Does MiM/G7 violate antitrust law?

[garfield]

I don't think this is right. If colleges can sue each other for charging tuition that is unfairly low (bottom of page 4 in the paper), then the premise clearly isn't that the students are being hurt. It's that the college itself is being hurt. The phrase "adverse social consequences" is mentioned, but not specifying consumers. Consider the kids in corps that go under due to loss of revenues. The lack of a place for them to march certainly constitutes adverse social consequences.

A few wealthy kids are hurt because they couldn't do band?

Hardly a "social impact", IMO.

You're really reaching here, Pete.

[garfield]

I would agree that DCI voting to create an elite division would presumably be fine. But if that vote only happened because the voters were responding to a perceived threat against them from the seven, then that's hardly a fair vote. At least, that would be the argument used by the corps that did not vote for the TOC but are forced to live with it.

But yes, if the vote was truly in support of the TOC as a good idea without any coercion or "compromise", then it would be hard to challenge.

I think they all knew the potential results of their actions and, despite the fear that the Seven might bolt, they chose to act in what they believed was in the best interest of the overall activity as is their fiduciary responsibility while in the position of a voting member.

The By-laws dictate a representative structure that elevates certain elected member corps to speak for the greater group of corps and, by law, in favor of every corps equally and not a select few. The "greater activity" carries the fiduciary weight. It is the basis of how those in power at the time were removed - because it was not for the betterment of the whole activity.

That equal weight carries the other way. Those member corps had elected their representatives and they voted to allow the TOC show structure as we know it today. I don't think that there's any claim of coercion if they followed the procedure in their by-laws.

If the TOC format is successful there's nothing that says it's format can't be included in broader DCI shows. Frankly, from what I heard, most of the O-15 hoped that that would be the case.

At the very worst, IMO, it was a consolation given to the Seven to allow them the chance to succeed with a version of their desires within the confines of DCI. I don't think anyone was disillusioned with what a split would do to the activity, despite proclamations of potential success. Frankly, I think it was good business.

If I recall, there were 104 shows in 2014. There's no doubt the tour is shrinking. If it continues, the six (5?) TOC shows become a greater percentage of the tour and, therefore, more important in the overall goal of DCI to give all corps a chance to compete and participate.

I do wonder if the O-15 directors and their executives realize that the cost of "benefitting" from the TOC format, if successful, is the likelihood of being blamed if it fails, but that's another discussion.

Edited November 22, 2014 by garfield

[Pete Freedman]

I can assure you that, for example, Glassmen did not fold due to lack of revenue because of TOC shows. Corps generally fold because they are run poorly.

Really appears you're looking for something that isn't there

Of course Glassmen didn't fold due to the TOC. I'm not sure what that proves. Nobody would disagree with your points here.

Are you arguing that excluding a corps from a show does not harm that corps? Simply because the corps might be poorly managed and might fold anyway?

[Pete Freedman]

So are you insinuating that there is zero benefit for fans to not go to a TOC show and/or to go to a non-TOC show?

IDK: it really feels like you're reaching for something that doesn't exist

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm only insinuating that non-TOC shows would make less money than TOC shows. Is that in doubt? I don't have numbers on that, of course. Any corps suing the G7 would have to show harm done to them. If they can only go to fewer shows and/or smaller shows then before, they should be able to do that.

[Pete Freedman]

I'm sorry. I think you're missing the point. DCI is a cooperative. Its members don't compete against each other in the anti-trust sense. On the contrary, they cooperate to produce revenue for the cooperative in which they share. That's the main reason why there is no case here.

HH

Yes they do. They compete for money at shows, and the compete for members today because the corps are not local. The kids audition for whatever corps they want to get into, and often audition for multiple corps to improve their odds.

Corps directly compete for money on the field. A contest is a market. They get money depending on how well they do in that market. Denying a corps a market hurts it financially it in multiple ways. Fewer shows obviously, and smaller shows with less money per show because the G7 aren't there. I would expect that's what the lower corps are experiencing these days. (If not then there's no problem)

I doubt it matters whether they are also members of a cooperative. Colleges are members of all kinds of cooperatives with each other, such as accreditation groups and many others. That doesn't mean they don't compete with each other or can't cheat each other.

[tesmusic]

Runaway train, never comin' back,

Wrong way on a one-way track,

Seems like I should be getting somewhere,

Right now now I'm neither here nor there,

I love when threads make me feel like these Soul asylum lyrics.

[garfield]

Yes they do. They compete for money at shows, and the compete for members today because the corps are not local. The kids audition for whatever corps they want to get into, and often audition for multiple corps to improve their odds.

Corps directly compete for money on the field. A contest is a market. They get money depending on how well they do in that market. Denying a corps a market hurts it financially it in multiple ways. Fewer shows obviously, and smaller shows with less money per show because the G7 aren't there. I would expect that's what the lower corps are experiencing these days. (If not then there's no problem)

I doubt it matters whether they are also members of a cooperative. Colleges are members of all kinds of cooperatives with each other, such as accreditation groups and many others. That doesn't mean they don't compete with each other or can't cheat each other.

I really do appreciate the fine quality of your tin-foil hat, but I think you're directing your angst in the wrong direction.

Because DCI has apparently been able to provide ample and expected opportunities for all corps to compete and perform, it would be a hard case to make that some corps are being cheated. While the tour is a few shows shorter, there are fewer corps to divide shows among, too, On nights of TOC shows, there are other shows going on around the country. For instance, if Scouts and 'Coats agree to travel together, I'm sure DCI schedules Scouts to go "this" direction to be the headliner for "that" show, while the send 'Coats to the TOC show. Scouts get paid as always, even as the TOC show happens in the next state over.

Corps don't compete for money at non-DCI shows. They get paid a per-diem fee for performing that is calculated based on last-year's placement. It would be hard to argue that last year's placement of a non-Seven corps was hindered by them being excluded from TOC shows.

So, if you don't want to throw away your hat, re-direct your theory to placement instead of performance location. Find a way to prove that the Seven conspired to affect judge's placement to assure their highest portion of the DCI payout and of next year's performance fees. (dunh-dunh-duhhhhhhhh)

The contention that TOC shows have unfairly treated non-Seven corps is a skinny chicken, IMO

[tesmusic]

Yes they do. They compete for money at shows, and the compete for members today because the corps are not local. The kids audition for whatever corps they want to get into, and often audition for multiple corps to improve their odds.

Corps directly compete for money on the field. A contest is a market. They get money depending on how well they do in that market. Denying a corps a market hurts it financially it in multiple ways. Fewer shows obviously, and smaller shows with less money per show because the G7 aren't there. I would expect that's what the lower corps are experiencing these days. (If not then there's no problem)

I doubt it matters whether they are also members of a cooperative. Colleges are members of all kinds of cooperatives with each other, such as accreditation groups and many others. That doesn't mean they don't compete with each other or can't cheat each other.

You realize that the current model is voted on and approved by the BOD.

Also, the G7 is not a separate organization, rather it's a list of performances that not all groups can be in.

If we look at things from the perspective of denying corps a chance to perform based on performance, then why do we have prelims, finals etc.

Would the answer he to have all corps at all shows, and no one can perform separately?

Are the Olympics unfair because they deny certain athletes that did not achieve a high level of competition, even though they wanted to be there.

I want to gold in curling, maybe I should file a lawsuit.

[tesmusic]

I really do appreciate the fine quality of your tin-foil hat, but I think you're directing your angst in the wrong direction.

Because DCI has apparently been able to provide ample and expected opportunities for all corps to compete and perform, it would be a hard case to make that some corps are being cheated. While the tour is a few shows shorter, there are fewer corps to divide shows among, too, On nights of TOC shows, there are other shows going on around the country. For instance, if Scouts and 'Coats agree to travel together, I'm sure DCI schedules Scouts to go "this" direction to be the headliner for "that" show, while the send 'Coats to the TOC show. Scouts get paid as always, even as the TOC show happens in the next state over.

Corps don't compete for money at non-DCI shows. They get paid a per-diem fee for performing that is calculated based on last-year's placement. It would be hard to argue that last year's placement of a non-Seven corps was hindered by them being excluded from TOC shows.

So, if you don't want to throw away your hat, re-direct your theory to placement instead of performance location. Find a way to prove that the Seven conspired to affect judge's placement to assure their highest portion of the DCI payout and of next year's performance fees. (dunh-dunh-duhhhhhhhh)

The contention that TOC shows have unfairly treated non-Seven corps is a skinny chicken, IMO

Careful, Garfield, you're reality and truth make too much sense.

[Pete Freedman]

My insistence on wearing this very stylish hat is based on the question whether antitrust may have occurred, not on a belief that it did. I wasn't party to the various discussions/BOD meetings, so it's hard to say for sure. Was there duress? Have the lower corps been harmed? I don't know. I'm certainly not declaring that anyone violated the law, but also I'm not accepting the arguments on here that it didn't, just because:

- A board voted for the exclusions, possibly under duress from threats made by the seven. This is the If-There-Was-A-Vote-Then-You-Weren't-Harmed-And-There's-No-Recourse fallacy (which I just made up, but basically so did you.)

- It can't be proven on this thread that actual harm came to any non-G7 corps. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

- Other exclusions (prelims vs. finals) are allowed. Those decisions were not made under threat from the seven. It's normal in sports to exclude lower performing entrants from elite events. But if Gabby Douglas and six other top gymnasts threaten to boycott unless certain others are excluded (largely so they would get more money), I wouldn't be surprised if it went to a judge. And it would be the excluded performers suing.

If nothing else it's interesting to note for the future that there's no reason to assume that drum corps are immune from antitrust law and that DCI does not exist in a legal vacuum.