A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[cixelsyd]

So you'd rather they just not march?

This is not about what I want. I have no say in which kids march in which corps. That is primarily up to the kid and the corps director/staff.

I am only relating what I hear from corps directors and staff. I have no idea why you try to pin those viewpoints on me personally. Since you are so interested, I will try to answer. I would rather that kids who want to march, march, where they want to march. Not every kid will get what they want, though. I cannot begin to guess about all the factors that go into deciding whether to march a second choice corps for a season, or more, vs. other options such as work, school, family responsibilities, other youth activities, or just having a lower key summer. So I fully expect, and respect, that some kids will opt not to march, and some will march with corps that are not their first choice.

No. This misguided idea either forces kids to stay where they do not want to stay or not march at all...you prefer those choices over marcing where the person wants to march?

This is not about what I prefer.

This is what confuses me. When you defend quotes from Jeff Fiedler, you have no problem understanding how a person can speak about the wishes or views of others besides just himself. But when you reply to posts here, even when I state specifically that I am addressing the views of others, not my own, you still attribute everything to me personally. Am I being unclear? Or do you just presume that no one ever thinks past their own personal wants and needs? (Other than Jeff Fiedler, that is.)

[Fred Windish]

Got it, BRASSO.

Consider, also, my team (Lehigh) rose up and beat Duke last year in the NCAA tournament. Why? Lehigh wanted "it" more. Had nothing to do with coaching salaries!

[charlie1223]

DCI is one of the few competitive enterprises of college age competitors that does not have transfer restrictions of some sort in place. They are the anomaly, not the norm. Why do you suppose the NCAA has transfer restrictions in place for its Div.1A Student- Athletes ?

What would be the chances of Butler Basketball making it to the Final Four in the NCAA's if there were no transfer restrictions in place ? I know, I know, you are right, its a silly question. They'd have had no chance. Without transfer restrictions in place the system would quickly devolve into the same handful of college teams winning 85% of the National college Titles the last 35 years in basketball and football too... and the college fans and schools would get bored with that every year, and consider THAT an unfair system and not good for the potential fan interest growth in the sport as well.DCI is decidedly not the norm when it comes to the ability of the elites to raid other " teams " of their best talent each and every year. They are the exception, not the rule.

I don't know anything about NCAA. but found this article about transferring on the NCAA website.

I don't think the transfer rules are in place for Fan enjoyment and I think you're confusing the actually purpose and protocols of transfers.

"NCAA rules do not prevent student-athletes from transferring. The NCAA has rules for certain aspects of the process, including eligibility for competition and requiring a release from the original school to receive an athletics scholarship during the first academic year at another school.

First and foremost, student-athletes must be academically eligible to compete at the institution to which they want to transfer.

The NCAA places safeguards on the process to promote rational decision-making. Student-athletes who transfer are less likely to earn a degree than those who remain at their original institution; for that reason, it is important that the decision to transfer is carefully considered."

"Answer: The NCAA does not prevent any student-athlete from transferring. Student-athletes are free to transfer if they believe the decision is in their best interest; where NCAA rules come into play is with questions about how quickly a student-athlete can compete at the new school. The number of transfers in three key sports – football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball – increased last year, but has remained steady for about a decade.

In 2010-11, 6.4 percent of Division I student-athletes transferred from one four-year school to another four-year school. Included in that figure are 200 baseball student-athletes, 445 men’s basketball student-athletes, 969 football student-athletes and 364 women’s basketball student-athletes. All of those student-athletes were required to sit out a year of competition – this is required because student-athletes who transfer do not perform as well academically over time. A year-in-residence to acclimate to their new school helps offset this dynamic.

Additionally, data show that about 40 percent of men’s basketball student-athletes will not be competing at their original school by the end of their sophomore year. Given the academic performance of transfers, this statistic highlights a key issue in the men’s basketball Academic Progress Rate (APR)."

So it seems to me that if DCI was adopt a similar process to that of the NCAA it would be virtually pointless... They don't restrict transfers and they clearly have A LOT of transfers going on. For NCAA it makes sense because being tied to a University changes the dynamics immensely. But as far as I can tell. If I wanted to transfer to Blue Devils from Troop-a-loop I would even without permission to contact the coach. Maybe I won't get academic aid or even make the team but because Blue Devils aren't a school or offer academic degrees or aid... it doesn't matter.

I know nothing about NCAA so is that right?

[BRASSO]

Got it, BRASSO.

Consider, also, my team (Lehigh) rose up and beat Duke last year in the NCAA tournament. Why? Lehigh wanted "it" more. Had nothing to do with coaching salaries!

Duke is a good example here too for illustration. Duke basketball under Coach K. is already very good. But just imagine if every year when Coach K graduates a player, he gets to immediately pick up a seasoned top flight player from another school for next season ( no sit out year ) to repace that graduated player ? Duke would go with mostly senior veterans each and every year.

Duke Blue Devils Basketball : DCI Blue Devils.

The only difference is that Duke Basketball hasn't won as many national Titles as even Duke Basketball has since 1973 ( 15 for Concord BD, 4 for Duke B. ) and thats principally because even the NCAA makes Coach K. have to be confronted with NCAA transfer rules that make repeats the following year a real, real challenge to duplicate.

Edited February 11, 2013 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

i]

So it seems to me that if DCI was adopt a similar process to that of the NCAA it would be virtually pointless... They don't restrict transfers and they clearly have A LOT of transfers going on. For NCAA it makes sense because

I know nothing about NCAA so is that right?

The NCAA has transfer restrictions in place that require all Div.1A athletes wishing to transfer to another Div. 1A school and play there to sit out a full year before being allowed to play that sport at the next school. They can transfer and go to class at the new school immediately, but can not play without sitting out a full year. As a result, the numbers of Div.1A student-athletes that decide to transfer to another Div.1A, and wait before playing is less than 1% of all Division 1A student- athletes. As you can imagine, the thought of being made to sit out a full year is a disincentive for most Student- Athletes at the Div.1A Level to want to go to this transfer restriction process. So in reality, transfers of student athletes between Div 1A teams of players is a rarity, not the norm. As for DCI, they have no transfer restrictions in place between competing units at all. As a result, there is much much more change at the very top in college sport national championship placements than we have in DCI Drum Corps.

Edited February 11, 2013 by BRASSO

[N.E. Brigand]

BRASSO, one response you're sure to get is that NCAA Div. 1 athletes don't have to pay to participate, in fact quite the opposite, arguably rendering any comparisons to DCI moot.

[Stu]

You are right...my bad....they tied overall for first, not brass. But no, I do not change mind on the overall topic because my example was wrong.

In essence what you are admitting is that you do not let facts get in the way of your opinions!

Edited February 12, 2013 by Stu

[BRASSO]

BRASSO, one response you're sure to get is that NCAA Div. 1 athletes don't have to pay to participate, in fact quite the opposite, arguably rendering any comparisons to DCI moot.

I'm sure thats possible. But the grant in aid athlete scholarship angle is irrelevent. Its not why the NCAA put in place a transfer restriction of disallowing immediate playing time for the transfer athlete. The NCAA motivation for this is to allow schools to compete without a few schools grabbing willy nilly the best players from lower placing teams. The NCAA motivation is that surprise and suspense each year in competition placement is also good for business . The NCAA does not care whether or not the school pays the athlete. So its not altuism that drives this by tne NCAA... its money alright, but not the preservation of the athletes scholarship money that drives the policy. Its just perceived as a good business bottom line decision to put transfer restrictions in place. The NCAA does this at the upper levels of college competition too. The NCAA does not care what Div. 2, 3 schools do ( no money there at stake ), so they let student- athletes here in these lower divisions transfer among competing teams without such transfer restrictions.

Edited February 12, 2013 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

BRASSO, one response you're sure to get is that NCAA Div. 1 athletes don't have to pay to participate, in fact quite the opposite, arguably rendering any comparisons to DCI moot.

One other point... if someone says we can't compare Drum Corps with NCAA student athletes because somehow athletes are paid, but Drum Corps participants pay for the experience ( I gave my opinion above why such is specious argument ) then how about we compare Drum Corps to Drum Corps ?

Are many people aware that before DCI, that some local circuits had VERY restrictive transfer policies in place ? That they may have been considered " unfair ", but that they were implemented... marchers were " denied " chance to transfer and march with a competing Corps in that same division ? That the trade off was few Corps disbanding at the time and that Corps rose up and beat other Corps as a result of such restrictions on transfers among competing Corps ? That marchers denied transfers did not all quit ? That most stayed put, and helped their Corps rise up each year to in effect become an elite Corps themselves ? Yes, there were ways to get out of the transfer restriction ( some did )But it was not easy, and quite a few were denied the ease to transfer to a competing Corps within the division. How many people know that Drum Corps used to have transfer policies in effect ? And that they worked in the sense that it allowed much " fairer " competition within the Divisions ? Heck, even most businesses today have non compete clauses that restrict one's ability to go work for a competitor immediately and without at least SOME level of restrictions ( and upheld by the courts too ). DCI, as I said, is the exception rather than the rule re. having no transfer restrictions whatsoever among its competing enterprises.

Edited February 12, 2013 by BRASSO

[garfield]

One other point... if someone says we can't compare Drum Corps with NCAA student athletes because somehow athletes are paid, but Drum Corps participants pay for the experience ( I gave my opinion above why such is specious argument ) then how about we compare Drum Corps to Drum Corps ?

Are many people aware that before DCI, that some local circuits had VERY restrictive transfer policies in place ? That they may have been considered " unfair ", but that they were implemented... marchers were " denied " chance to transfer and march with a competing Corps in that same division ? That the trade off was few Corps disbanding at the time and that Corps rose up and beat other Corps as a result of such restrictions on transfers among competing Corps ? That marchers denied transfers did not all quit ? That most stayed put, and helped their Corps rise up each year to in effect become an elite Corps themselves ? Yes, there were ways to get out of the transfer restriction ( some did )But it was not easy, and quite a few were denied the ease to transfer to a competing Corps within the division. How many people know that Drum Corps used to have transfer policies in effect ? And that they worked in the sense that it allowed much " fairer " competition within the Divisions ? Heck, even most businesses today have non compete clauses that restrict one's ability to go work for a competitor immediately and without at least SOME level of restrictions ( and upheld by the courts too ). DCI, as I said, is the exception rather than the rule re. having no transfer restrictions whatsoever among its competing enterprises.

Of course, they also marched G horns and guarded the colors back then, too. So transfer rules were just one of a long list of rules and regulations that have gone by the wayside in the name of "art" or "creativity".

I'm amazed that so few parallel the regs of almost every competitive activity (and performance activities, too) with the vacuum of (hardly) any regs in DCI.

Numerous examples abound where extreme talent and determination has overcome rules, regs, and laws of nature to excel or attain a goal. But in drum corps some seem to think no rules is best to attain excellence.

:blink:/>/>

Edited February 12, 2013 by garfield