by amplification" a fact or an opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 How much have corps done to cut costs in the last two decades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Is the statement, "No corps has folded due to the additional expense caused by amplification" a fact or an opinion? I would say it's opinion, or at the very least I have not heard any corps director/organization make the statement along the lines of "Glassmen is having to go inactive for the 2013 season. Unfortunately the cost of our soundboard was too much for the organization to pay for, and the $300,000+ of debt is directly attributed to the amplification. We're hoping in 2014 we'll have the $300,000 debt paid off and we'll be able to use our amplification again." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Is the statement, "No corps has folded due to the additional expense caused by amplification" a fact or an opinion? It is an opinion, which is why I did not say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I gather there's some history on these forums where anytime you cite Fiedler as having said that, you get criticized, or in this case, voted down. I don't understand what that's about. That said, and as I mentioned before, I can't blame Fiedler for that remark! He had done what he could to stop amplification, but once it was allowed, he probably figured that corps would be penalized for not taking advantage of the new tools. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable position? And the Cavaliers made less obnoxious use of amplification (pre-synthesizer, anyway) than many other corps. That's my emphasis added to your comment, because no one's seriously talking about a spending cap "always" working, and everyone knows that under any rules there will be "some" exceptions. But does a bigger budget correlate to a higher score most of the time, or not? If it does, that may be an indication that more money yields better scores. Yes, yes, I know correlation is not causation, but lacking any better data... well, I'll just note that almost everyone on both sides of this argument seems to agree that there is a connection, since those most opposed to a cap see it as "penalizing" success. I applaud Jeff for both trying to fightit, as well as callinga spade a spade for seeing the corps was being penalized for not using them. It showed what many have believed all along....no it's not required, but without it, you suffer. I'm sure someone red marked me because it doesn't fit their version of the truth, and I could give two ##### about being red marked. when you look at the 990s, placement and budget often go hand in hand. Hence why 7 corps always towards the top, usually with biggest budgets are trying to rewrite the rules so they get most of the cash. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I think, in general terms, spending matches placement. But I also do not think this directly implies causation, at least between, say, first and second place or 10th vs 12th. Nothing quite so exact. But it does seem to imply that in general terms at least, you get what you pay for. This is a good point, and I think if we want to look further into any causation we should at the very least look at revenue vs budget vs placement. While organizations with larger budgets are seemingly doing better competitively, I think what might be more interesting is examining if corps who spend within/below their means are also being competitively successful. I still think that would be only a PART of causation, but I think it might be a more complete piece of that puzzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 How much have corps done to cut costs in the last two decades? well...they added 28 members, added electronics, spring training is now a month long, full national touring looks to me like they just copied Congress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 when you look at the 990s, placement and budget often go hand in hand. Hence why 7 corps always towards the top, usually with biggest budgets are trying to rewrite the rules so they get most of the cash. Only in general terms - not necessarily when you consider the difference between 1st and 2nd, 4th vs. 6th, etc. In 2010, Crown, Phantom and Bluecoats spent <relatively> less for the placements they got. Mike http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/index.php/topic/155265-a-spending-cap-not-a-salary-cap/page__view__findpost__p__3245260 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 well...they added 28 members, added electronics, spring training is now a month long, full national touring looks to me like they just copied Congress That's what I was thinking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.