Madison Scouts 2018

[Ghost]

21 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

I wish  you would have read my post a bit more carefully,before you start slinging insults.  You quoted one sentence,taken out of context.

I did read the whole post.  Each of your bullet points stand on their own.  The point I quoted was a very poor one and please don't pull out the "taken out of context" card.

[Terri Schehr]

I don’t think any brassline I was in had quotas for females.  I doubt that would ever happen.  

Edited July 3, 2018 by Terri Schehr

[Jeff Ream]

51 minutes ago, queenanne_1536 said:

Well I wouldn't exactly compare Cavies with Madison. They are two different organizations and the Cavaliers are a much bigger draw for talent than Madison is. Since Madison's last win in '88 the Cavaliers have been exponentially more successful from a competitive standpoint than Madison. So saying "the Cavaliers are fine" doesn't mean Madison should to continue to be all male. Honestly, I would never want to march Madison today. No way. I'm obviously not the only one that feels that way.

I think people, at least I do, refer to "turning away half the population" because it is an easy way to phrase it. That's all. Rather than saying "38.2% of the population" - whatever it is. I would also argue the Scouts have having a huge problem filling their spots - with top talent. So why limit yourself? You're already losing with the male population to Cavies, Regiment and Blue Stars, why exclude the female population? 

I get tradition. I get brotherhood. But I also see an organization that is failing. I don't know what the answers are, and of course going co-ed wouldn't be the end all of solving their problems, but it would hopefully help from a talent persepctive, which can help you move up the ranks.

How did Madison fans go from hoping they make top 3 or 5 to hoping they make finals? That tells you right there were the organization is headed, at least competitively.

what is or isnt between a performers legs has nothing to do with the issues plaguing the organization. For the first almost 20 years of DCI's existence, Madison was far more the draw than Cavies were

[queenanne_1536]

31 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

what is or isnt between a performers legs has nothing to do with the issues plaguing the organization. For the first almost 20 years of DCI's existence, Madison was far more the draw than Cavies were

By 1992 that had most definitely changed, if not sooner. Madison was perhaps a bigger draw the first 14-16 years of DCI, which was over 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then. Cavies won 7 titles and have been a perennial top 5 corps, and Madison has been a perennial lower tier of the top 12 corps, missing finals several times. Cavies lowest placement since 1992 was 9th, Madison's highest placement since 1992 was 5th (once, in 1997). Again, comparing them from an all male or co-ed standpoint is useless. One is successful, one isn't. The Cavaliers don't have to figure it out - they already have. What they're doing is working, and they are a much bigger draw than Madison right now. I don't imagine it's even close. Madison needs to figure it out. Whatever the solution may be, Madison needs to find it, and if part of that solution is going co-ed then so be it. If you know a better solution than opening your ranks up to 30% or 40%, whatever that number may be, of the talent pool, then by all means......

Edited July 3, 2018 by queenanne_1536

[MikeRapp]

4 hours ago, rpbobcat said:

First off,the Cavies seem fine with this "dated tradition".

I disagree that, by being all male, the Scouts are "turning away half of the population".

You really need to look into the numbers,as they pertain to participation in this activity. 

If the Scouts were having trouble filling all their slots,opening up the corps to females could be an option.

But I haven't read anywhere that this is an issue.

If not,  then,to me, the 2 reasons   to go co-ed are  economic or societal .

If the organization believes going co-ed would help economically,look into it.

But get an objective study,not just an on line poll,before you pull the trigger.

Any study would have to access the impact of losing a big chunk of  what alumni support you have.

As far as societal,why is wrong to want to maintain the all male tradition in the corps ?

Going co-ed could also reduce the corps talent level.

Are you now going to be required to "slot" a specified number of females,even in they are "out auditioned" by males ?

 

 

 

Well it’s a simple fact that not being coed limits your recruitment by 50%.And everybody who does this knows it’s not about having numbers, it’s having the best, most experienced members. There’s no question that scouts do not have the talent of the top-tier corps.

 

Personally, I would not march in an all-male corps.  whatever benefits there are two a brotherhood don’t match having coed participation for me. I am certainly not everyone, but I would bet I am the norm. So if you narrow your recruitment options by not just all males, but all males who don’t want to march with females, you’ve got a pretty small number .

[queenanne_1536]

3 minutes ago, MikeRapp said:

So if you narrow your recruitment options by not just all males, but all males who don’t want to march with females, you’ve got a pretty small number .

That's a good point I hadn't thought of. I'm sure there are plenty of males that wouldn't want to march in an all male corps. 

[MikeRapp]

I mean, just look at the great female players at bluecoats, blue Devils, crown, SCV And Boston. Go ahead and throw cadets, blue nights, blue stars and Crossman in as well. These are world class athletes  who have years of experience winning medals. Not a single one of these girls can’t even audition for Scouts. If you think this doesn’t hurt not playing and marching ability, then you’re kidding yourself.

[MikeRapp]

I want to be clear that I am a huge fan of Madison. They were one of the groups that got me in love with drum Corps. That’s why it kills me to see them struggling so badly. I grew up in Boy Scouts, took two of my boys through the activity, I am not in anyway on aware of the history of the organization. But at some point Madison has to decide that it is Going to be a competitive organization by today’s standards.

It’s not working, and my fear is they can only go on like this for a little while longer before finances catches up with them permanently.

[GUARDLING]

3 minutes ago, MikeRapp said:

I mean, just look at the great female players at bluecoats, blue Devils, crown, SCV And Boston. Go ahead and throw cadets, blue nights, blue stars and Crossman in as well. These are world class athletes  who have years of experience winning medals. Not a single one of these girls can’t even audition for Scouts. If you think this doesn’t hurt not playing and marching ability, then you’re kidding yourself.

Although this is very true we are looking at 150 members there are plenty of males out there with incredible talent BUT there has to be a reason as to WHY a person should go to a corps.

[MikeRapp]

2 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Although this is very true we are looking at 150 members there are plenty of males out there with incredible talent BUT there has to be a reason as to WHY a person should go to a corps.

It’s so much harder. That’s inarguable. You’re talking about recruiting three times as many potential members to fill the slots. And a lot of the guys are going to scouts no matter what. I just don’t see how they can continue the way they’re going much longer. I realize that going coed would be a huge risk.  But you can’t continue to dig your heels in and say, somehow we’re going to magically out recruit these world-class cores that are destined for contending for a metal because we have history on our side.

Kids today couldn’t care less about history. Most of the Madison alumni are old enough to be these kids grandparents now. I daresay most of these kids never step foot in a Boy Scout troop. Simply saying we have a rich history doesn’t mean squat to 90% of the best kids who want to compete at the highest level.Simply saying we have a rich history doesn’t mean squat to 90% of the best kids who want to compete at the highest level.