Jeff Ream Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 hmmmm now thats interesting. Take away most of those things or reverse them, bad leadership, poor instruction, terrible design, no money to do anything, poor management. How does this make a champion? Its also funny reading some who actually believe changing sheets, judges, etc etc would actually change a champion. WHY? we just had a sheet change. who won after it? oh wait the same corps that won before it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Is it necessary to come to an understanding of the difference between fairness and parity? Life isn't fair. Anyone disagree? Assuming not, let's try to move beyond that misguided discussion. Also, for the "everybody should just get better" crowd, can we remember that in most cases we're talking tenths of a point or less in these rankings. Some seem to be suggesting a substantial disparity in quality among these performing groups that is being accurately portrayed by the ranking results alone. In our subjectively adjudicated processes, I think not. We all know that "winning" brings many benefits and advantages outside of bragging rights, which I suspect needs very little further discussion. To me, "get better" just sounds like an easy out in this discussion. Anyway, consideration of strategic parity practices to achieve various goals within organizations or circuits that facilitate competitive activities (beyond winning and losing), that's where I'm going with this. Is this idea beyond this of any value or not? The central questions are: Are things as we wish? Is there any cause for concern? Is there room for growth? Should there be discussion surrounding benefits of parity possibilities? What would parity look like in an activity like ours? What are the pros and cons? Etc.... i'm fine with how things are on the field i'm not worried about the competitive portion of things always room for growth, but the individual corps need to make that growth to get more success on the field parity will happen when corps do what they need to do internally to make it more competitive. parity in DCI would look like finals scores of all corps between 90 and 88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Oh, no, there are definitely rules to the competition, and the competition is real to the corps for it means their placement in the payout structure. But the competition is derived from rules of adjudication that are derived from the leaders, and ratified by the member corps, of the activity. Edit: I just didn't like a sentence, so I deleted it. The question is whether or not the "circuit" is a competitive circuit. It is not. It is a performance circuit. The competition is minor in selling tickets to shows. Uhhhh... In a recent thread you posted this: DCP Fanatic Members 8,623 posts Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:39 PM "While we're seeing topics (mostly from DanRay) about out-of-the-box ideas to "fix" DCI, I have a thought that seems to make sense: A spending cap on program service.Say, for instance, that a corps could spend no more than (pick a number) $800,000 to field a corps for competition. The smaller corps, which spend, say, $400m to $600m now, would find themselves in competition with the "top-corps". For the big corps that raise millions per year, there is nothing stopping them from fielding two, or three, corps - BD-2, SCV-2? - in addition to all the other outreach programs that they develop. Capping the spending limit on a single corps per season could level the competitive field. Doing so would increase the excitement of the competition by allowing smaller corps to challenge the bigger corps. As long as the judging sheets are designed to reward spending, a spending cap is the only reasonable approach to increasing the competitiveness up and down the spectrum of corps sizes." This sounds like you're suggesting a "fix" for DCI, rooted in "leveling the competitive field." Dare I say, a "greater good" practice for DCI, the "central clearing corps" to enact? Your comments in the "spending cap" thread appear to contradict your position in this thread. I cited what is an obviously lopsided ratio of champions to competitors over 42 years, and I suggested considerations supporting parity within the circuit. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you've clearly disagreed with that notion. Not meaning to call you out here, but are we or are we not suggesting the same thing, that there is room for discussion surrounding parity within DCI, and that competitive outcomes are relevant to such a discussion? For the record, I do believe that you're completely correct about one thing, few people come to shows/competitions because they're expecting an unpredictable competitive outcome. Anyone that knows anything about this activity can guess quite easily (in September) who will likely win the title in August of the coming season. With a few exceptions (5 to be exact), history tells us that it will be one of four repeating corps. And yes, I like your spending cap thoughts. Can you please clarify where you stand, and how your comments in each thread align with your central position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) As this relates to DCI, If I'm a prospective marcher under age 22 for DCI Corps, there is no way in the world that I'd want to spend $3,000 or more to bust my tail to travel on crammed busess, sleep on gym floors, practice from sunup to sundown, etc in order to do 30 summer unscored, non competition, exhibitions. I can't speak for other young potential participants, but my guess, most would feel the same way too. Without competition, or some form of monetary incentives for individual participants, like most things, the DCI product would quickly deteriorate in overall quality too. Edited February 7, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 If I may be a wise-a**,.,, I follow what you are saying completely. However, a question does pop into my mind... Would DCI fully follow to and adhere (and by that, I mean, acknowledge and endorse) to this philosophy? Certainly, and it's evidenced in the contract signed by every TEP on the competitive tour. The contract must be paid if there is a "performance" (word used specifically in the contract), so that, for example, if a show is rained out but a SINGLE corps does a stand-up performance on the track, the contract obligation is fulfilled by DCI and the contract fee must be paid, in full, by the TEP. It does not say that a "competition" must be held. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 As this relates to DCI, If I'm a prospective marcher under age 22 for DCI Corps, there is no way in the world that I'd want to spend $3,000 or more to bust my tail to travel on crammed busess, sleep on gym floors, practice from sunup to sundown, etc in order to do 30 summer unscored, non competition, exhibitions. I can't speak for other young potential participants, but my guess, most would feel the same way too. Without competition, or some form of monetary incentives for individual participants, like most things, the DCI product would quickly deteriorate in overall quality too. And yet nearly every corps culture promotes openly and frequently that the competition is NOT the goal, the "experience" is. Kids repeat it, it's drilled into their heads "Forget the other corps and the placements - just do your personal and ultimate best performance and you'll be successful." They do not promote "Do your best performance and you will win" (how could they?). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Uhhhh... In a recent thread you posted this: DCP Fanatic Members 8,623 posts Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:39 PM "While we're seeing topics (mostly from DanRay) about out-of-the-box ideas to "fix" DCI, I have a thought that seems to make sense: A spending cap on program service.Say, for instance, that a corps could spend no more than (pick a number) $800,000 to field a corps for competition. The smaller corps, which spend, say, $400m to $600m now, would find themselves in competition with the "top-corps". For the big corps that raise millions per year, there is nothing stopping them from fielding two, or three, corps - BD-2, SCV-2? - in addition to all the other outreach programs that they develop. Capping the spending limit on a single corps per season could level the competitive field. Doing so would increase the excitement of the competition by allowing smaller corps to challenge the bigger corps. As long as the judging sheets are designed to reward spending, a spending cap is the only reasonable approach to increasing the competitiveness up and down the spectrum of corps sizes." This sounds like you're suggesting a "fix" for DCI, rooted in "leveling the competitive field." Dare I say, a "greater good" practice for DCI, the "central clearing corps" to enact? Your comments in the "spending cap" thread appear to contradict your position in this thread. I cited what is an obviously lopsided ratio of champions to competitors over 42 years, and I suggested considerations supporting parity within the circuit. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you've clearly disagreed with that notion. Not meaning to call you out here, but are we or are we not suggesting the same thing, that there is room for discussion surrounding parity within DCI, and that competitive outcomes are relevant to such a discussion? For the record, I do believe that you're completely correct about one thing, few people come to shows/competitions because they're expecting an unpredictable competitive outcome. Anyone that knows anything about this activity can guess quite easily (in September) who will likely win the title in August of the coming season. With a few exceptions (5 to be exact), history tells us that it will be one of four repeating corps. And yes, I like your spending cap thoughts. Can you please clarify where you stand, and how your comments in each thread align with your central position? Well, chuckle, that "recent" thread was two years ago, but I don't think I'm being inconsistent and it's possible we're agreeing on this point. My thread about spending caps was born as a discussion that related to DanRay's idea on "fixing" DCI. Regardless of motive or intent, the financials show a clear correlation between spending and placement. I don't consider that a negative necessarily except when the judging sheets become tilted to reward spending on props and show design that not all corps enjoy. I wouldn't take a nickel from Crown or BD or Cadets (and I congratulate them on their financials) but there is little doubt in my mind that those corps that have a greater ability to raise funds and spend them have a leg up in the competition for show design. I abhor the idea of "socialist drumcorps" but I do consider it short-sighted to think that a single, rich corps can survive without the less-wealthy corps to compete against. I think Blast! showed us that. The sheets are designed to reward effect more than any other caption. The scores tilt to the corps that can present new and creative "effect" and the corps that can afford to pay for that "new and creative" effect have a leg up in the sheets. Surely, not all spending is effective and there are certainly corps that make a run while spending less than others. But comparing 'Coats to Crown to BD to Cadets hides the issue of the other 20 corps on the tour that aren't in the same relative financial position. Some would say that a corps is only "advancing" if it's moving up the ranks. This is the flaw, IMO. Many corps are successful and effective in what they do even though they've never broken the top-12. Should the top corps be required to pay to help them "succeed" in moving up the ranks? Absolutely not, IMO. But I see merit in a system that rewards each corps for their position in the food chain that doesn't necessarily require each corps to advance in the rankings. We likely agree more on this point than is apparent in my "recent" posts. Hope I clarified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Well, chuckle, that "recent" thread was two years ago, but I don't think I'm being inconsistent and it's possible we're agreeing on this point. My thread about spending caps was born as a discussion that related to DanRay's idea on "fixing" DCI. Regardless of motive or intent, the financials show a clear correlation between spending and placement. I don't consider that a negative necessarily except when the judging sheets become tilted to reward spending on props and show design that not all corps enjoy. I wouldn't take a nickel from Crown or BD or Cadets (and I congratulate them on their financials) but there is little doubt in my mind that those corps that have a greater ability to raise funds and spend them have a leg up in the competition for show design. I abhor the idea of "socialist drumcorps" but I do consider it short-sighted to think that a single, rich corps can survive without the less-wealthy corps to compete against. I think Blast! showed us that. The sheets are designed to reward effect more than any other caption. The scores tilt to the corps that can present new and creative "effect" and the corps that can afford to pay for that "new and creative" effect have a leg up in the sheets. Surely, not all spending is effective and there are certainly corps that make a run while spending less than others. But comparing 'Coats to Crown to BD to Cadets hides the issue of the other 20 corps on the tour that aren't in the same relative financial position. Some would say that a corps is only "advancing" if it's moving up the ranks. This is the flaw, IMO. Many corps are successful and effective in what they do even though they've never broken the top-12. Should the top corps be required to pay to help them "succeed" in moving up the ranks? Absolutely not, IMO. But I see merit in a system that rewards each corps for their position in the food chain that doesn't necessarily require each corps to advance in the rankings. We likely agree more on this point than is apparent in my "recent" posts. Hope I clarified. Yes, you did, and I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks. My bad for the "recent" reference. By pure coincidence that spending cap thread reemerged on the front page, but it's clear that it's from several years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 i'm fine with how things are on the field i'm not worried about the competitive portion of things always room for growth, but the individual corps need to make that growth to get more success on the field parity will happen when corps do what they need to do internally to make it more competitive. parity in DCI would look like finals scores of all corps between 90 and 88 What about things off the field? It seems to me that there continues to be serious internal struggles within DCI, and I suspect that an outside objective corporate analysis of DCI would reveal fundamental concerns about the stability of the organization. As it stands today, what objective person would be willing to invest in the future of the organization? As has been stated earlier (Garfield), the competition drives organizational income, and the correlations between competitive success and financial strength are clear. To me that sounds like an imbalance (right or wrong), and from a corporate perspective, I'd think someone may be interested in how to grow and sustain the "Major League" corporation through fan and sponsor support. You summarize the solution to simply be the need for everyone else to "get better," implying 42 years of inferiority on the part of everyone that hasn't won the title. I disagree. To argue that only the individual corps themselves need to make necessary growth to achieve parity sounds absurd. You really can't see any other areas or entities that may present opportunities for growth? Again, the topic is about DCI as a competitive circuit, and I don't subscribe to the "performance circuit" suggestion. To me, the likes of "Disney On Ice," "The Harlem Globetrotters," and "Barnum & Bailey's Circus" fit the definition of performance circuits. Finally, you're comfortable with parity only in the context of scores? Last I heard, at the end of the day, the organizations themselves don't have control over what score someone else gives them. I repeat... they can't control the scores... so now what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
31rabbit Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 was walking through a warm-up area last year, stopped to watch a pit, noticed that the uniforms of this corps (a consistent quarterfnals corps) were just lying casually around. they warmed up casually, and their show on the field was spirited but generally as precise as their methods. I've stood in retreat next to top tier corps and lower tier corps. I've seen rehearsals of the Big Guys and the Little Guys. it doesn't take too keen an eye to see the difference in the prep and the resulting difference in the product. so: how to take into consideration that not all marchers Want to be in an elite corps? parity of results would rely greatly on a parity of preparation. For some kids, drum corps is more fun than work. nothing wrong with that. going from a DCI to a college marching band, my first instinct was to be aghast at these 25min waterbreaks and picnic-like practices. but eventually i bought into the idea that band isn't corps, a lot of the band kids wouldn't have wanted to march corps if it meant doing things in a strict and severe way. in order to be a contending corps, a group has to be run to a certain degree of efficiency and determination. sure everybody likes winning, but not everybody wants to prioritize their summer That Way. which is a good thing, because there Should be corps for members who dig performing but aren't necessarily the militantly disciplined type. or, let's be honest, for members who aren't as necessarily talented as the members who want to be in Elite groups. summation: some corps win more often than everybody else because they run themselves like winning corps. there's nothing 'wrong' with anybody Wanting It More than others, and naturally those groups will be rewarded more and will therefore attract more performers and staff who are of like mind. 2 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.