garfield Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Thank you...fair enough. So, the official position then becomes "We're going to pay you according to the following competition "payout structure"...even though, in essence, there is no actual "competition"...but rather, a "performance"? O.K. -- I get it. Thank you for the explanation. (I'm sorry to be an a**, Gar. It all just seems rather strange to me. And my "A**-ness is not being directed at you, believe me.) No problem, and I have thick skin. But ask yourself, if you were a founder and your goal was to provide a performance revenue source that benefited the original members, would you base it on performance or on competition? BITD, when the competition was more defined, hosting "competitions" was probably legitimate. Back when every town had a drum corps and every fan knew the placement structure of every circuit and who was the winner a competition-based structure sold tickets. But today, with average participation around 3 1/2 years, there isn't the depth of placement knowledge as in those good ole' days. Competition is simply less important in the activity today than back then. If you based the payout on performance only, then each corps would share more equally in the payout pie, and that's not what the founders had in mind. The competition is primarily the concern of the corps for payout purposes, and for the fun of a relatively small portion of the fan base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 No problem, and I have thick skin. But ask yourself, if you were a founder and your goal was to provide a performance revenue source that benefited the original members, would you base it on performance or on competition? BITD, when the competition was more defined, hosting "competitions" was probably legitimate. Back when every town had a drum corps and every fan knew the placement structure of every circuit and who was the winner a competition-based structure sold tickets. But today, with average participation around 3 1/2 years, there isn't the depth of placement knowledge as in those good ole' days. Competition is simply less important in the activity today than back then. If you based the payout on performance only, then each corps would share more equally in the payout pie, and that's not what the founders had in mind. The competition is primarily the concern of the corps for payout purposes, and for the fun of a relatively small portion of the fan base. Thank you. And before I rush headlong into a rebuttal, I'm going to read what you wrote a few times. If I see your point and accept it, then I will be gracious enough to say "I'm sorry...I was wrong." But I want to digest all that you said first. Fair enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Please excuse me, but DCI's obligation is to the financial health of the member corps. Why WOULDN'T DCI put such a rule in place. The receiving corps isn't even involved in the process until the kid pays his dues to the last corps. If the kids knows he can't try out at the other corps until his debt is paid, the "receiving corps" wouldn't ever know about it. DCI, as the central "clearing corp" for corps is the logical enforcer of this rule. That is a GREAT and sound rule to protect the financial stability of a member corps. I'd be interested in your version of a solution to the problem. My mind is open to a better solution if you have one. Somehow I think you missed my point. I completely agree with this rule, and feel that there should be similar "greater good" practices put in place by the "central clearing corps." I was seeking other examples or "greater good" practices that people may recall. I'm sure there's more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Thank you...fair enough. So, the official position then becomes "We're going to pay you according to the following competition "payout structure"...even though, in essence, there is no actual "competition"...but rather, a "performance"? O.K. -- I get it. Thank you for the explanation. (I'm sorry to be an a**, Gar. It all just seems rather strange to me. And my "A**-ness is not being directed at you, believe me.) 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. Edited February 7, 2015 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Somehow I think you missed my point. I completely agree with this rule, and feel that there should be similar "greater good" practices put in place by the "central clearing corps." I was seeking other examples or "greater good" practices that people may recall. I'm sure there's more. Yes, yes I did. After your correction and re-reading, I see your point and it is the same as mine. Think of my post not as a rebuttal but, rather, as an affirmation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) 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. 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? Edited February 7, 2015 by HornTeacher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Oh, surely, competition is part of human nature, no doubt. But that's not the point. The point is who cares about the competition in DCI and who does not. There is a self-gratifying nature of placement that we all like to have - that the one we thought was the best was the winner - but that's not what drives attendance at the show. The show drives the show, not the competition. I do see your point and agree. I also believe bitd competition drove attendance and of course it was a family atmosphere . Today , yes it is different to some degree and you could be right as far as ticket sales for the most part but I guess it just depends who you ask or what part of the activity you may be addressing. I could be very different answers. or not. I do think maybe you might be underestimating the competition aspect of it and wonder IF we did away with the competition and solely looked at this as just performance how many people who say they don't care about the competition would still attend. My guess, ( JMO ) you might see a changeof opinion. .just a hunch Edited February 7, 2015 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I do think maybe you might be underestimating the competition aspect of it and wonder IF we did away with the competition and solely looked at this as just performance how many people who say they don't care about the competition would still attend. I believe in competition, but with an open mind, I'd have to attend a few non competitive "concerts" to see how I felt about them. Might have to look at them like a concert/fund raiser with many rock and roll type bands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 This whole thing sounds like the Socialist Drum Corps Association or something. I don't know what you are suggesting from this post. Should we take from those that have excelled merely for the benefit of those that have not just because we think it is unfair? Should we penalize the organizations that have made wise choices consistently over many years because of some perceived unfair advantage over those that haven't? To put it another way, should we spot weak sports teams a certain number of runs/points when they are playing better teams just to "even the playing field"? Come on people, this is, like it or not, a competitive arena. We can like or dislike the results of any given contest but what the statistics stated in the original post tell me is that, year in and year out, there is a percentage of organizations that find a way to be at the very forefront of design and performance. There is also a percentage that, year in and year out, don't. That my friends is life. Don't mean to sound uncaring or unfeeling (I guess I sound like a conservative!). It is what it is. We all have our favorites and we are disappointed when they don't succeed. Believe me, I can relate. I have been a Buffalo Bills fan for 40 years! That being said we can't boost our favorite by somehow willing it to be different. Until the Bills find a way to compete, they are doomed to where they are. Just sayin' Dan This. While I may like shows that dont win more than some that do, when you see some corps stay stagnant in the standings, but NEVER take the steps to make their organization better on and off the field, well, sorry, I shed no tears. Crown and Coats were two of those teams that seemed stuck in that 9-12 rut for a bunch of years. Then both missed finals, woke up, started making changes, and after a few years of ###### hard work, boom, they're at the top of the pack. Now why can't other corps do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 As a comparison - 49 years of Super Bowls. 19 different champions. the most recent 42 years of World Series 20 different champions. Yeah, I'd say DCI has a "staleness" problem. To me it's more like a figure skating championship, where there are favorites going in who will always get the benefit of the doubt. But, I have the performances I like, and it doesn't really matter to me anymore if they came in first or tenth. to a point, look how many teams have been in the Super Bowl many many times. 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.