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

[MikeD]

17 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.”

 

 

 

The actual court transcript of the statement by Webb, with its commas and semi-colon, does not make it clear that he is saying groups get more points for using Varsity props (i.e. pom poms). It could be read that yes, groups using props in that particular competition get more points for using props, and yes, Varsity manufacturers props, but it doesn't state that only Varsity makes props or that Varsity props get more weight than any other props. 

 

[N.E. Brigand]

1 minute ago, MikeD said:

The actual court transcript of the statement by Webb, with its commas and semi-colon, does not make it clear that he is saying groups get more points for using Varsity props (i.e. pom poms). It could be read that yes, groups using props in that particular competition get more points for using props, and yes, Varsity manufacturers props, but it doesn't state that only Varsity makes props or that Varsity props get more weight than any other props. 

Can you quote from that transcript? I read what I believe is all of Webb's testimony at the trial, and I can't find where he says what the judge and the defendant's attorney say that he said. I am baffled and would really love the help, please.

[garfield]

4 hours 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

Cut and paste from the same couple of 5-year old articles citing ten year old testimony that circularly support one another's contentions?  That's the "proof"?  Pfft.  Crappy research, IMO.  More like a circle-jerk.  And most researchers point those they're trying to convince to actual paragraphs and sentences - not whole articles that they have to weed through to find the one supporting piece of evidence.  I presume this is the paragraph that keeps getting repeated:

"Webb’s 2010 testimony, however, implies that Varsity actually views cheerleading as less than a sport. He testified that Varsity’s competitions were established only for “promotion of his cheerleading supply business.” In one competition, Webb admitted, teams received more points if they used more Varsity merchandise as props."

Also from the provided "research":

"According to Leigh Buchanan in Inc., “Teams appearing in Varsity competitions can wear whatever uniforms they want. But rival apparel makers can’t show their wares at those events, which are important showrooms for cheer merchandise.”

And this person quoted who believed at the time of the comment in 2014): "

This level of control hasn’t gone unnoticed. As one person in the cheerleading world sarcastically put it in 2014:

“Shocking that they don’t have officially sanctioned Varsity make-up, underwear, and no-show socks yet (or maybe they do, who knows?) I can foresee the Varsity Secret Police (the same ones that patrol the lobbies of non-STP hotels looking for girls in bows & bling) checking each athlete in warm-ups to make sure they are wearing Varsity brand hair clips and rubber bands.”

OK, "shocking", but they don't.

 

"You're welcome" before "Thank You" is snark, but not unexpected.

Edited September 3, 2020 by garfield

[garfield]

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

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.

Hmmm... sounds like DCI is partnering up with a company that thinks exactly as they do!

(See my earlier post about DCI forbidding performances (EDIT for clarity: with other drum corps) outside of DCI-sanctioned functions.)

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by garfield

[garfield]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

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

You mean the company that continued for 106 years before it was broken up, and then for another 37 years since?  I don't know; the dividend is pretty good and they have a LOT of copper and the real-estate that it hangs from in front of most houses.  

Pretty well for Alexander G. Bell.  Not so much for those of us who were expecting lower prices, better service, and more competition after the split up.

[Careful, just fair warning: the Bell Telephone "split up" was the first full-blown case analysis I did for real in 1984.  I used that work to address exactly your question in 1994 at U of Penn.  My final answer?  It worked out pretty darn well (depending on how one measures "success") for the original players and for the industry, which eventually spawned the companies that we use today.  Is the claim now that Ma Bell's breakup has resulted in everyone today being fabulously in love with their phone provider, lower prices, better service?  And, if you'd care to discuss what happened to each of the "baby bells" as a result of the this fabulous idea to break up the Bell System...  So, please don't try to convince anyone that every breakup of a claimed monopoly is good for society, or that breaking up Varsity, or preventing it from its (so far proven legal) business practices is going to automatically be better for the cheer industry.]

 

[garfield]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

see a few posts up. quote and article link provided

Again, circular support quoting and re-quoting a statement doesn't make it patently true.   Quoting lay-people's opinions as a counter to that of a judge and the law isn't proof or evidence, it's just opinion.  

I'll take the judge's opinion as the one society must respect until/unless it's overturned.

 

[garfield]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

yes but scholastic circuits don't.

But DCI isn't scholastic.  So the whole linear argument that Varsity will do with non-scholastic programs what they already do with scholastic programs is a presumption, not fact or even based in fact.

[garfield]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream 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

 

And doesn't that, therefor and by definition, state that Varsity is NOT a monopoly if such a decision even CAN be made?

Does "scandal-ridden" describe Varsity or its competitor?  Is the NCAA lauded for this move?  

And I presume it's one that the anti-Varsity crowd applauds, but it sounds like the NCAA is getting into bed with an even worse org than Varsity.

[garfield]

4 hours ago, MikeD said:

The actual court transcript of the statement by Webb, with its commas and semi-colon, does not make it clear that he is saying groups get more points for using Varsity props (i.e. pom poms). It could be read that yes, groups using props in that particular competition get more points for using props, and yes, Varsity manufacturers props, but it doesn't state that only Varsity makes props or that Varsity props get more weight than any other props. 

 

Right.  And readers are not allowed to insert or redefine any word or phrase to suit their purpose.

The correct presumption is that the judges wording is specific and, if he had meant to say that Varsity was prohibiting others by demanding only Varsity gear be worn and used, it was to his benefit to say so and not to his benefit to omit it if it were fact.

[cixelsyd]

10 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

One of the problems is that Varsity Brands, Incorporated currently hosts more than 66 national championship competitions each year (Penn and Teller, 2010). They are also the organization that profits from the sport of cheer through the sale of uniforms, practice clothes, competition entrance fees, and competition gate fees (300 million annually). In order to bring the sport of competitive cheer within line with other traditional sports, there would need to be one annual state competition (per state) and one national competition.

Whether this can be done by reorganizing the current Varsity competition schedule or through existing state high school athletic organizations is yet to be determined. Reducing 66 national competitions to one national competition and reducing state competitions to one per state might have a financial impact on this company."

That sounds like VFW/AL.