The best staff money can buy?

[Stu]

I get it. But the condition you describe is an effect of the system of judging, not of the ability of a corps to raise money.

For the most part I agree with ya; nevertheless…. the system of judging is a direct result of the rules; the rules are set up by DCI; and DCI ‘is’ the WC corps who can vote; so the major WC corps have brought all of this need for massive multi-dollar spending to be competitively judged upon themselves. This self-infliction in turn has placed a huge, and I mean huge financial strain on the smaller corps; especially for potential start-up corps to even enter the ranks of the OC because they have no way to really develop major, and I mean major venture capital businesses. I am not advocating a Robin Hood plan because I despise any organization ‘forcibly’ taking earned resouces from someone else, neither am I advocating blasting the business model of BD as an individual corps (which I have said repeatedly I am fine with); but what I am advocating is an overhaul of the governing body system to become an independent governing body, which will in turn create judging rules, touring schedules, ad infinitum that makes DCI more equitable of a ‘level playing field’ for both the ultra-rich WC BD as well as the whatever name small OC start-up corps Get my drift here?

[Stu]

No, survival of the fittest connotes that one hunter eats its competitor prey. That mentality is exactly the problem, IMO.

See the G7 proposal!!!

[garfield]

See the G7 proposal!!!

Precisely. Which is why I'm not promoting it as HornTeacher suspected I might be.

The viewpoint that drum corps revenue is a closed system zero-sum game is at the core of what was wrong with their proposal.

[garfield]

For the most part I agree with ya; nevertheless…. the system of judging is a direct result of the rules; the rules are set up by DCI; and DCI ‘is’ the WC corps who can vote; so the major WC corps have brought all of this need for massive multi-dollar spending to be competitively judged upon themselves. This self-infliction in turn has placed a huge, and I mean huge financial strain on the smaller corps; especially for potential start-up corps to even enter the ranks of the OC because they have no way to really develop major, and I mean major venture capital businesses. I am not advocating a Robin Hood plan because I despise any organization ‘forcibly’ taking earned resouces from someone else, neither am I advocating blasting the business model of BD as an individual corps (which I have said repeatedly I am fine with); but what I am advocating is an overhaul of the governing body system to become an independent governing body, which will in turn create judging rules, touring schedules, ad infinitum that makes DCI more equitable of a ‘level playing field’ for both the ultra-rich WC BD as well as the whatever name small OC start-up corps Get my drift here?

The equipment "arms race" ($1 to Mike Boo) had been voted on by the entire BOD (not just the three that are at the top of the revenue food chain) so, yes, they brought the spending race on themselves. But a different majority has been in power for the past four years and they've not retracted any of those rules that have promoted the spending.

I'm absolutely in favor of restructuring DCI with an outside BOD managing the business of drum corps as an activity. But there's nothing that says this new, so-called "independent" authority would have any interest in managing the judging, tour schedule, etc of the corps. They might, but restructuring doesn't mean the field would be leveled as you envision it.

And, frankly, I'm not sure I understand how it would. Leveling the season's payout (as inequitable as that may be to some) would likely not save a corps that does a poor job of funding itself. After all, surviving on performance fees is not, generally, a key to success for any non-profit and, in most corps, even level payouts from DCI would leave a deficit of 40% or more of the budget necessary to field a corps.

[Stu]

Precisely. Which is why I'm not promoting it as HornTeacher suspected I might be.

The viewpoint that drum corps revenue is a closed system zero-sum game is at the core of what was wrong with their proposal.

I realize that more than the 7 can vote within DCI. That said, if we take this out of the realm of ‘individual corps’ finances for a second; have not the G7 been the main movers and shakers over the years promoting, advocating, designing, lobbying, leading, guiding all of the major DCI rules and judging philosophies which has subsequently pushed the activity of DCI into a system which really only rewards those who can keep up financially with those few corps?

[garfield]

I realize that more than the 7 can vote within DCI. That said, if we take this out of the realm of ‘individual corps’ finances for a second; have not the G7 been the main movers and shakers over the years promoting, advocating, designing, lobbying, leading, guiding all of the major DCI rules and judging philosophies which has subsequently pushed the activity of DCI into a system which really only rewards those who can keep up financially with those few corps?

That discussion is not OT of this thread. Spending on staff, designers, and arrangers is and the implication (from the original post) is that the "rich" corps hire the best and the rest hire only what they can afford, and somehow that's not "fair" or equitable (even to the extreme of shrinking the "middle class" of drum corps, whatever that means).

Again, a different sheriff has been in town since the 2010 restructuring and, yet, those same rules are still in effect. Had there been an inequity in place that was damaging the lower-revenue-producing corps, why were the rules that, per your logic, created that inequity not changed when the power to do so was in the hands of the governing body?

I think it's because the directors know that, while they'd all like to have the balance sheet of BD or SCV, simply being a cash cow doesn't, in itself, produce a winning combination.

Spending is not the sole (or, in my opinion, not even the most important) variable to success. Again, Crown and PR have both proven that.

[HornTeacher]

Precisely. Which is why I'm not promoting it as HornTeacher suspected I might be.

The viewpoint that drum corps revenue is a closed system zero-sum game is at the core of what was wrong with their proposal.

I never said that you were "promoting" it...I merely asked if your viewpoint was intended as being of matter quite like "survival of the fittest." And I wasn't thinking of that term as being "one corps eating another," only that it was merely a situation of the fittest surviving (through their own hard work/good planning/providential ties to funding sources).

Your follow-up to my question explained it more fully -- and I am in agreement with you. Thank you for clearing it up for me.

Edited April 4, 2014 by HornTeacher

[RContra]

Staff payment is a drop in the bucket of an overall operational budget. Designers can get pricier, but that's where the argument gets hazy. You can't hire a big name to design a championship-caliber show for a 15th-place corps and expect the kids to be successful. The talent isn't there. After your top 4-5-6-ish, there's a solid drop in terms of talent. I've marched and taught at both, and the contrast is unbelievably stark. Where those lesser-placing corps rise up is when they get quality staff consistency over several years. 03 Carolina Crown's brass staff didn't just come in and start winning titles. It took a decade of establishing a system and sticking with its development. How many groups actually do that? With the amount of staff changeover every few years in generally non-title-contending groups, I can't help but wonder about the strength of the correlation here.

I'm hesitant to bring up more sports analogies, but look at NBA coaching tenure numbers versus winning percentage. Not only does the instructional system and player talent take time to develop, the overall culture of the team needs to come together as well. Winning takes time more than money.

[MikeD]

I realize that more than the 7 can vote within DCI. That said, if we take this out of the realm of ‘individual corps’ finances for a second; have not the G7 been the main movers and shakers over the years promoting, advocating, designing, lobbying, leading, guiding all of the major DCI rules and judging philosophies which has subsequently pushed the activity of DCI into a system which really only rewards those who can keep up financially with those few corps?

Any corps can propose rule changes, yet all have to vote on them. BTW...the newest rule change was proposed by Madison.

[garfield]

I never said that you were "promoting" it...I merely asked if your viewpoint was intended as being of matter quite like "survival of the fittest." And I wasn't thinking of that term as being "one corps eating another," only that it was merely a situation of the fittest surviving (through their own hard work/good planning/providential ties to funding sources).

Your follow-up to my question explained it more fully -- and I am in agreement with you. Thank you for clearing it up for me.

Sorry for the misinterpretation of your interpretation.

Glad I became clearer in my intended meaning.