BRASSO Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Does a BITD model demonstrating that there was very little parity BITD benefit us that we still have little to no parity now ? I don't think so. Why use an example of problematic levels of some preselected period that demonstates little parity back then either ? What use does it serve us today ? Additionally, most competitive sports at the amateur ( and pro levels ) value the benefits to be derived from parity so intensely and protectively that they all have all established policies that are supportive and encouraging of more parity in competition. They know that whenever a handful of organizations monopolize an enterprise it does not lend itself to the overall growth and stability of the overall enterprise. These are not stupid, nor short sighted people that run these leagues in an intelligent business fashion.. They are not wild eyed Socialists. They believe strongly in free enterprise, capitalism, etc. But even the most capitalistic countries and most capitalistic and competitive enterprises fully understand the difference between free enterprise competition, and counterproductive monopolies. Business 101 teaches us that even free market capitalism is not served well, when monopolistic impulses take hold, and monopolies are allowed to permanently entrench themselves in any enterprise. Courts in heavily capitalistic countries even break up monopolies, as they realize that ultimately such business practices actually stifle competition, and thus further growth. Capitalism is not cannibalism... unless, saavy people lose their bearings, and allow monopolistic impulses free reign to take over in a totally unregulated fashion, by eating all those within their reach ( until ultimately, even the monopolies find there is no more around to eat ). If DCI does not place a value on parity at the top, then naturally it will have no parity at the top, and eventually such monopolistic policies will ultimately destroy the entire enterprise... and will do so from within. The reality of Economics is that long standing proven theories of Economics does not go away simply because we don't pay attention, or don't care, or don't want to change things that are clearly showing harmful effects to any goal to grow this activity from its acknowleged flat lined ( at best ) current growth predicament. Edited February 9, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 As usual Brasso is too concerned with his own rhetoric to actually respond to what is written. G's contention is that Crown's rise to prominence actually encourages potential marchers to audition at lower placing corps because they aspire to audition and make the line at Crown. They know it's unlikely to happen if they audition without previous experience so they go to other corps *first*. It had nothing to do with your speculation that auditionees who fail to make it at a Crown audition simply stop their drum corps apsirations. In fact *many* kids who audition at Crown go on to march elsewhere (and are directed to those corps by the Crown staff). But such reports are apparently irrelevant to the all-knowing can of toxic polish. What's all this? Why so personal in making your point?Anyway, no reasonable person would deny that kids get inspired by top echelon corps, and thus, may begin their drum corps journey participating with a different corps, while still having aspirations to ultimately march elsewhere. Since there's no reliable way to determine how frequently that happens (as well as how frequently others take their shot at a top tier audition and choose not to march if they don't make it), let's call it a draw and move back on point. What are the pros to maintaining the status quo? Yes, there are some. What are the cons? Yes, there are some. What are the pros to exploring parity policies that strengthen the entire competitive community? Yes, there are some. What are the cons? Yes, there are some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Does a BITD model demonstrating that there was very little parity BITD benefit us that we still have little to no parity now ? I don't think so. Why use an example of problematic levels of some preselected period that demonstates little parity back then either ? What use does it serve us today ? It serves to show that even when there were hundreds of field corps, there were still relatively few that competed for the title every year. It is not unique to the DCI era. What you are advocating is something totally new not a return to what used to be. That, IMO, makes a difference in how the idea is considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Does a BITD model demonstrating that there was very little parity BITD benefit us that we still have little to no parity now ? I don't think so. Why use an example of problematic levels of some preselected period that demonstates little parity back then either ? What use does it serve us today ? Additionally, most competitive sports at the amateur ( and pro levels ) value the benefits to be derived from parity so intensely and protectively that they all have all established policies that are supportive and encouraging of more parity in competition. They know that whenever a handful of organizations monopolize an enterprise it does not lend itself to the overall growth and stability of the overall enterprise. These are not stupid, nor short sighted people that run these leagues in an intelligent business fashion.. They are not wild eyed Socialists. They believe strongly in free enterprise, capitalism, etc. But even the most capitalistic countries and most capitalistic and competitive enterprises fully understand the difference between free enterprise competition, and counterproductive monopolies. Business 101 teaches us that even free market capitalism is not served well, when monopolistic impulses take hold, and monopolies are allowed to permanently entrench themselves in any enterprise. Courts in heavily capitalistic countries even break up monopolies, as they realize that ultimately such business practices actually stifle competition, and thus further growth. Capitalism is not cannibalism... unless, saavy people lose their bearings, and allow monopolistic impulses free reign to take over in a totally unregulated fashion, by eating all those within their reach ( until ultimately, even the monopolies find there is no more around to eat ). If DCI does not place a value on parity at the top, then naturally it will have no parity at the top, and eventually such monopolistic policies will ultimately destroy the entire enterprise... and will do so from within. The reality of Economics is that long standing proven theories of Economics does not go away simply because we don't pay attention, or don't care, or don't want to change things that are clearly showing harmful effects to any goal to grow this activity from its acknowleged flat lined ( at best ) current growth predicament. Wow. You are doing a GREAT job! Anyone willing to suspend judgment, listen, and actually consider what you've offered here will agree on some level. The next goal then is to discover a middle ground. Fool that I am, I choose to believe there is one out there, though unfortunately I won't be betting that it will take hold before DCI experiences a dramatic shift that mostly benefits the few rather than the many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Because this is what the Corpsband poster here typically does... he takes a comment from me and takes into the personal insult vein ( as you.. and probably others... once again have perceptively observed from him). I'm used to his schtick by now however, and so it doesn't concern me. Edited February 9, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Yes, I acknowledge that the lack of attention to the need for parity, even pre dates DCI. The problem of the lack of parity took hold before DCI, and has accelerated the loss of Corps throughout even the DCI years. The lack of parity is certainly not new, and its not the sole cuprit for the loss of so many Corps since the days when we had so many Corps. But the absence of parity, and the apparent inability to recognize its importance to the activity, nor to take action to promote more parity, has certainly stifled any possibility for growth of the activity, imo. And yes, I am actually advocating for a new way of doing things here...absolutely. Edited February 9, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Wow. You are doing a GREAT job! Anyone willing to suspend judgment, listen, and actually consider what you've offered here will agree on some level. The next goal then is to discover a middle ground. Fool that I am, I choose to believe there is one out there, though unfortunately I won't be betting that it will take hold before DCI experiences a dramatic shift that mostly benefits the few rather than the many. I would love to know ( maybe ) what anyone would do to change anything . All I will say is no matter what change takes place or what suggestion, if you include corps that know how to win or be in the top percent you will still see them there. Winners( not meaning 1st place ) just know how to win and will adapt to whatever is changed. Does this mean others can't, no not at all, does it mean that those at the top will literally have to have something go wrong in membership , design or music choices or excellence to fall out of a top spot, probably, has it happened? sure it has over the years When was Cavies 1st win? Crown? PR, took a while for sure. Just wonder why some might feel a change of any kind but included everyone , why it would change at all. I ask this with all due respect. Edited February 9, 2015 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Wow. You are doing a GREAT job! Anyone willing to suspend judgment, listen, and actually consider what you've offered here will agree on some level. The next goal then is to discover a middle ground. Fool that I am, I choose to believe there is one out there, though unfortunately I won't be betting that it will take hold before DCI experiences a dramatic shift that mostly benefits the few rather than the many. So whats the middle ground? Why would it change a thing. Are you asking those who win to be at a disadvantage and give those below more? I want to get what you are saying but don't see how it would change a thing.jmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 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? off the field? better management, better recruiting and retention of members you see, while competition may drive some aspects, not all. you dont get into world class because you beat up open class. you get there because you have your #### together behind the scenes. for competition every year "oh so and so cherry picks other kids"....well, yes because corps do not do enough to keep kids. it's nt always about the scores...lots of things can happen that make kids want to look elsewhere. if you all you do year in and year out is train kids to go do better elsewhere, your corps will stay in a rut. Can DCI do better? Sure, they know it, we know it, and neither them or us have all of the answers. But they seem to be working at it, and thats not always something i've felt they did. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshClements403 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Maybe we should do a playoff where the top 6 corps face each other (1 faces 6, 2 faces 5, etc.) and keep going until we have a winner. (sarcasm) 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.