DCI partnering with Varsity Performing Arts to launch "SoundSport Scholastic" events

[E3D]

Thanks for keeping us all updated on your Wed evening readings. 

[Jurassic Lancer]

36 minutes ago, E3D said:

Thanks for keeping us all updated on your Wed evening readings. 

Yes, thank you @garfield and @N.E. Brigand for wading through these legal documents and reporting on the salient points. I don’t have the patience for it. I sincerely appreciate it.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Jurassic Lancer

[Jeff Ream]

20 hours ago, garfield said:

Evidence, please, because this is patently false.

They were scored higher for using props.  They were not scored higher for using Varsity props - that part is made up.

Read the claim.  If those making the claim are bringing the worst with which to win, even THEY DON'T SAY THAT IN THEIR CLAIM, so who are you going to believe?

I showed research support.  Still waiting for the proof of the claim that Varsity props scored higher.

There’s more than blocking advertising and distribution at these competitions. Webb admitted that in at least one contest, cheerleaders got more points if they used more Varsity equipment as props. In other words, it’s not just a rigged game as some sort of metaphor, Varsity actually rigged the rules of its cheerleading competition to coerce purchases of Varsity products. Indeed, Webb has testified in court that the competitions exist solely for the “promotion of his cheerleading supply business.”

 

 

https://promarket.org/2020/02/04/like-microsoft-but-with-more-glitter-the-cheerleading-monopoly-problem/

 

 

you're welcome

[N.E. Brigand]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

There’s more than blocking advertising and distribution at these competitions. Webb admitted that in at least one contest, cheerleaders got more points if they used more Varsity equipment as props. In other words, it’s not just a rigged game as some sort of metaphor, Varsity actually rigged the rules of its cheerleading competition to coerce purchases of Varsity products. Indeed, Webb has testified in court that the competitions exist solely for the “promotion of his cheerleading supply business.”

https://promarket.org/2020/02/04/like-microsoft-but-with-more-glitter-the-cheerleading-monopoly-problem/

you're welcome

Just fyi, based on his reading of the judge's decision in the case, garfield disputes that claim from that Houston Press article (which doesn't actually quote Webb saying that, although it's important to remember that they gave Varsity a chance to comment before publishing, as most journalists do, and Varsity didn't deny the claim). I agree with you and think garfield misread the decision (although the judge could have been clearer), and I think the closing argument by the defendant's attorney in that civil case futher bolsters that claim, but I have failed to locate Webb actually saying so (or anything one way or the other) in the trial transcript. 

Edit: And I see you've now noticed the same thing yourself, so feel free to ignore this post.

Edited September 3, 2020 by N.E. Brigand

[Jeff Ream]

20 hours ago, garfield said:

This is that linear thinking again.

Varsity doesn't have a musical scoring rulebook.

for now however they have gotten very active in the licensing end of things

[Jeff Ream]

20 hours ago, garfield said:

And?  That's bad how?

Only in The Globetrotters (and maybe drum corps) is fake competition created for the sake of entertainment.  In the business world, competitors are squashed in real-life death matches for survival.

 

 

i'm all for competition. Varsity isn't and in their own ruebook they state if your group is found to compete in a competitors circuit, you'll get disqualified.

 

so hey Ronald reagan, you compete here and BOA....we dq you.

[Jeff Ream]

20 hours ago, garfield said:

Again, study the Varsity business model and not the headlines.  Their business M.O. is to recognize good management teams and help them become great while sharing in the resulting profit increases.

Your characterization of their business practice is flat-out wrong; apparently you view "improve" and "substitute" as synonymous.  Again, look at the business of Just Briefs for your proof; your description of Varsity doesn't jibe with that specific case, and not with any case I can find of Varsity purchasing another company.

 

i have done a lot of reading their business model. How'd that work out for ma bell?

[Jeff Ream]

19 hours ago, garfield said:

The DCI rulebook forbids any drum corps from participating in any performance or competition with any other member corps except at DCI sanctioned events.

 

yes but scholastic circuits don't.

[Jeff Ream]

19 hours ago, garfield said:

Again, false.

Their owner said that teams score better for using more props, not exclusively Varsity props.  At the time of the article, there were more than 50 companies whose props were all allowed at Varsity events.  However, those companies were not allowed to sell those props at Varsity events where Varsity was allowed to sell its own gear.

This claim is one of those where an important word (in this case) is inserted, is never challenged, and is allowed to grow into its own life as a fake truism.

If this claim were the fact, the Class Action filed would make that claim.  Instead, it claims that teams were allowed to use any makers props, were awarded points for using more props, and Varsity sells props. 

 

 

 

see a few posts up. quote and article link provided

[Jeff Ream]

7 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I have bolded the passage that is central to our discussion, but unfortunately, the judge is not clear. Does anyone have a link to Webb's actual testimony about this?*

Here's why it's not clear: there are two ways to read that line.

Let's put the relevant paragraph from which you you cite here in its entirety, with that particular sentence underlined:

"As was true with the UCA’s competitive events, Webb did not believe that his NCA competitions would eventually establish a sport that would, some day, be recognized by athletics organizations such as the NCAA. Instead, he envisioned NCA competitions as a further promotion of his cheerleading supply business. Indeed, testimony at trial revealed that the NCA’s scoring system was intertwined with the promotion of Varsity Brands. During the 'spirit' portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives. Webb testified that he was not averse to competitive cheerleading eventually becoming an independent sport. Still, as a sideline cheerleading purist, Webb wants competitive cheer to be distinguished from traditional sideline cheer out of concern that competitive cheer will threaten his competitions – for instance, competitive cheer might annex certain moves and routines from sideline cheer – and lead to confusion about the difference between the two forms of cheerleading. Webb did not think that the rise of competitive cheer would hurt his business, however. On the contrary, he welcomed its emergence, believing that the creation of new competitive cheer teams at high schools, colleges, and universities would increase demand for Varsity Brands’ products and services."

Remember that the question that the judge is trying to answer in the part of the decision based on the facts laid out here is this: is cheerleading a sport? To put it briefly: this was a case in which a university got rid of its women's vollyeball team. Members of the team and the coach sued the university claiming discrimination against women's sports. The university said that, on the contrary, it simultaneously launched a new women's cheerleading team, and that cheerleading is a sport. The judge's decision was that cheerleading is not a sport (and thus that the university had violated Title IX), and part of the reason it's not a sport is the way that so much of its governance is in the hands of this private company named Varsity instead of the usual kind of organization that oversees sports.

I think it's really important that the underlined sentence immediately follows the judge saying that "the NCA's scoring system was intertwined with the promotion of Varsity Brands."

The key sentence that you cite is thus meant to prove that phrase; it's the judge saying: here's how Varsity promotion is intertwined with the scores.

But I can see why you interpreted it the other way, and if I were the judge, I would have written it this way instead:

"During the 'spirit' portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more Varsity props a team uses, the more points that team receives."

I believe the judge thought readers would assume the word "Varsity" that I have added was implied by the first half of his sentence.

- - - - - - - - - -

*OK, I just found Webb's testimony, which I will read and then link and discuss in a separate reply. We'll see if I'm right or wrong about what he said.

There is one looming problem for Varsity. Last year, the NCAA, which controls college athletics, established a cheerleading-like sport called “Acrobatics and Tumbling,” and placed control of the sport not under Varsity but under scandal-ridden USA Gymnastics. In other words, the only thing that has stopped Varsity was another more powerful monopoly.

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/this-is-not-a-democracy-its-a-cheerocracy