cixelsyd Posted November 27, 2019 Author Share Posted November 27, 2019 12 hours ago, garfield said: It was entirely possible that they would be refused participation. They acted appropriately and they were allowed. But they WERE suspended while they righted the ship to make a season. Sorry, what? Cadets were not suspended. They were placed on probation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted November 27, 2019 Author Share Posted November 27, 2019 12 hours ago, Poppycock said: Nothing actually happened to Cadets not even double secret probation. Probation may seem like "nothing actually happening" from the outside looking in, but... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Reviewing a 990 is not the same thing as a full evaluation. Special circumstances triggering a one-time evaluation is not the same thing as an annual evaluation. My statement still stands. Full evaluations are not regularly (maybe never) performed on pre-existing member corps. That said, I did ask whether that was fair, or wise. Those were sincere questions, not rhetorical, so your responses apply there. Maybe 990 reviews and evaluation triggers are adequate oversight. I am glad to see there is something of that nature in place. Still, the raft of requirements for entry into world-class (combined with all the new the top-25 clauses) leaves me with the instinctive feeling that policies are more focused on controlling the size of the herd, rather than the health of those either in or outside of that herd. O.M.G. THIS. But, to their credit. I've also considered that their answer to controlling the herd is to also focus on the quality of the production entertainment value of each participating corps. They've said for years that they WANT more competitive corps in the top ranks to make shows more entertaining but, to me, this feels as much like they've put the cart before the horse a bit in increasing the minimum. Maybe this is their "stick" approach. And maybe 110 min is a more-realistic number if there's an increase in max MM's on the field. If the max fielded stays at current levels, seeking 110 to even dance on their floor seems too much to my eye. It seems to me that demonstrable persistent movement UP from OC to WC would signal a tightening of the requirements, but I sure don't see that as going on now. Gobble, Gobble. It's their dance in their gym and we're only along for the ride and paying to watch. Edited November 27, 2019 by garfield 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Sorry, what? Cadets were not suspended. They were placed on probation. Do you think they would have been allowed to participate in the DCI tour while they were on "probation" after losing all of their executive and board leadership? I sure don't. One thing I know for sure, with no hesitation, is that Dan Acheson would have absolutely prevented that from happening based on nothing except the safety of the participants. In fact, they were suspended from participation during the time they were on probation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted November 27, 2019 Author Share Posted November 27, 2019 Just now, garfield said: Do you think they would have been allowed to participate in the DCI tour while they were on "probation" after losing all of their executive and board leadership? I sure don't. One thing I know for sure, with no hesitation, is that Dan Acheson would have absolutely prevented that from happening based on nothing except the safety of the participants. In fact, they were suspended from participation during the time they were on probation. No, they were not. They were on probation from April 11, 2018 until May 3, 2019. They participated in the whole 2018 season during that time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 10 hours ago, drumcorpsfever said: An annual operating budget north of $1 million and only a $50,000 net worth requirement? Sure glad they “raised the bar”! Not to mention DCI’s generous show earnings. I think this is a nod to "...so long as you finish in the green each season". I don't think that, prior to now, DCI had any minimum asset size requirement at all and that's surely evident in the annual filings. Darn-near every corps spends within and few dollars of every dime they bring in, every year. I think this is a foolish attempt at mandating financial solvency when,it appears in the evidence that those who spend the most compete best and win. When they change the judging to stop rewarding spending, only then do they have the right to mandate a minimum asset on a corps' balance sheet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted November 27, 2019 Author Share Posted November 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, garfield said: And maybe 110 min is a more-realistic number if there's an increase in max MM's on the field. If the max fielded stays at current levels, seeking 110 to even dance on their floor seems to much to my eye. And again, setting a minimum at any multiple of full buses makes no sense. A minimum of 110 requires either two completely full buses of never-sick, never-hurt kids, or a third bus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: No, they were not. They were on probation from April 11, 2018 until May 3, 2019. They participated in the whole 2018 season during that time. OK, maybe I'm wrong in my semantics. But I do know that they were not headed for tour until they had governance in place and financing complete and had a microscope up their butt for the entire season while they and DCI assured they'd make it home. I know because I saw it and I had emails coming in as it was happening. I was also getting it through USBand channels as well. Yes, probation. But yes also, no tour until governance in place (full stop) and, after that, on probation until they finished the season at home safe and sound. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: And again, setting a minimum at any multiple of full buses makes no sense. A minimum of 110 requires either two completely full buses of never-sick, never-hurt kids, or a third bus. I know you've said this before but I don't think it has grounds. First, I think we can trust that if the min number proves 110 is not doable and they have to change it to 100, they'll do so. Second, the whole notion is the more-important issue, not the logistics of implementing it: to increase the number of MM on the WC stages because of the perception that a corps of that minimum size provides the necessary entertainment and competitive value to the shows DCI and its TEPs produce. Whether it works out to be 102 or something else doesn't greatly change the impact. Edited November 27, 2019 by garfield clarity, more than anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted November 27, 2019 Author Share Posted November 27, 2019 20 minutes ago, garfield said: I know you've said this before but I don't think it has grounds. First, I think we can trust that if the min number proves 110 is not doable and they have to change it to 100, they'll do so. Second, the whole notion is the more-important issue, not the logistics of implementing it, is to increase the number of MM on the WC stages because of the perception that a corps of that size provides the necessary entertainment and competitive value to the shows DCI and its TEPs produce. Whether it works out to be 102 or something else doesn't greatly change the impact. Whose "perception" was that? It seemed to me that both audiences and judges agreed that the 103-member Jersey Surf (2019) was a better entertainment/competitive value than the 118-member Jersey Surf (2018), and quite probably the 135 and 131 that preceded them. Why is that "perception" not being taken into account? 4 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.