BRASSO Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) The transfer policy should be done through revenue sharing at shows but… The first step is to recognize that DCI is probably the only youth competitive sport in the entire world without any transfer policy rule in place AT ALL. .Our tiny bubble world of our non growth oriented DCI doesn't even want to think about the pros and cons of a transfer policy. We hear the silliness that having a reasonable and sensible transfer policy in place is bad " because youth pay for the right to participate.. or " they are not chattel"... yada yada etc and all that. I never considered myself "chattel" however.. or that my freedoms from participating" in my dream team was shattered" when I was 10 years old, and my parents signed me up for little league, and a coach drafted me, and thats where I wound up... I couldn't tell them.. " but my dream team is that team over THERE ".... same thing with Babe Ruth League baseball... and later Legion Baseball..... Soccer kids as little as 9 or as old as 35 are drafted... they are amateurs... they go to a team and thats pretty much where they wind up... nobody cries out that they payed for the right to be told what team they will be on, and thats where they pretty much will stick. EVERY youth competitive sport in the entire world has at least some transfer policies in place... some of course highly restrictive in the unfettered right to go between teams whenever they want, and others a bit more liberal. But we live in such an isolated world of our own, that to outsiders the idea that competitors are free to wily nily move without any restrictions whatsover between teams is viewed as weirder than weird. Why do we supppose that ALL youth competive team sports have some levels of transfer policies in place in the first place ? Are we even the least bit curious as to WHY they all have transfer policies in place ? Or are we not curious in the least as to why ? How stable do the other sports seem to us ? How stable by contrast do we think DCI Drum Corps activity is... especially beyond the G7 level Corps ? Raise you hand here if you were not aware( until I brought it up), that for decades Drum Corps circuits had transfer policies in place ? That could, and did, restrict marcher transfers between member Corps ? Why do you suppose they did this ? Were these people not very smart ? Bad for the health and stability of the overall activity, was it ? They should have instead done what DCI did ? a DCI that has lost over 300% of its original membership since its inception ? DCI is smart not to have ANY transfer policies in place ? That we believe that without a sensible and reasonable transfer policy in place of ANY kind that we'll have more than 3 Corps win over 80% of the DCI Titles over the next 35 years ? That the number of Corps, and the number of marcher participants, in the coming years will grow from its current numbers ? That the activity wil grow and become more stable and more vibrant WITHOUT a sensible adoption of a reasonable and sensible transfer policy ? Oh really ? We actually believe this ? Edited June 24, 2014 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 The first step is to recognize that DCI is probably the only youth competitive sport in the entire world without any transfer policy rule in place AT ALL. . okay, then, what's your vision on how it should work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
va9590jm Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I know there was a policy that once you signed a contract with a corps you couldn't leave for another corps after a certain date (I feel like it was March 1 or April 1), without approval of both corps directors. Is that still in place? Or did that just disappear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 The transfer policy should be done through revenue sharing at shows but… How, cowtown? What is your proposal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) okay, then, what's your vision on how it should work? a transfer policy , although for people owing is fine otherwise would be useless. IMO what would happen is it would kill not only upper corps but lower corps. You tell me anyone who really wants out if a corps, is going to stay because of a policy and on top of it all pay 3 grand plus. Kids would just leave the activity. It isnt like years ago when we were all committed to the activity no matter who or what we marched. and yes there used to be transfer policies , which were almost never held up. If there were a transfer policy...how long 1 ....2.....5.years,.......life?...lol yeah a real way to grow the activity, more rules Edited June 24, 2014 by GUARDLING 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) I know there was a policy that once you signed a contract with a corps you couldn't leave for another corps after a certain date (I feel like it was March 1 or April 1), without approval of both corps directors. Is that still in place? Or did that just disappear? contracts are still in place and only for 1 year..after that a member is free to do what they want. i also dont know any director or staff who wants a kid who doesnt want to be in their corps. It usually breeds trouble. Edited June 24, 2014 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortAndFast Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I know there was a policy that once you signed a contract with a corps you couldn't leave for another corps after a certain date (I feel like it was March 1 or April 1), without approval of both corps directors. Is that still in place? Or did that just disappear? And likewise a policy that you can't owe money to your old corps. So those sound like just the kind of sensible transfer policies Brasso claims that all youth sports activities have. What I don't hear anybody asking for (maybe besides Brasso?) are policies that would restrict where kids can march or add fees to recruit from another corps. In particular, the mid tier corps that lose kids every year to the big guys are not asking for this, probably because they know it would hurt them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 And likewise a policy that you can't owe money to your old corps. So those sound like just the kind of sensible transfer policies Brasso claims that all youth sports activities have. What I don't hear anybody asking for (maybe besides Brasso?) are policies that would restrict where kids can march or add fees to recruit from another corps. In particular, the mid tier corps that lose kids every year to the big guys are not asking for this, probably because they know it would hurt them. corps usually dont find the kids , kids seek out the corps , plus a corps doesnt own a kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Is it against the rules to pay kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Great topic for discussion. Thinking about the transfer policy and spinning this in another direction. Reward the members monetarily for loyalty to stay with a corps through their age out. Example: You have a member that has four years of eligibility to march in drum corps. Deduct a percentage per year of corps fees or a stipend for each year they stay with the original corps. Would this convince someone not to transfer? Depending on the amount saved per year maybe. Corps run on tight budgets and this may not be a viable option but worth discussion none the less. The emphasis with many kids is getting a medal and not about loyalty. It can be very difficult for the "lower tier" corps to have a semblance of stability and potential to grow when they continually feed into the higher echelon corps. To me another byproduct of loyalty is leadership. If a member stays with a corps through out their tenure, a familiarity with that program/culture lends itself to members being good leaders within the organization. Bouncing from corps to corps limits the opportunities for a leadership role in the corps. Personal experience, my daughter had numerous opportunities to "jump ship" but decided to stay her four years. Did not make finals her age out but told me she would not change her decision if she had to do it all over again. Medals fade but character, loyalty and leadership lasts a lifetime. I think at least some corps do give returning vets a break in tuition. Other than that... Members are paying for the privilege of marching with a corps. It is incumbent on the corps to create an attractive enough environment so that the member wants to stay put. No member should be penalized for leaving if that is their choice, however. Every person is different in their wants and desires. It is often posted here that kids cut from choice 'A' top-5 corps should be directed and encouraged to march in another corps that might be more than willing to take them. Absolutely agree that it is a great idea. But...we can't then castigate the member if he or she marches elsewhere and then tries out yet again at choice 'A', and this time makes it. We can't have it both ways. I'm sure the place the person ended up marchnig is still happy they had them for the time that they did belong to the corps. And...some of those who 'settle' (note the quotes) end up being VERY happy with that choice and do not choose to leave down the road. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.