stop the corps folding

[Tekneek]

Why? Potential members march where they choose to march, and they pay for the privilege of doing so. Why would one corps pay another because a potential member chooses to audition with their corps.

Not because they choose to audition. It would be because they are actually marching with them. There is a competitive and financial advantage gained from being able to replenish your ranks with veterans from other corps. I personally know people who ended up marching with top corps, such as Cadets, Cavaliers, etc, who would not have been able to get in there without the seasoning they received at another corps. Those corps received a benefit from the other corps, perhaps while they were arguing that those lower corps should get less money and even be bumped from performing at the same show with them. I'd like to see them give something back for effectively being a feeder corps.

[Freedom]

1376952931[/url]' post='3314828']

BTW, you'll notice that "housing costs" don't show up identified as such in any 990.

Most local shows don't "charge" for housing. The local host pays for housing out of the proceeds of the show. DCI doesn't charge a "housing fee" in their contract. At regional shows, housing is arranged for by DCI and paid for by DCI out of the proceeds of the show.

Corps directors don't arrange housing at shows and they don't pay for housing at shows unless they stay over before or after a show, or unless they arrange a layover between shows. That rarely happens because corps are either at a location at which they can stay a couple of days longer, or they're on their way to a show site where they can stay a few days prior to the show. Those cost negotiations are usually handled between the corps and the show host.

Can you share more. Does an individual corps arrange where they stay on tour.....like which HS........and does that host HS charge the corps. How does all that work..

[garfield]

Can you share more. Does an individual corps arrange where they stay on tour.....like which HS........and does that host HS charge the corps. How does all that work..

The show host, at least in my experience and per discussions I've had with other hosts, has the ability to choose where to put each corps among his housing sites. But DCI dictates, at the corps wishes I suppose, what facilities must be available to each corps.

Some hosts house their "headliner" at the school where the show is happening, but that's not a rule at all. We house corps at elementary schools that have the required facilities and we're fortunate that all schools in the district are within 15 minutes or so from the show site.

DCI hands a bill to the host, and the host pays the bill prior to the show. The host has to sell enough tickets to pay for the contract. Once the show is over, the host subtracts from the ticket proceeds the cost of A/C and other utilities as well as the custodians who must usually be on site while the corps is there, and all other costs expended to advertise and host the show (police, lights, water for corps, food for judges, programs, radio, etc, etc, etc). What the host is left with after all these expenses is their profit.

Hosts don't directly charge DCI or corps for housing sites. Although, IMO, they should. I wonder what DCI would say if I charged them for the housing facility costs we absorb.

[13strokeroll]

Not because they choose to audition. It would be because they are actually marching with them. There is a competitive and financial advantage gained from being able to replenish your ranks with veterans from other corps. I personally know people who ended up marching with top corps, such as Cadets, Cavaliers, etc, who would not have been able to get in there without the seasoning they received at another corps. Those corps received a benefit from the other corps, perhaps while they were arguing that those lower corps should get less money and even be bumped from performing at the same show with them. I'd like to see them give something back for effectively being a feeder corps.

[13strokeroll]

How about the BCS? Allows everyone an equal shot at the top? I know we shouldn't compare DCI to sports, but in this case it's kind of apt. The BCS schools are the ones who always have a consistent shot at the title every year, in comparison to the top DCI corps who always have a strong shot at the title. Call it this way: Alabama=BD, Florida=The Cadets, Ohio State=The Cavaliers, Oregon=Crown, Stanford=SCV. Go into any football season, and you'll see the same basic names at the top of the predictions and the early rankings. Same with DCI. Every year, the predictions say one of the above corps will win, and stats bear this out. Yes, a corps like Bluecoats(Boise State/NIU) can sneak in and crash the party, but it's not a permanent move.

So yes, there are some systems where every technically has an equal shot at the title, but DCI is not one of them. PC or Colts aren't going to come out one year on fire and smoke everyone on the field, and 2 point the Blue Devils because they had a good show Finals night. Just not realistic. Nothing at all against those two corps, they're just two that came to mind. While in the NCAA Basketball world, you see an underdog appear every few years, (Butler, Wichita State, etc.) But how many of those schools end up winning, compared to the normal power schools of Duke, UNC, Florida, UCONN, Kentucky?

DCI isn't a monopoly situation, it's just that the best rise to the top. I highly doubt anyone would want to knock down the top corps just to make the bottom corps seem better. Not every corps is equal, or attracts equal talent or staff. This is a competition, and the corps that has the best design and best talent will invariably win. That's just how competition works. No use leveling the field in the name of fair play if it removes that competitive aspect. We'd just end up with Animal Farm, "All corps are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Better analogy is La Liga. Everything the league has is designed to serve Barcelona and Real Madrid, both undeniably among the international elite. The end result: the league is billions in debt, viewership is on a double digit decline, merchandising outside of Barca is non existent, and speculation is the league won't survive the decade. Invest, invest, invest, invest.

[fsubone]

Not because they choose to audition. It would be because they are actually marching with them. There is a competitive and financial advantage gained from being able to replenish your ranks with veterans from other corps. I personally know people who ended up marching with top corps, such as Cadets, Cavaliers, etc, who would not have been able to get in there without the seasoning they received at another corps. Those corps received a benefit from the other corps, perhaps while they were arguing that those lower corps should get less money and even be bumped from performing at the same show with them. I'd like to see them give something back for effectively being a feeder corps.

I"m going to assume that would backfire quickly. Corps would just stop letting people from other corps in so that they wouldn't have to pay the fees. Just means that the top corps would drop in talent, in case they just always got the top talent who had never marched anywhere else.

[Stu]

Except when the payout schedule is etched into stone by the top dogs.

Why don't the smaller, underfunded corps simply band together and state, flatly, that they are worth more payout than they're getting?

I am actually not complaining about the way the DCI payout is structured; the WC champion should certainly receive way more in payout than the last placing OC corps. Moreover, and let me make this clear, I am not in favor of any so-called redistribution of wealth by forcibly taking away from the haves and give that over to the have-nots. What I was referring to, as it applies to an entity being able to take a bite out of the profits of another entity, is that the 'rules and regulations to compete should be impartial'; which allows the ebb and flow of profits to be based on which entity is more successful within those impartial competitive rules (just like Samuel Adams Beer being able to compete and grow in an impartial competitive environment which entices beer drinkers to stop buying from Miller and Budweiser and buy Sam Adams instead). Thus the competitive rules, whether in business or sports, should not heavily favor any entity whether they are the underdog or a top dog. This is in stark contrast to what Pete was indicating in which he appeared to support rules and regulations which support a top-dog monopoly. Pete wrote, and I quote, "Any rule change that increases uncertainty in championship rankings necessarily punishes the current top corps hugely". And I say Bunk to his statement! Impartial Uncertainty created by Impartial Rules neither punishes nor rewards any single entity and thus it is the most fair competitive system available to us no matter the activity.

[MikeD]

Not because they choose to audition. It would be because they are actually marching with them. There is a competitive and financial advantage gained from being able to replenish your ranks with veterans from other corps. I personally know people who ended up marching with top corps, such as Cadets, Cavaliers, etc, who would not have been able to get in there without the seasoning they received at another corps. Those corps received a benefit from the other corps, perhaps while they were arguing that those lower corps should get less money and even be bumped from performing at the same show with them. I'd like to see them give something back for effectively being a feeder corps.

So now you have a two tier cost of membership in a corps...those who did not come from another DCI corps and those that did. Those that did will cost the new corps more, so which member is that corps likely to select when looking at two potential members with relatively equal skills.

What this will do over time is cause a reduction in membership in the lower corps, since those members will realize pretty quickly they are at a disadvantage in trying out for their dream corps.

They have given the first corps the benefit of their membership in time, dollars and skills for the period they belonged...that is all that corps is entitled to...they are not entitled to penalize a member they were not able to retain by making them more expensive to another corps.

[corpsband]

Not because they choose to audition. It would be because they are actually marching with them. There is a competitive and financial advantage gained from being able to replenish your ranks with veterans from other corps. I personally know people who ended up marching with top corps, such as Cadets, Cavaliers, etc, who would not have been able to get in there without the seasoning they received at another corps. Those corps received a benefit from the other corps, perhaps while they were arguing that those lower corps should get less money and even be bumped from performing at the same show with them. I'd like to see them give something back for effectively being a feeder corps.

The problem that needs fixing is NOT that top corps are stealing kids. The problem is that kids audition for those corps and don't march elsewhere. The transfer fees do nothing to address the problem. There are PLENTY of kids auditioning -- they just want to march in their chosen corps and not elsewhere. Fix THAT and you're actually making a worthwhile change.

As so many have pointed out, many of the performers in the top corps have marched elsewhere (at a lower tier corps). So those corps had (and have) first crack at retaining those kids. If a kid leaves a corps to perform next season at another (higher ranked) corps, who do you blame? The higher ranked corps didn't pay or recruit him. Why blame them? The fault (if there's fault to be assigned at all) lies with the lower tier corps who failed to engender the performer's desire to remain.

Why do those kids want to leave for the upper corps? Largely because those corps write better shows and teach their kids to perform them more effectively. So the magic bullet is: design shows your kids *want* to perform AND that are within their grasp to perform. And then teach those kids *all* the skills they need to perform it. If a performer thinks he's on a team that is ACTIVELY moving up, there's a good chance they're going to want to stay. Being part of a team that's moving UP is exciting as ####.

Which really isn't a magic bullet at all, is it? These are things that most instructors and designers know. So the difference is (IMHO) ....following through.

[Kamarag]

<snip>

Which really isn't a magic bullet at all, is it? These are things that most instructors and designers know. So the difference is (IMHO) ....following through.

You are absolutely right. Spot-on.