When was the last time this was discussed?

[Pete Freedman]

Having watched that clip, I will say it's certainly not to my taste and also a little baffling (she's supposed to be a teenager?!), but by prodding me to read some Wikipedia entries, it did at least lead me to learn a little about British "chavs", "casuals", and football hooligan "firms". Did you know that Edward II (he of Christopher Marlowe's play) banned football in the fourteenth century because of the hooliganism that surrounded the contests?

Drum corps fans are passionate but so far I haven't heard reports of riots spilling out onto the field. Maybe close, some years...

[KVG_DC]

2000, College Park, MD. "....and in a tie for first place..."

[Jeff Ream]

In the NFL, the games aren't decided by the referees deciding who they like. The players are allowed to determine the outcome.

DCI can't say that about its competitive model.

watch the NFL much?

[Jeff Ream]

Good question, though it's an assumption that Pioneer wasn't "able" to keep those kids. Of course we can never know THE reason kids march in different places. But, I think your question deserves an answer, or at least an analysis.

I would say that the answer may be twofold. Again, this is speculative.

1. It's possible that the intention of the members themselves was to "get experience" before auditioning for a higher tier corps, so they came in from the start not looking for a longterm experience with Pioneer. They heard good things about how Pioneer is a great place to start, and they wanted a great place to start. Some alter their initial plan and end up staying and aging out, others move on.

2. It's possible that after marching with Pioneer, the members concluded that certain corps offer different experiences, and that they wanted to explore a different experience... like having the opportunity to march in the DCI Finals. Though, even someone that knows nothing about music or this activity can look at historic competitive outcomes and determine which corps are likely to make finals.

Anyway, I can tell you from personal experience about kids that marched with Pioneer and tearfully left the corps solely because they didn't want to regret never marching in the finals, and it was clear that Pioneer (and many other corps as well) would not be contending for a finals spot. The irony here is that that fact is also the result of one of the very reasons why they loved Pioneer and decided to march there in the first place, because Pioneer gave them a chance to learn and to develop their skills, and other corps wouldn't give them that chance. After achieving that goal (marching in finals), some would return and convey that it wasn't what they thought it would be, but were extremely grateful for the role that Pioneer played in helping them achieve that personal goal.

Many of the Pioneer members literally learned how to play their instrument, march, spin, dance, etc., because Pioneer created opportunities for kids like that. In fact, the corps specializes at developing raw members. It's one of Pioneers' pillar values... giving kids the opportunity and the environment to reach their goals. It's the single most important goal of the organization... since 1961. The only requirements for membership are commitment to learning, working hard every day ("Better Every Day"), bringing a great attitude, supporting each other, and consistently being present.

Kids choose Pioneer for a multitude of reasons, just as any other corps.

Now.....why is it Pioneer isn't doing the thungs to keep those kids and give them a shot at the finals?

Or PC, or Mandarins, or Surf...people want to paint the big digs as poachers, but let's be real....why aren't those corps taking the steps others did to get to the top?

Crown was 16th in 2002, with a god awful show. Slowly but surely, they climbed their way to the top by 2013.

Bluecoats to the best of my knowledge without looking it up never placed above 7th, and landed out of finals in 1999. By 2002, they worked their way into the top 6 pretty consistently, and then in 10 and 14 medaled.

The corps had a plan, and adapted it as time went on if need be to keep climbing. Yet Madison, who used to be a top 6 fixture still hasn't figured out a way to get back there. And Pioneer, for many well documented reasons stays where they are.

Maybe Pioneer chooses to go that route. So be it. But then it's not everyone else's fault Pio stays where they are.

[Jeff Ream]

This subject hits a nerve with me, causing great internal struggle. I would never begrudge any MM from seeking membership in any corps of his or her choice. But the truth is, choice doesn't really enter into it. It's simply unrealistic to tell a kid who joins Pioneer that if he or she sticks with Pioneer and works hard, he or she has a realistic shot at qualifying for DCI's ultimate competition. Not when a DCI career is 3-5 years and meaningful placement advancement takes a decade or more, under the current system.

It's a crime that any MM should have to go through the self-inflicted trauma of leaving a corps with a heavy heart because A) making finals means so #### much and B) their only chance, in the 2-3 years they have left, to make it is to latch on to a higher-ranked corps. The kid really has no alternative: Fellow members of their own corps are making the same decision independently, guaranteeing high turnover and undermining their chances of advancement. No kid can risk staying on the bet that every other member of the corps also will stay. They'll be left behind.

So, they leave. Either they must leave even though they don't want to, or they come into their first corps considering it only a stepping stone, a disposable tool. That's simply dysfunctional, in my book. Sad. Sad for the corps, and sadder for the kids. It imbues DCI with an I've-got-mine subcurrent that makes the DCI experience more about individual achievement and less about team achievement. Kinda ironic, for an activity that has "corps" in its name. Those who make it to higher-ranked corps have great experiences and build lasting friendships, of course, but the experience for DCI members top to bottom could be so much richer. It could be about forming not only strong bonds, but strong communities. Instead, what we have is more like brand loyalty on steroids.

Just once I would love to see a group of kids in the nether regions of the rankings embrace loyalty to each other and their beloved corps, stick together during their eligible years, perhaps sacrificing their own individual glory today in the knowledge that their investment will pay off for those who follow them. Imagine what those alum reunions would be like in 20, 30 years, as their corps hauls down yet another medal. What a glorious fraternity that would be; what a rich soil that would be for all of DCI. I would follow those young people anywhere they lead.

a perfect example of this....Blue Stars. Kids who started with them in Division III....stayed, fought, clawed, and even a few of them got to be there when they got back into WC finals after 20+ years away

[N.E. Brigand]

A perfect example of this: Blue Stars. Kids who started with them in Division III, stayed, fought, clawed, and even a few of them got to be there when they got back into WC finals after 20+ years away

But not most of them.

Let's suppose that Blue Stars staff told the members in 2003, after they'd won their second Div. III championship: "Stay with us. We have a plan that will have us in Div. I Finals in five years, but we can't get there without great members like you." For members older than 16, sticking around would mean guaranteeing themselves no chance at ever making it to the big dance. For members 16 or younger, sticking around would mean trusting that the plan would indeed work out by their age-out year. Some of those talented members surely would have felt that their chances were better if they moved to a corps that was already a regular Div. I Finalist. And the more of those talented members who leave, the less likely it is that the plan can work.

And meanwhile, quite possibly other corps were making their members the same pitch. "Stick with us," Academy's staff might have told their members in 2006, after they'd won the Div. II championship, "because with your talent, our plan will see the corps make Div. I Finals within five years". Having succeeded at one division higher than Blue Stars, those Academy members perhaps had a little more reason to hope for future success in Div. I, but it was still a big gamble, and it was one that didn't pan out (not yet, anyway). If you were a highly-talented Academy member in the fall of 2006, who could have successfully auditioned for a perennial DIv. I Finalist, but you "stayed, fought, clawed", as you say, it was--after one highly-promising season--all to no avail. (Competitively, that is. I'm not saying that those members couldn't have had a great experience in the Academy in 2007-2011.) And I'll bet most of them "fought" and "clawed" every bit as much as most Blue Stars members did.

Don't get me wrong. This has always happened and will always happen. Only twelve corps can make Finals. And in DCI's first two decades, while there was more turnover in Finals than there is now, it was probably even less likely that any one corps would make Finals than is true today--because there were more corps then.

But in 1974 or 2014, in most cases, no matter how hard most of the staff or the members work, even if they work harder than staff and members at some more successful corps, it won't be enough. And that's probably fine: in most aspects of life, working hard is not enough to guarantee success; you also have to be working on the right thing at the right time, and be positioned in the right place to start with. That's just one more lesson that a drum corps experience provide its members. One point of all this is that we shouldn't treat exceptional cases (like Blue Stars) as if they are the norm (like Academy). Another, as has previously been stated in this discussion, is that the corps, in their role governing DCI as an organization that serves more than just the already-elite, should be very careful about decisions that favor circumstances too much and hard work too little.

[Jeff Ream]

But not most of them.

Let's suppose that Blue Stars staff told the members in 2003, after they'd won their second Div. III championship: "Stay with us. We have a plan that will have us in Div. I Finals in five years, but we can't get there without great members like you." For members older than 16, sticking around would mean guaranteeing themselves no chance at ever making it to the big dance. For members 16 or younger, sticking around would mean trusting that the plan would indeed work out by their age-out year. Some of those talented members surely would have felt that their chances were better if they moved to a corps that was already a regular Div. I Finalist. And the more of those talented members who leave, the less likely it is that the plan can work.

And meanwhile, quite possibly other corps were making their members the same pitch. "Stick with us," Academy's staff might have told their members in 2006, after they'd won the Div. II championship, "because with your talent, our plan will see the corps make Div. I Finals within five years". Having succeeded at one division higher than Blue Stars, those Academy members perhaps had a little more reason to hope for future success in Div. I, but it was still a big gamble, and it was one that didn't pan out (not yet, anyway). If you were a highly-talented Academy member in the fall of 2006, who could have successfully auditioned for a perennial DIv. I Finalist, but you "stayed, fought, clawed", as you say, it was--after one highly-promising season--all to no avail. (Competitively, that is. I'm not saying that those members couldn't have had a great experience in the Academy in 2007-2011.) And I'll bet most of them "fought" and "clawed" every bit as much as most Blue Stars members did.

Don't get me wrong. This has always happened and will always happen. Only twelve corps can make Finals. And in DCI's first two decades, while there was more turnover in Finals than there is now, it was probably even less likely that any one corps would make Finals than is true today--because there were more corps then.

But in 1974 or 2014, in most cases, no matter how hard most of the staff or the members work, even if they work harder than staff and members at some more successful corps, it won't be enough. And that's probably fine: in most aspects of life, working hard is not enough to guarantee success; you also have to be working on the right thing at the right time, and be positioned in the right place to start with. That's just one more lesson that a drum corps experience provide its members. One point of all this is that we shouldn't treat exceptional cases (like Blue Stars) as if they are the norm (like Academy). Another, as has previously been stated in this discussion, is that the corps, in their role governing DCI as an organization that serves more than just the already-elite, should be very careful about decisions that favor circumstances too much and hard work too little.

yes not most...several had aged out along the way. But I've gotten to know people involved, and their retention was pretty good compared to most.

and no, not everyone will win or make the big show on Saturday. But for several corps, it honestly doesnt look like they try when you see the same results over and over

[Pete Freedman]

So what? Why the insistence on winning and placing? (This is in response to the tone of the last several posts, not any one individual.)

Chris Martin, principal trumpeter for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, marched Crossmen for just one year (I believe). That was all he needed to get the work ethic he needed to train to become one of the best trumpet players in the world (which he credits to his Crossmen experience). Is there any evidence that corps that medal or make finals produce members who achieve more in life than those from lower corps? I marched a Garden State corps with zero chance of placing even in GSC. Not winning isn't the bummer people seem to think it is.

Some kids do choose to stay with a lower placing corps and perhaps be a soloist or perhaps just because they like the people. Those whose skills improve significantly (most) will have the option of moving up to a corps that will challenge them at their new level, which must be very exciting. I don't see a problem.

Many fans want to see each corps take a turn at the top with some kind of policies that "mix things up", but I think we rationalize that it's for the kids benefit. After all, even if every year three different corps medaled with no repeats, after five years that's still only 15 corps. So Pioneer still wouldn't medal in time for a given member to age out. Maybe they'd make finals, but then again maybe they'd drop to the bottom, given that all the other corps in this scenario would have the same shot. Exciting for fans? Yep. Exciting for members? Not at all.

In the end, the only alternative to predictability is randomness, at least as far as the kids are concerned when they audition. Once they're committed they'd find out just how good or bad their corps would be that year. That would not be an improvement.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Pete Freedman

[cixelsyd]

The thread does suffer from a problem that all threads on here tend to have; people believe their own theories based on the fact that nobody can disprove them. Actually, the burden of proof is on the person hypothesizing a problem or solution. And by proof I mean actually achieving something close to a consensus.

"I disagree with you". See what I did there? By your own definition, everything you say here is now "unproven" because you did not achieve consensus.

But seriously, consensus is not proof. Once, there was consensus that the earth was flat.

Similarly, lack of consensus does not disprove anything.

You do point out a familiar issue here, and in real life... that sometimes, there is no "proof". Sometimes, we have to make judgments based on theory or intuition. Rarely is there absolute "proof" of a cause and effect relationship in the midst of a complex, multivariable situation. Business and government would be paralyzed with indecision if the burden of "proof", or even consensus, was required before any action is taken.

While lots of ideas have been presented by people who passionately believe them, there is no consensus:

I doubt that the handful of people in this thread are a large enough sample size to assess "consensus". But go on.

- No consensus that the lack of competitive movement at the top (or throughout the order) is actually a problem in that it causes any bad thing to happen.

Have we even stated the problem yet?

The "bad thing" that happens when competition stagnates is loss of interest. Fewer people participate in the activity, and fewer fans pay to see it. Historically, as competition has grown more stagnant, the numbers of participants and fans have declined dramatically. Of course, there are other factors affecting those numbers, and correlation does not "prove" causation... but it is common sense. Stagnant competition certainly does not increase interest.

- No consensus that adding unpredictable elements to scoring and placements would prevent the bad thing (whatever that is) from happening.

That depends on the idea. We could make scoring unpredictable by hiring incompetent judges, but many would oppose that idea (maybe even a "consensus" of opposition). On the other hand, simply increasing the undersized judging pool is an idea that meets far less resistance.

A few people are so invested in the status quo that they would oppose any change to judging. It seems that recent activity culture makes conformance a priority, and conversely equates "unpredictable" with "bad quality".

- No consensus that putting budget caps would even be achievable (they never seem to be in other sports. The day after the cap goes into effect a new non-profit would start up near each corps into which checks would funnel secretly and out of which donations would flow completely off the books and outside of any reasonable ability of DCI to detect. For example, all design/arranging/drillwriting work would suddenly be "donated" with these staff receiving paid "consulting" work from completely unrelated organizations.) And caps are ineffective because all corps whose budgets are below the cap level - the ones supposedly being helped - are, well, unaffected, and so would not be saved from bankruptcy. BD coming 5th instead of 2nd doesn't keep Teal Sound from going under, to put it simply.

None of that sounds good to me either. But this is a thread for ideas, so it is worth discussing the pros (if any) and cons.

- No consensus that transfer rules wouldn't hurt more than they would help, in that many kids might skip the lower corps completely, achieving the opposite of the intended effect. (And Brasso was wrong. IIRC the NCAA recently got rid of the rules they had, and these only affected the big money sports in which recruiter activities were a political problem with school administrators. I don't think any scholastic or amateur sport has any transfer rules today. But some drum corps circuits did have them, so there is precedent for them.)

I have yet to see a winning idea for change here, but I try to be open minded. I have noticed an irrational degree of opposition to even discussing the topic. I played devils advocate with it in a thread awhile back, and it was even worse than when I mention the words "tick system" here.

- No consensus that moving staff around somehow would significantly alter the outcome enough for the "benefit" of that to be worth the costs of whatever you had to do to move them around. (I'm not sure this was the point of the staff discussion, but anyway in brings that discussion on-topic)

Corps already move staff around by hiring them. That seems to work fine as is, but again, this is a thread for ideas.

[cf144]

I'm new to this forum, but far from new in Drum Corps. I marched with Philadelphia PAL Cadets in 1982-84 (I think we finished something like 46th at Prelims in Montreal) and with the Crossmen in 1985-86. Certainly never had a whiff of winning a DCI title (although my first year in PAL we did finish 2nd I think in our own circuit championship and took High Drums) or even top 12. Anyone who knows the Crossmen's history know that 1985 & 86 were two of the more difficult years in the Corp's history. '85 saw us break out the "Hostess Cupcake" uniforms for a Spanish themed show that never really came together and landed us in 17th. 1986 was even more difficult and the Corps nearly folded but was able to scrape together enough staff and members to get on the field for the season finishing in a 21st place tie.

Would I have liked to have had the opportunity to march on Saturday night one or both of those years? Durned right. Did not making finals make the experience any less meaningful? I don't think so. I could have gone north to Garfield if I really wanted a shot at the title, but I preferred to stay with the Bones despite the difficulties. All these years later looking back - I wouldn't change it a bit. I look back at what we accomplished in '86 in particular with a great deal of pride. If not for that group of staff and members who refused to roll over when everyone had left us for dead there would have been no '90s era of great Crossmen shows, no move to Texas and no resurgence that they have shown the past 3 seasons. The Crossmen would be lumped in with all of the once great Corps that are relegated to the past (27th Lancers, Bridgemen etc) rather than an up an coming Corps on the verge of (hopefully) great accomplishments.

In the end, Drum Corps is a competative sport, but in my mind the greatest competition is with oneself to consistantly strive for personal and group excellence and the scores are secondary. I cheered as loud as anyone in the building for Carolina when they won in 2013, Phantom when they won in 2008 and for Blooooo when they took silver last year (and I think louder than everyone else in 2012 when the semi-final scores were announced that put Crossmen back in the top 12 for the first time in years ) but in the end it's the excitement, energy and entertainment of the show that matters the most to me.

Edited February 18, 2015 by cf144