When was the last time this was discussed?

[garfield]

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?

We'd have fun over a beer.

You may, in fact, suspect that an outside organization would find a dysfunctional hot mess inside DCI, but you answered your own question. Who would pay for such a study? You? Me? The Fans?

And before we get to the real answer to that question, let's step back and ask "Why? For what purpose?". What would your stated presumption suggest is the appropriate resolution to your assumption?

Even if such an "imbalance" exists in DCI, so what? There are a board and an executive staff that get to call the shots in DCI. If they are happy with the "imbalance" - even if it provides fodder for us to debate - who is anyone, ANYONE, outside that organization to say that it's correct, or right, or appropriate for them to accept it? The entire notion is folly, and the potential risk of inviting investigation is dangerous - again, what for? Why? Even take it to the extreme and presume some outside organization "gets control" of the organization and tells it what to do - again, why?

This is band. It ain't GE or the pentagon. Leave the analysts to their tasks away from our hobby. Don't invite scrutiny because it'll find you anyway. One must not forget that this thing we do is owned by, controlled by, and organized by the directors of drum corps. Do you want them spending their hours writing reports and filing forms to meet the regulatory requirements of some outside organization, or do you want them writing great shows for us to go see to entertain ourselves.

So, now forget all that and presume you're right, it should be done. The only logical answer is that DCI pays. Where does that organization get it revenue (mostly)? From fans. A dollar a ticket for the entire season might pay the fee, I'd suspect but if it were so easy to increase ticket prices why hasn't it been done prior? It's not. There's a cost to increasing ticket prices.

Or, how about this: Reduce the DCI performance payout by the amount of the cost of doing this study? That sounds like a good approach because it's not our money.

Even from a practical standpoint it's not an easy solution because of the reality of the revenue source and the list of beneficiaries.

But the critical issue to address involves an old story about a camel and a tent. You hear that story a lot in "regulatory" circles, and in Washington, DC.

[garfield]

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.

Really a great post. I see a lot of corps up close each year, usually late in the season at our show, and I interact with their staffs. I truly look for these kinds of differences but, through my lens, there's not much difference in practice routines. It does seem that the down-placement corps are maybe younger, maybe not quite as "buff", but I see the same drive, routine, and habits in most corps (I'm specifically not talking about instructional practices). To my eyes the differences are primarily age and experience. As you move up the performance ranks the kids get older and, presumably, more experienced. It's the same routine and practice schedule that they learned in their rookie corps.

Yours is an important piece of a bigger pie, and I think it's important to remember that these practices are not secrets, in most cases. You, I, and most others can spot the differences small or big. It's easy to replicate by just paying attention (stand a director's shoes and ponder). In fact, I think the "winning" corps have, mostly, offered these practice "secrets" for free to any other corps.

[31rabbit]

one year, in a good but not great corps, i marched with a tenor player who was so severe that he went into self-punishment mode after a show on account of one of his sticks broke at an inopportune moment. actually tears followed by several hours of intense practice. he was a good guy, but he made it clearly known that his priority1 was becoming a magnificent tenor drummer. he marched in that corps for a year, the next year he was in an elite corps.

I couldn't have been a member like he was, and I don't think I would have wanted to. not that the Top Tier Corps are composed 100% of 'i want to be the greatest' types, but I imagine that they get more of those types than non-championship corps. Incredibly Dedicated Players are going to be drawn towards corps with a winning pedigree, hence a rich get richer cycle.

a good staff can run a good practice, a good staff can run a great practice if the members devote their off-time to the craft as well.

observationally, what I do know about 'parity of performance,' is that it's my opinion that the moment in quarterfinals when the shows turn from 'fun and interesting if flawed' to 'a lot of good stuff going on' has been coming earlier and earlier the last few years. in the early 00's I thought it was trending the other direction.

so even if the Championship Rings don't show it, I think the talent in members/staff has been spreading itself out more today than 15 years ago.

[nemesiscorps]

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.

I completely get your point, and agree with you that some organizations work harder, smarter, etc...

However, my point is that surly you wouldn't apply your summation to the corps (past and present) from Rockford, Madison, Canton, Bloomington, Boston, Altanta, Santa Clara, etc., that may have taken 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, etc. over the decades. Separations of tenths of a point can hardly be simplified down to or attributable to "the others didn't work hard enough."

You can't be suggesting that 4 corps trading a trophy for 35 years is the result of countless organizations that simply didn't work hard enough or approach their craft in the manner that the champion for any given year did?

[31rabbit]

'4 corps in 35 years' is a hyperbole that I don't think serves anybody's purpose.

as far as suggesting that the limited scope of winners is a result of effort and craft, what if I am? why WOULDN'T it be that way?

given that the 'randomization' factor in this activity is health and injury, and that some corps even have a superior way of handling that, why Would not the same Top Corps attract the Top Talent and the Top Staff and employ the same Winning Methods?

Look at the Cavalier 00-06s. when they didn't win in '03 and '05, one could argue that the first time was due to a steamroller of a BD team and that the second was because of an error in evaluating how a concept would be received (i'm not saying those as facts to debate here and now, just suggesting them to posit a point). But they employed a consistent standard and got consistent results. if they had done things a little different, could they have won 6 out of 7? 7 out of 7? is that more or less plausible than a more disparate series of results?

the cavaliers 'figured it out' and won 5 out of 7. and then the blue devils 'figured it out a little better' and won 5 out of 8. as an activity in which many factors can be controlled, why wouldn't there be consistent runs of Being the Best at it?

i fear we are arguing in circles about what I've always thought was one of the least interesting parts of a year. the more corps that 'figure it out,' the more corps that perform like each other.

( is there a separate 'back in the day'-type thread where we complain about how electronics separated the performance potential between Rich Corps and Poor Corps? used to be rich corps had Better and More of the same things that the poor corps had, now they have access to Different Things. more than the traditional 'in my day' argument about the spirit of the activity, i felt that that was a rule that had an actual on-field effect on the parity of competition. but that's neither here nor there).

[glory]

People can choose any time frame they want but generally the longer the sample size , the

better the validity is over a much shorter, arbitrarily selected time horizon . No savvy investment person would look at a stock's performance in a 2 - 5 year recent range , if a 35 year range is also readily available for performance ....

You'd be foolish if you looked at stocks on the basis of the longer horizon (past performance is no ...). Management changes. Markets change. Technology and business change. IBM was a hot stock 35 years ago. Not today. Incorporating its mainframe performance from the past into a current analysis of its future prospects isn't a good approach in a Google world.

Same with drum corps. Kingsmen are gone. Crown and Bluecoats have been outperforming Madison (and SCV?). Current trends are more meaningful that 42-year stats.

HH

[glory]

Is it BD we're talking about? Because if you take BD out of the picture, there's been plenty of movement at the top lately. Does anyone dispute that?

HH

[HockeyDad]

Is it BD we're talking about? Because if you take BD out of the picture, there's been plenty of movement at the top lately. Does anyone dispute that?

HH

Dispute what? Your IF false THEN true logic? Makes no sense. Hey, taking the sun out of the picture, it's been pretty dark around here lately amirite?

[Pete Freedman]

I completely get your point, and agree with you that some organizations work harder, smarter, etc...

However, my point is that surly you wouldn't apply your summation to the corps (past and present) from Rockford, Madison, Canton, Bloomington, Boston, Altanta, Santa Clara, etc., that may have taken 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, etc. over the decades. Separations of tenths of a point can hardly be simplified down to or attributable to "the others didn't work hard enough."

You can't be suggesting that 4 corps trading a trophy for 35 years is the result of countless organizations that simply didn't work hard enough or approach their craft in the manner that the champion for any given year did?

First of all, 4 corps did not trade a trophy for 35 years consecutively. Don't forget, you removed data that blurred the results. Any statistician can tell you that's a no-no. "When you remove several cases in which MMR vaccine did not immediately precede an autism diagnosis, the remaining cases show a correlation!" Um, no.

More to the point, while it is true that only a few corps win the championship, you assert that it is a problem, without specifying why you think it is a problem. Pray tell, What's wrong with only a few corps winning the championship? Specifically, what bad thing happens if it continues? If no new corps wins the championship for the next twenty years, so what? Is this the point at which you predict the inevitable decline of the activity?

Imagine if the spelling be is won each year by a kid in room 306, and rarely by anyone from the other English classes. Is that a big problem? What if it turns out they put the hardest working kids in 306 because that's where the pace of the class will reward that level of effort. Are you going to rearrange the classes just to create excitement in the spelling bee?

Drum corps is about education, and to some extent entertainment (less important clearly. As it should be, IMO). Sports competition is pretty far down the list of priorities. The competition exists for the purpose of motivating excellence in education, not the other way around!

[BRASSO]

Yes, we don't get to pick and choose reality by removing a self selected portion of that reality. We do not " eliminate " BD as part of the equation, as that naturally then becomes a fantasy world.. a world of non reality. When we say ( accurately ) that 3 Corps alone have so dominated the DCI Titles the last 35 years, we don't get to enter some sort of fantasy world Pretendland by eliminating a significant portion of those Titles ( won by BD) in a perverse attempt to alter the reality. There is no benefit to entering such a PretendWorld and wonder what the scene would look like if we" eliminated BD " from the discussion and from the equation that led to the real world we live in of 1st place placements. No benefits are derived in my view in being in denial or in a state of delusion about the hard data facts of placements at the very top of DCI these last 35 years.

Edited February 8, 2015 by BRASSO