Corps 19-25 Placeing Higher

[Eleran]

Thats NOT really true as you described it Eleran. One of my Daughters was an elite soccer goalie when she was young. One of the best in all of New England at her age. She played on the traveling AAU teams, was recruited by the colleges ( when she was just 15-16 ). In our experience, you are correct in that teams had their crack at her, but it was not the case that once she went to one team that the other teams she competed with did not have access to SIMILARLY talented players like her throughout the region, that would allow that team to compete on an equal playing field as the team she was on. DCI does not have this system in place at all, imo... Eleran.

Well, that argument is a little different. What you are saying is that there are more competitive players around to fill more competitive soccer teams than there are competitive marchers to fill competitive drum corps. That's a supply and demand issue, and I won't necessarily disagree with you that the supply and demand for drum corps is different that for sports. That's really the overall problem isn't it?

However, I would contend that one reason there is a supply issue is that drum corps no longer have any local connections to breed and inspire (with performance opportunities) future generations at a local level. It's not that there aren't enough top level corps who can crack Finals night - it's that there aren't enough low-level corps to motivate and introduce the masses to the field. Instead, the drum corps world has ceded that role to HS marching bands, which themselves only get kids late in the game, and are often hit or miss from one community to the next (and you can't just drive across town borders and join the school band in the next town).

But that's an even larger DCI systemic problem, and probably not for this thread.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Eleran

[Tim K]

If 15 is better than 12 (because more corps and more MMs get the 'benefit' of performing at finals, this logically extends to 18 is better than 15 and so on. Which gets you to: everyone marches every night! And so you remove the competitive incentive provided by the elimination format.

The post I commented on suggested 15 like WGI. I know the history behind twelve finalists and am not advocating a change. Twelve has a history and sets a standard. My "more the merrier " comment refers to my enjoying shows but knowing we will never see every corps every day. My vacation begins with CYO Nationals tribute, continues with Allentown, and ends in Indy, so watching all the corps is like a day at the beach for me, but when your 100% Irish you know too much Sun is too much of a good thing, so elimination of corps is like applying sunscreen. My stipulation for expanding the number would only be if there was more movement during the season, but quite frankly that has not happened since my high school days, which whether I care to admit it or not is over thirty years ago.

[perc2100]

Its currently 39 ->25 -> 12. We have added I believe 2 more corps and don't think anybody folded. Also a chance that an open corps that didn't do finals will. How does 42->26-> really hurt? You will get more butts in seats from the 3 additional corps family. People will still go Thursday and Friday because no guarantee groups make it especially in that 13-17 area.

IDK about that. Seems like the lower corps get smalllllll audiences anyway.

I would think you could maybe increase ticket sales for Quarterfinals & Semifinals if you do: 39->18>10. The crazier competition would DEFINITELY accomplish what you think it would with adding more people to Semifinals, and it could make things more exciting for audiences.

I've seen Quarters and Semis, both live & on FN/movie theater, and for as many people what to shout "MORE CORPS = good!" the stands look crazy empty at the beginning of both days for the most part, and don't really kick up to near/after the first Intermission. I suspect if Semis started with Spirit, late afternoon/early evening, there would be quite a bit more people in the stands all-the-way through. DCI could even maybe start a bit earlier and have a slightly longer 'dinner break' in order to get more people out to the souvie stands & vending booths.

With your theory, "you will get more butts in seats" at Quarters if you cut the line flat in-half for Semifinals: more people will have a better idea that their kid might not make semifinals w/that competition, so seeing Mandarins, PC, BDB, etc. would be a higher priority for fans. Same with Finals, if you eliminate two placements: would make those 12-9 slots more competitive than they already are, AND encourage fans to come out to see, say Blue Stars & Crossmen + Troopers & BAC to see who makes it into Finals.

Of course, this would likely never fly, as 1) people will cry elitism and 2) DCI WC Directors will not want to vote themselves out of perceived "prestige" of being a 20th place corps but still being a 'Semifinalist' or less corps in the Prestigious Finalist slots. Eighteen corps would be 1 more from the the old Semifinals allotment so it's one more than just "going back to the old way because old is good" or what not. I would be fine with adjusting to less Semifinals while maintaining the same current number of Finalists.

I understand why people feel like "more is better," but with a competitive activity such as this I'm not sure that's the case. In regards to WGI:

Guard IW alone = 28 groups

PIW alone = 27

Their larger classes:

Guard SA = 120 having to be split into two separate venues

PSA = 59

Keep in mind WGI has 6 classes in both Guard & Percussion, with Percussion having an additional 2 concert classes PLUS the new wind class.

Percussion SA has 20 more groups that all of last year's Quarterfinals. The Guard SA has THREE TIMES the amount of groups than DCI. I would say when there are that many competing units, expanding Finals makes logical sense, and if DCI was looking at 30ish World Class groups alone, maybe it would be time to talk about expanding finals. At this point, though, I think it's prudent to maybe scale back Finals & Semis.

Of course, DCI Directors don't seem to feel there's a need to change Semifinal or Final competing groups, so this is all really a moot point, no?

Edited May 25, 2016 by perc2100

[perc2100]

What if DCI adopted WGI final numbers? WGI does 15. I know im PSA they go from 60-70 down to 30 down to 15 in 3 shows. If this activity keeps growing with soundsport groups moving to open class it could be a good change.

PSA they start with 120 over two prelim sites (60 groups per site).

IMO, we can start this discussion again if a significant number of soundsport groups move to open class status.

Of course, maybe Open Class shouldn't be so involved in World Class (I personally don't think they should be much at all, but that's just me) regardless.

[drumcorpsfever]

What if DCI adopted WGI final numbers? WGI does 15. I know im PSA they go from 60-70 down to 30 down to 15 in 3 shows. If this activity keeps growing with soundsport groups moving to open class it could be a good change.

Finals, with 12 corps is good. I've read on DCP in the past that the number (12) was because of the space available on the LP record. And, really, 12 is a good number. You get a great show from 12-7, get an intermission, and then the top dogs duke it out from there. I like it and don't think it has to change.

Now, for the addtional corps, that's where Thursday (everyone) and Friday (top 25 - up from 15 in the past few years) come into play.

Although the big prizes are handed out on Saturday night, I tend to look at Thursday-Saturday as one big event. That's why we've made it point over the past number of years to take in all 3 days. It's the best week off the year!

[corpsband]

Well, that argument is a little different. What you are saying is that there are more competitive players around to fill more competitive soccer teams than there are competitive marchers to fill competitive drum corps. That's a supply and demand issue, and I won't necessarily disagree with you that the supply and demand for drum corps is different that for sports. That's really the overall problem isn't it?

Supply? Probably not. Total number of sufficiently competent performers graduating from HS far exceed the available slots in every drum corps.

There's a disconnect. Many kids -- even in competitive marching bands -- don't know and have never seen drum corps.

[Eleran]

Supply? Probably not. Total number of sufficiently competent performers graduating from HS far exceed the available slots in every drum corps.

There's a disconnect. Many kids -- even in competitive marching bands -- don't know and have never seen drum corps.

Yes, but I consider that a limitation to "supply" - if the talented kids are not pursuing drum corps (either through lack of interest, lack of funds, or lack of knowledge), then I don't consider them in the supply cycle. POTENTIAL supply, yes, but not actually there yet.

The HS band model see the same problem on a local level. In our school district, for example, there will be over 400 eligible musicians in the concert programs grades 8-12 that could march next Fall (all of them would be competent to march), but we'll probably only field about 65 musicians (guard is extra), and I'd say only 1/4 - 1/3 of those 65 are in the upper echelon of band programs in the schools, so we have a lot of top quality musicians that are here, but are not in our supply.

So the difficult issues are how to turn the potential supply into actual supply.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Eleran

[perc2100]

There's a disconnect. Many kids -- even in competitive marching bands -- don't know and have never seen drum corps.

and if we're being honest, have a TON of other things on their plate and wouldn't have time to commit mid-May-mid-August plus at least once a month from Thanksgiving-May for camps. All while paying traveling expenses and thousands of dollars in corps fees. For people that love the activity, it's worth it. For people who want playing experience there are soooooooo many more legit summer playing experiences that cost similar or less with a significantly smaller time commitment (thus allowing college kid to work most of the summer).

I think it's a disservice to write things off as "kids don't know or have never seen drum corps" when the situation is far more complicated. What you're saying is obviously true, but a bigger piece of the puzzle would be an addendum of "and many kids don't care about drum corps and/or are unable to afford either financial or time commitments."

[perc2100]

Yes, but I consider that a limitation to "supply" - if the talented kids are not pursuing drum corps (either through lack of interest, lack of funds, or lack of knowledge), then I don't consider them in the supply cycle. POTENTIAL supply, yes, but not actually there yet.

The HS band model see the same problem on a local level. In our school district, for example, there will be over 400 eligible musicians in the concert programs grades 8-12 that could march next Fall (all of them would be competent to march), but we'll probably only field about 65 musicians (guard is extra), and I'd say only 1/4 - 1/3 of those 65 are in the upper echelon of band programs in the schools, so we have a lot of top quality musicians that are here, but are not in our supply.

So the difficult issues are how to turn the potential supply into actual supply.

No to mention that I suspect a LOT more parents and kids see a heavy sports commitment as a "normal" thing (since there are not only so many different sports/leagues kids can get involved in vs one DCI AND there are more parents who did sports than super competitive HS marching band). I also think the leagues and travel leagues really push the "this is a way for scholarships" angle FAR more than they reasonably should, so parents believe "if my kid gets good at a sport they can pay for college w/athletic scholarship." DCI pushes itself more of a competitive experience ("Marching Music's Major League"); you have to do a bit of digging to get the sense that this is also a great educational opportunity that could help students build chops & skillsets that help in life. It's hard, because DCI seems to gear itself towards college-aged membership, so the "scholarship" angle is off the table: kids are left to more independently get involved, vs parents so there's potentially quite a bit of disconnect there.

I turn potential supply to actual supply, I think DCI would have to significantly revamp it's operation and get some sort of scholastic or HS student circuit going to hook kids & parents early. Even WGI's new wind class is such a different animal, I don't think that would significantly help HS kids jump into the DCI pool; and of course a lot of the corps don't have a plethora of HS members until you get to the lower-placing corps who generally take almost anyone who auditions in order to fill spots/pay bills. I suspect this is not a priority of DCI's, and maybe soundsport could be a way to foster that sort of concept. But I don't think that's an active goal/plan for DCI at this time.

[2muchcoffeeman]

Sure you could move the limit down to 15. But that just means the 16th place corps will be complaining in the same fashion as 13th is now. It's all arbitrary -- it doesn't matter *where* you set the boundary, the boundary will be arbitrary.

Right. And that is the basis for my proposition in the first place. What is the point to an arbitrary number of corps competing on Saturday night? What does it accomplish -- other than contributing to the "finals or die" culture that contributes to talent concentration and thus placement inertia? If we are to limit the number of corps competing on Saturday, let's at least have a good reason to do so, a reason that supports the overall vitality of the drum-corps activity. I have yet to hear one.

There is the argument, expressed higher in this thread, that by allowing 25 corps on the field on Saturday, "you remove the competitive incentive provided by the elimination format."

This argument doesn't wash, for a few reasons.

First, the DCI champion is not selected by "elmination format." The DCI champion is the highest-scoring corps on the field among 12 competitors at a single show on the last day of the season. No one is eliminated. All scores are put on the sheet, and the one on top is crowned champion. I suppose you could say, on finals night currently, 11 corps are "eliminated" from first place. But that is not evidence in favor of narrowing the number of participants from show to show. It is only another way of saying the highest score wins. In any case, there is not a logical reason why the DCI champion could not also be the best on the field among XX competitors. It's the same method as is currently used.

Second, show-to-show elimination is not part of DCI's way of determing the rankings of corps. Until the second Friday in August, there is no DCI contest anywhere that uses elimination to determine each night's contest winner. Elimination is not the DCI method. Scoring is the DCI method. "Making finals" is not surviving elimination; it's an acknowledged arbitrary cuttoff point that just as easily could be been set at 8 or 10 or 15.

Think of it as a number line, zero at the left end, 100 at the right end. The reason every kid is out there busting his or her butt every day is to push their corps' number as far to the right as possible. Some do it as a measure of self-improvement or team improvement; others with more competitive motives do it to overtake other corps on the number line; most MMs probably are motivated by some sort of blend of the two. Whatever their personal brew of motives, they are brought to the field at an early-season contest in June, and to the field on the second Friday in August. I have yet to hear any evidence they would suddenly abandon that motivation on Saturday.

Finals has a glamour, an exclusivity. It's human nature to strive for that status, and there are some who argue it is an engine that powers the drive for the excellence that sets DCI apart.

I believe that's true. And that it is harmful.

Don't misunderstand: The drive for excellence is NOT harmful, and it is to be encouraged. I believe competition is an essential ingredient to drum corps. What is harmful is the way the allure of "finalist" has concentrated talent among a dozen corps, creating rock-hard sedimentary layers to the competitive rankings. Competitive inertia is harmful; it changes the game from best-corps-on-the-field to a contest of who can audition for, and secure a spot in, the highest-ranking corps.

Some kids will continue to hop to corps further to the right on the number line, for a wide variety of reasons. I have not argued that kids should be prevented from experiencing several corps during their years of eligibility. I have not argued that kids should be prevented from pushing themselves to greater excellence in hopes of attaining membership in a top-scoring corps. I have not argued that a XX-corps finals night would put a stop to member movement form corps to corps.

I argue only that it would change the climate a bit. I would reduce the "I must make finals or my DCI years will have been wasted" anxiety that robs some young people of the joy of the drum-corps experience, and that tilts the scales against the 19-25 corps.

An XX-corps finals night is not a silver bullet. It is a tweak to the temperature in the room. Goodness knows, DCI is well-experienced with making tweaks to its competitive elements. This should be a no-brainer.

There was a time when DCI staged a parade on finals Saturday, for corps who did not qualify for the contest that night. Members called it "the parade of losers." Don't tell me that a finals reserved only for an arbitrarily determined number of corps doesn't have a warping effect.

Edited May 25, 2016 by 2muchcoffeeman