Have DCI Standings Actually Stagnated?

[N.E. Brigand]

Yes. This is also noted a couple dozen times in the "spending cap" thread (and probably hundreds of other DCI threads over the years). My point was not that the NFL offers a solution to the DCI problem of stagnation, only that the NFL example appears to show that a DCI stagnation problem exists.

You call it a stagnation problem, which in and of itself is making a value judgement and coloring the discussion. You are saying that this should not be the case, and comparing it to the NFL.

Heh. I'm "coloring the discussion" but you're the one using red type?

Note my use of the word "appears" and the fact that my first post and this one ask questions like, "Have DCI's World Class standings stagnated?" and "If you feel that the placements have stagnated, is that a problem?" and "What is a fair comparison in other competitive leagues?" and "Is it OK that 83% of the World Class corps never win the championship?" That's asking, not telling ("saying"). I do have an opinion on the subject, but I am genuinely interested in other viewpoints, and can be convinced. Did I not acknowledge that there might be a half-grain of truth in the G-7 view of the activity?

The "not comparable" comment means that the concepts are not relatable to each other. Of course you can engage in an exercise to compare just about any two things, but that doesn't mean that the two items are relatable to each other in any real way.

I am going to compare the taste of my cup of Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee sitting next to me against the taste of a piece of paper from the notepad sitting next to the cup of coffee.

OTOH, I am also going to compare how well I can make notes from my upcoming conference call between writing on the cup of coffee and writing on the piece of paper.

The two items are comparable, just not relatable.

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" What on earth was that Shakespeare fellow thinking? I'm not a coffee drinker, but I have to think that your notepad doesn't taste nearly as good as your Jamaican Blue! They are both things you can taste, and can be compared, or considered as relatives, when so categorized. Likewise DCI can be considered under many categories. It is an umbrella organization for non-profits. As such, I have related it to the League of Resident Theatres. It is, as you like to emphasize, an organization serving a subset of marching bands. As such, it could be related to YEA or BOA or OMEA. It is an organization that sets the rules for a competitive activity. As such, it can be related to the NFL.

The comparison may not work perfectly. The subject of Shakespeare's sonnet is a person, not a unit of time, and so she not does not exactly correspond to a summer's day. DCI does not exactly correspond to the NFL because the players are not paid in DCI but they are in the NFL. But both are competitive activities whose fans may, or may not, prefer more volatility in the standings. That is one way to consider the two activities as "related", that is to say, "belonging to the same family, group, or type", and that's what we are doing here.

Or is it OK that 83% of the World Class corps never win the championship?

Is it OK that almost 96% of NCAA Division I Women's basketball teams have never won a championship? Only 14 schools out of the 338 participating in 2012-2013 have cut down the nets.

I don't know. Is it? According to MikeD, you shouldn't be asking that question, because it's impossible to relate DCI to the NCAA. But if you ignore that obstacle, you might perhaps come to the conclusion that NCAA women's basketball is in fact too stagnant.

[cixelsyd]

There's a model out there for how full-sized drum corps can operate, one that allows for competition to happen within stratified leagues, but also for teams in the 'lower' league to be promoted to the major league and for those in the major league whose competitive level falls to be relegated to a lower league, where they'll be competing with those who are more naturally their competitive peers. It's the English soccer leagues.

A Premier League for corps ranked 1 to 18, with a minimum membership of 110.

And then a National League, for those ranked 19th and lower.

If a National League corps' average scores for the year are better than those of any Premier member corps, and they beat the Premier corps in Prelims, then the Premier corps in question would be relegated to the National League the next season and the better National league corps would be promoted. And by stratifying, if your corps comes in 23rd at Prelims at DCI, you actually came in 5th in your league, which is a helluva lot more impressive to potential funders and members than saying "we took 23rd."

Do this, and you've created a matrix of competitive elements that give the members something to shoot for that is attainable, and help clarify, for potential sponsors, just what it is they're seeing. DCI is going to have a better shot of selling major corporate sponsors on the idea of getting behind the Premier League when they can say "these are the best 18 performing units in the world", then they do if they keep the current inherently messy structure of everyone swimming around in the same pot.

An interesting idea - if we are prepared to implement it fully.

The Premier League model works for several reasons. Two key ones involve money. Premier League participation comes with a lot of money, such that teams who make it there can afford to assemble a competitive squad, provide a suitable venue to host matches, travel where they need to go, and so on. There is also a lot of money paid out to relegated teams by the league, to cushion the blow of dropping to the next lower level. For a promotion/relegation system to work in DCI, corps need to be able and prepared to move from one division to another (in either direction), which might include a significant change in touring costs and show access.

That said, two trivial comments:

a. See no point in the 110 member minimum. Top 18 is top 18.

b. Regarding ease of selling sponsors - do you really think that the ability of DCI to sell sponsors on their having "the best corps" is in any way impeded because one or two of their top 20 (i.e. Oregon Crusaders or Blue Devils B, in 2012) take an alternate tour route to the world championships?

[cixelsyd]

14 out of the 338 participating schools.

Well, I would not expect most of the 338 schools to win a championship until there have been 338 seasons.

[N.E. Brigand]

Is it ok that almost 96% of NCAA Division I Women's basketball teams have never won a championship? Only 14 schools out of the 338 participating in 2012-2013 have cut down the nets.

Ask me again when the NCAA has had 338 seasons.

14 out of the 338 participating schools.

Exactly: there are many more NCAA Div. I Women's Basketball teams than there are DCI World Class corps, so it will take a longer time to assess if there is enough "churn" (to use 2muchcoffeeman's term) in the former. DCI has already had more years than currently active corps, and even adding in the World Class organizations that have folded since 1972, has a rather higher ratio of years to corps than NCAA Women's Basketball.

As it is, 14 winners in 31 years for Div. I Women's Basketball (first championship was spring 1982, according to wikipedia) might be seen as more volatile than 8 winners in 41 years for DCI.

[ibexpercussion]

Well, I would not expect most of the 338 schools to win a championship until there have been 338 seasons.

Ok, I say where you were going with that, and yes that makes sense. But at the same time with all the now inactive corps and today's existing World Class corps, there have not been enough seasons for all of the corps that have participated to win a championship either.

[perc2100]

There's a model out there for how full-sized drum corps can operate, one that allows for competition to happen within stratified leagues, but also for teams in the 'lower' league to be promoted to the major league and for those in the major league whose competitive level falls to be relegated to a lower league, where they'll be competing with those who are more naturally their competitive peers. It's the English soccer leagues.

A Premier League for corps ranked 1 to 18, with a minimum membership of 110.

And then a National League, for those ranked 19th and lower.

If a National League corps' average scores for the year are better than those of any Premier member corps, and they beat the Premier corps in Prelims, then the Premier corps in question would be relegated to the National League the next season and the better National league corps would be promoted. And by stratifying, if your corps comes in 23rd at Prelims at DCI, you actually came in 5th in your league, which is a helluva lot more impressive to potential funders and members than saying "we took 23rd."

Do this, and you've created a matrix of competitive elements that give the members something to shoot for that is attainable, and help clarify, for potential sponsors, just what it is they're seeing. DCI is going to have a better shot of selling major corporate sponsors on the idea of getting behind the Premier League when they can say "these are the best 18 performing units in the world", then they do if they keep the current inherently messy structure of everyone swimming around in the same pot.

I've been thinking about this model for a few years now. My biggest question for doing this would be "Why?" Is it to add to the competitive excitement? To add to hype of corps' placement? If so, then I think maybe a more apt structure would be a kind of mash-up of the EPL & WGI: a 3-tiered structure:

* Premier League: placements 1-8

* National League: placements 9-18

* Open League: placements 19-last

This would add more to the competitive excitement, I think, as just separating top 18/the rest doesn't seem to add a ton to the equation (unless you're a fan of a 17-20th placing corps I guess). Shows could be structured around this, where we would have focus shows built around these tiers (or at least, maybe, the top two tiers: I wonder how big a show would be attendance-wise if it featured only 19-last placing scores), and other focus shows that play up competition between the tiers? Like, say, a Friday 'prelims' of all corps, competing in their tier, with a Saturday 'finals' of the top corps (insert amount here: not necessarily the Premier Leaguers - we can mix in NL corps & the Open Champion).

As for competition, the shows on the weekdays could be open to all while the Friday/Saturday format would kick in mid-July as two-day focus shows. This could keep the logistics of the summer tour mostly intact while adding a little bit of extra excitement to the proceedings. Imagine, for example, Cavaliers fighting to get back into the DPL (drum corps premie league?) after their 2012 placement. Or watching last year play out, with BAC and Scouts fighting to get into the DPL? It was exciting a little on its own (mainly for fans/detractors of those groups), but it adds a bit more drama to the events other than the "corps X is duking it out for the compulsory placement of lower middle-of-the-pack instead of upper bottom of the pack" type of storylines.

This is obviously just blowing smoke, and is pretty meaningless at this stage. But it could be a sort of compromise between what the current '7' want vs. what's best for DCI. There could be financial benefits of DPL vs. DNL vs. DOL, as well as maybe more options or 1st dibs for tour shows based on placement. This could be something that both makes things interesting for fans while also making things interesting & beneficial for the corps.

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm not sure how I feel about dividing World Class, but one funny thing about the proposal is that some may feel it does what Fred Windish complains about in the spending-cap thread: it makes a lot more corps "winners".

[perc2100]

Some have argued that comparisons between DCI and sports leagues are inapt. Nonetheless, I will open with a note on the Super Bowl, which is five years older than DCI. I lately read that of 32 NFL teams, 14 have never won the Super Bowl, including 4 that have never even reached the title game. This made me wonder how competitive DCI is. Here are two lists to ponder:

Number of Corps Reaching DCI Finals That Missed the Previous Year

(in parentheses are corps that never made Finals before)

2012 - 1

2011 - 1

2010 - 1

2009 - 1

2008 - 2

2007 - 1

2006 - 0

2005 - 1

2004 - 1

2003 - 2

2002 - 3 (1 - Cascades)

2001 - 1

2000 - 1

1999 - 1 (1 - BAC)

1998 - 1

1997 - 1

1996 - 1

1995 - 1 (1 - Crown)

1994 - 1 (1 - Magic)

1993 - 2 (2 - Glassmen, Colts)

1992 - 1

1991 - 3 (1 - BK)

1990 - 2 (1 - Dutch Boy)

1989 - 2

1988 - 0

1987 - 1 (1 - Bloo)

1986 - 1

1985 - 2 (1 - Star)

1984 - 2 (1 - VK)

1983 - 1 (1 - Suncoast)

1982 - 1 (1 - Sky Ryders)

1981 - 2

1980 - 2

1979 - 2

1978 - 4 (2 - Spirit, North Star)

1977 - 3

1976 - 4 (3 - Optimists, Freelancers, Guardsmen)

1975 - 4 (3 - Oakland Crusaders, Royal Crusaders, Cadets)

1974 - 5 (4 - DeLaSalle Oaklands, BD, Purple Lancers, Phantom)

1973 - 3 (3 - Madison, Black Knights, Commodores)

1972 - 0 [no DCI Finals in 1971]

Number of Corps Reaching Their Best Finals Placement to that Date

(for the first time; bold indicates best placement ever, sometimes equaled later)

2012 - 0

2011 - 0

2010 - 1 – Bloo (3rd)

2009 - 1 – Crown (2nd)

2008 - 1 – Crown (4th)

2007 - 1 – Crown (6th)

2006 - 1 – Bloo (4th)

2005 - 1 – Bloo (5th)

2004 - 2 – Bloo (6th), Crown (7th)

2003 - 0

2002 - 1 – Cascades (12th)

2001 - 0

2000 - 2 – BAC (5th), BK (6th)

1999 - 1 – BAC (9th)

1998 - 1 – Glassmen (5th)

1997 - 0

1996 - 3 – Phantom (1st), Magic (8th), Crown (10th)

1995 - 3 – Bloo (7th), Glassmen (8th), Colts (9th)

1994 - 3 – BK (7th), Glassmen (10th), Magic (11th)

1993 - 2 – Glassmen (11th), Colts (12th)

1992 - 2 – Cavs (1st), Xmen (6th)

1991 - 2 – Star (1st), BK (9th)

1990 - 3 – Cavs (2nd), Star (3rd), Dutch Boy (12th)

1989 - 2 – Star (6th), Bloo (8th)

1988 - 0

1987 - 3 – Star (7th), VK (7th), Bloo (11th)

1986 - 4 – Cavs (3rd), Suncoast (5th), Star (8th), Sky Ryders (9th)

1985 - 3 – Cavs (5th), Star (10th), VK (11th)

1984 - 1 – VK (12th)

1983 - 2 – Cadets (1st), Suncoast (6th)

1982 - 3 – Cadets (3rd), Xmen (7th), Sky Ryders (10th)

1981 - 1 – Cadets (7th)

1980 - 4 – 27th (2nd), Bridgemen (3rd), Xmen (8th), Cadets (10th)

1979 - 3 – Spirit (4th), Guardsmen (7th), North Star (9th)

1978 - 5 – Bridgemen (5th), Spirit (5th), Xmen (9th), North Star (10th), Guardsmen (11th)

1977 - 4 – Phantom (2nd), Freelancers (8th), Optimists (8th), Xmen (11th)

1976 - 7 – BD (1st), Phantom (4th), Bridgemen (6th), Cavs (7th), Optimists (10th), Freelancers (11th), Guardsmen (12th)

1975 - 6 – Scouts (1st), BD (3rd), Oakland Crusaders (6th), Royal Crusaders (9th), Phantom (10th), Cadets (11th)

1974 - 8 – Scouts (2nd), Muchachos (4th), Kilties (6th), DeLaSalle Oaklands (7th), Cavs (8th), BD (9th), Purple Lancers (10th), Phantom (11th)

1973 - 8 – SCV (1st), Troopers (2nd), Scouts (4th), Kilties (5th), Muchachos (8th), Bridgemen (9th), Black Knights (10th), Commodores (12th)

1972 - 12 – Kingsmen (1st), Blue Stars (2nd), SCV (3rd), 27th (4th), Argonne Rebels (5th), Troopers (6th), Des Plaines Vanguard (7th), Kilties (8th), Cavs (9th), Muchachos (10th), Bridgemen (11th), Bleu Raeders (12th)

And as you know, of the 22 active World Class corps, 16 have never won the Championship (none for the first time since 1996) and 13 have never even medalled (only 2 for the first time since 1991). That's 73% of corps not winning DCI vs. 44% of NFL teams that haven't won the Super Bowl. As regards both Finals appearances and new high-placements for corps, it would seem the real stagnation happened in the early 1980s, with a brief period of diversity as regards the latter statistic in the mid-1990s.

So, have DCI's World Class standings stagnated? What is a fair way to measure that stagnation? Or a fair comparison in other competitive leagues? If you feel that the placements have stagnated, is that a problem? Why? (Or why not? If the Browns can't win a Super Bowl in 45 years, why should I care if Boston can't win DCI in 40 years?) And would you really be happier if it were different? If, say, there was a good chance that four to six corps every year, including your longtime favorite, actually missed Finals?

This is interesting analysis. I think the more interesting questions might be:

WHY are there only 8 DCI World Champions in 41 years of competition? The prestige of being a Champion = the allure of higher-achieving members? Is is top corps attract top talent which attract top designers & instructors? I mean, there's a reason Phil Jackson doesn't want anything to do with the Cleveland Cavaliers. Maybe it's as simple as the corps at the top got their because they had way better directors than the corps who struggle at the bottom.

What is the goal of any given drum corps? I would bet BD's goals as an organization are significantly different than Pioneer going into 2013. They both have similar broad goals, I'm sure, but are both groups happy where they are? Maybe Pioneer is 100% complacent teaching the level of membership they attract and they are not that interested in making the push to be a Finalist/Top 6 corps (for example, while it would fun to be the drummer for Foo Fighters I have no desire whatsoever to put in the effort/time/finances necessary to achieve the skills needed for that job).

Maybe while there is some stagnation in placements, it's more of a self-enforced type. Madison Scouts want to improve their placement, but perhaps they're not willing/interested to commit the necessary requirement to jump to Top 3 right now. Corps Directors HAVE to know that what it takes to move up the ranks substantially, but most also seem to realize they have to be ready as an organization.

[mobrien]

a. See no point in the 110 member minimum. Top 18 is top 18.

Because you need to keep the scale of the performances relatively close. The difference between 110 and 150 is sizable, but the difference between 76 and 150 is a gulf too far. If you're promising sponsors and potential audiences 18 (or 16, or 9, whatever size makes most sense) of the Premier corps, they should have their expectations met by a product that fits certain criteria, and "enough members to make a statement" should be one of those criteria.

Another element I'd recommend is that DCI get rid of the all-skate regionals in favor of the old model, where you had regionals that might have 7 or 8 previous years Finalists, but not everyone. There's no drama left in the season, because by the time they hit DCI East, most people who know anything about drum corps could pretty easily predict where everyone will wind up at Finals. Make the judges in Finals week work for their paycheck by taking away any opportunities to do the full-roster ranking and rating before Prelims day.

perc2100, I think your three-tier idea is also workable, though a slightly bigger Premier League would allow for a greater regional spread of corps. In terms of "why", for me, it's about two issues:

1. Honesty and clarity in the eyes of potential audience members. Right now "World Class" has no meaning whatsoever, since some WC corps actually get beaten regularly by other corps in what's supposed to be the inferior class, despite DCI's promotion of the World Class as being "the best of the best" (their words).

2. Because adding a median league that would give members competing in what are now 16th or 20th place corps a chance to win their own championships is a good thing for growing potential interest in the activity. More champions at more levels makes everyone feel that they're involved in a race, not just those at the top.

Edited February 14, 2013 by mobrien

[MikeN]

Thank you, mobrien - you're saying what I've been trying to articulate for ages.

Mike