TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[danielray]

Uhhh... the current system does allow for a third to first scenario (see prelims to finals in 2008); and while that was exciting for the fans it did cause some real, real, real bad blood to flow behind the scenes for a while. However, the D-Ray is not claiming a 3rd to 1st situation, but an 18th to 1st from Friday Semi-Finals to Saturday Finals would be possible in his elite fantasy land. And I want him to cite any existing real-life national or international subjective judging competition where that has ever happened.

DCI in the 70's.

Great Googly Moogly!!!!!!!! The two-tiered system 'already' exists in DCI World Class and DCI Open Class. And I really do think that most of us would be comfortable finding a way to bounce corps in between the WC and OC based on some sort of compromise in criteria. However, what the D-Ray is proposing is an adjusted G7 proposal where he expands the G7 to a G16 yet still gives 'The Finger' to all other DCI WC and entirely all of the current DCI OC corps by 'The G16 Elite' kicking them out to the curb!!!

Suggesting giving a hand, not the finger. Suggesting OC corps have a program built entirely around their needs, rather than always fighting for attention and support within DCI.

[danielray]

it's not as obvious as you think. No 20th place corps has ever generated that kind of buzz along the tour. In turn Surf raised their profile well outside of their normal recruiting base and had record interest in auditions for this year.

And they got a far louder crowd response than the champion.

there's your sign

It was buzz among nostalgic old folks wanting to relive their youth. The show design pandered to this segment.

There wasn't that sort of buzz among young people, as the design felt dated and the Bridgemen were around in their grandparent's era. Kids have no clue who the Bridgemen even were.

I barely do... watched the Bridgemen as a kid on old 3/4" video cassettes. I only ever say them on video, because they folded before I had ever even heard of drum corps... and I started marching more than 20 years ago.

[cixelsyd]

Kick is not the right word... but do think that another affiliated org that is focused exclusively on the unique needs of corps with younger members and less strict tour requirements could be a way forward. These corps are more education driven, while top WC corps are more entertainment/performance driven.

But DCA is not "focused exclusively on the unique needs of corps with younger members". They are an all-age circuit.

[cixelsyd]

And I take exception to your contention that these corps have "less to lose". I'd ask Stuart Pompel, or Bob Jacobs, or any of the other directors if they agree with your claim. Troopers have less to lose? Umm...perhaps you should explain what "less to lose" means in your statement.

I believe that is an admission that top corps spend more (no matter what Slingerland says).

[cixelsyd]

Go back and watch shows like Suncoast '88, Sky Ryders '87, Magic '95. There were loads of shows that were very different and took huge design risks, but were in the lower ranks. Now it seems the further down you go in ranking, the safer and more predictable the show is.

Lower ranks? All 3 of those corps were finalists.

As for corps at that level today, I would not consider "Avian" safe design.

[cixelsyd]

Slightly veering off topic (or maybe not); since we'd all like to see the competitive landscape shaken up, but don't want to handicap the execution scores of the top corps, what would the judging system need to look like in order to allow for the "on any given night" moves that would allow a corps to jump over 2 or 3 others from the night before (or get beaten by others who they've taken recently)?

If the scores were reported without breakdows and recaps during the season, would that introduce a blind element that would keep judges from knowing what their peers thought about a certain corps' program or capabilities? If judges were flying blind, from a score and caption standpoint, would that increase the likelihood that they would go with their guts and give each performance the number that it earned that night, without fear of being an outlier?

Hard to say, as with the overall scores being announced, they would not be flying completely blind. But that is an interesting idea. Maybe DCI should try it, even if only for part of the season, to see what would happen.

For it to work, though, the caption scores could not be released to anyone, even the corps staffs, so that leaks like the 1988 semifinal results do not happen.

[cixelsyd]

Then what should the number be, out of curiosity?

Personally, I am not convinced there should be a set number. Over time, DCI and their corps have allowed that number to vary, so it would appear that they concur to a certain extent. But for the purposes of discussion, since 18 keeps popping up, let us proceed with that.

Because the moment anyone allows that there should be two different divisions in DCI (which most of you do), you're already acceded to the core of the proposition; that different divisions for drum corps makes sense.

You might be surprised, then. Personally, I am not convinced there need to be separate competitive divisions either. If corps are separated by member vs. non-member, and/or the WC tour vs. some other tour for the other corps, they are already separated. Whether we give those other corps separate sheets or a separate name for their "division" is immaterial in that regard. However, I understand the rationale of DCI and their corps in setting things up the way they do. I do not agree with every aspect of it, but I can support it.

So I am open to discussion.

From there, it's simply coming up with a rationale for how big or small the divisions should be, and what the criteria should be, whether it be size of organization, average age or participant, proficiency, or any other factor you want to plug in.

As the apocryphal quotation says, "we've already established what kinds of ladies you are, now we're just establishing the price.'

Okay. I would like to clarify that rationale as well.

Come up with valid, marketable, understandable rationales as to why an organization might belong in one division or the other. There were a grand total of 35 drum corps who competed in Prelims last year; would it REALLY be such a "f___ you" to the whole of drum corps if slightly over half of all corps who competed were put into one division, and slightly less than half of them were in the other?

Not if there is a sensible rationale behind it. We do this now, and no one is complaining that DCI policy is the equivalent of a middle digit in the face of Blue Devils B, Vanguard Cadets or any other open class corps.

Now, about that rationale. Since "top 18" keeps coming up, would it be reasonable to conclude that you (and Daniel Ray) would be happy if DCI simply set the separation on that basis? I would think so, given that you both mention that number, and that you have expounded on the rationale that a singularly clear marketing message of "top 18" would appeal to major corporate sponsors.

So if I jump ahead, the next question is how do we pick the top 18? This is why I asked whether you would prefer a promotion/relegation system or a combined contest like we have now. You also postulated a cumulative point system, which is an interesting thought, but I do not see how that could work if the top 18 are on a separate tour from the other corps. Thoughts are welcome.

[garfield]

You've gone from a 3rd hand statement that you don't know is true or false...or the overall context if such a statement was made.,.and all of a sudden it is the 'Texas experience'?

Systemic bias??? The Cadets did a show of Christmas music, for goodness sake. Seven 'derangement syndrome'? 'Reviles'? Judging community 'in collusion with the seven'? You gone waaaaaaay over the top here, IMO.

Well, I did say "potential"...

:tongue:/>

[MikeD]

Well, I did say "potential"...

:tongue:/>/>

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Slingerland]

Not if there is a sensible rationale behind it. We do this now, and no one is complaining that DCI policy is the equivalent of a middle digit in the face of Blue Devils B, Vanguard Cadets or any other open class corps.

Now, about that rationale. Since "top 18" keeps coming up, would it be reasonable to conclude that you (and Daniel Ray) would be happy if DCI simply set the separation on that basis? I would think so, given that you both mention that number, and that you have expounded on the rationale that a singularly clear marketing message of "top 18" would appeal to major corporate sponsors.

So if I jump ahead, the next question is how do we pick the top 18? This is why I asked whether you would prefer a promotion/relegation system or a combined contest like we have now. You also postulated a cumulative point system, which is an interesting thought, but I do not see how that could work if the top 18 are on a separate tour from the other corps. Thoughts are welcome.

How do other leagues that form come up with who should be part of their group? They get together and decide on some criteria for who would make a good member, based on market location, access to capital, technical proficiency, and a consideration of whether each of the partners feels like a good match for the others or not.

In addition, the new leagues almost always have required that each of the member team owners come up with some sort of financial guarantee, so that each one has skin in the game from the onset. My belief is that the path forward should involve not just an evaluation of which 18 corps really are the most committed to the game, but which ones have Board of Directors who are serious enough about promoting the activity as a a whole that they'd be willing to commit their corps to a $100,000 -150,000 "buy in" for a revamped Drum Corps International, with that money used as seed money to put together a total rebranding of the activity. That, in and of itself, would help distinguish who's serious about the business of drum corps and who isn't.

It's my basic contention that the DCI business model, as it stands, is pretty much irretrievably broken. 40 years down the road, the organization has next to nothing in reserves, and the overall fan base is significantly down from even 20 or 30 years ago. I'd suggest that one of the primary reasons for this has been that it's become the Generic Drum Corps Association, where it has to try and be everything to everybody, and they have to avoid mentioning that some of the units are actually pretty-much semi-pro or college-level drum corps, and others are high school groups, because acknowledging that there are genuinely different levels of expertise on display would be "giving a middle finger" to the youngest/smallest/most local organizations out there.

As to 18, because it's a number that lends itself to communications of what DCI Premier League is, is a realistic assessment of how many top corps there are, and is a number that will allow for upwards pressure from corps in the second division, whatever that's called, to bust into the 18 and force some of the lower performing corps out, were the Second Division corps ever to get so good that their season average scores topped those of the guys at the top. 18 also lends itself to a natural division of units, were the Premier League to add the concept of regional divisions (East, Central and West, or just East, West, if you went to two).

You've said you're not convinced that there needs to be multiple divisions in the first place, and I can respect that, though I strongly disagree with it. That being the case, I'm not sure anything I or anyone else could say would convince you that the DCM model, for DCI, is a bad fit, but that MLB, Euro soccer leagues, or even high school level varsity/junior varsity divisions will make sense.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Slingerland