Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Well, the last numbered item appears to be 43, and I still haven't found Webb's deposition.

So now I'm wondering if I just missed Webb talking about this in his trial testimony. I see the judge, in the portion of the decision that garfield initially brought to our attention, specifies that it was in Webb's "testimony at trial" that he made the statement we've been attempting to parse second-hand. That's parts 28-29 of the files, for anyone with sharper eyes than mine.

Here are two legal blog posts about the case that might help with this search:

Title IX Blog: Quinnipiac Volleyball Players Win Title IX Decision

Connecticut Sports Law: Competitive Cheering a Varsity Sport?

I see that they include links to news stories that might have details not uploaded in those files I checked.

(Some helpful analysis of the case here at the Sports Law Canary blog.)

Here's a media article about Webb's testimony that doesn't mention what the judge and defense counsel took from it.

Here's another article on the subject that notes that Wisconsin's Supreme Court had previously ruled that cheerleading is a sport. That article also says:

"Unfortunately, an appropriate governing body has yet to be created for competitive cheer at the high school level. Although athletes regularly compete at local, regional, and national competitions, the organization that currently hosts most of the competitions is Varsity Brands, Incorporated.

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."

Having witnessed this company for some 25+ years as an educator, their simple goal is to use this "cool" & "hip" branding of "SoundSport" by DCI and bring it to the secondary school market as an alternative to local, state, & national competitions for school band programs.  In turn, it will give them much more exposure & a possible "monopoly" for their products.

Could their exposure bring a new opportunities?  Possibly, but time will tell the story with the directors "buying in" and/or "drinking their Kool-Aide".  I just think some of us are missing the "big picture".  Something about the "forest for the trees"?  (This is not directed at N.E Brigand.)

Did anyone know that "SoundSport" is also a wireless headphone product from Bose?  I wonder now about the copyright, etc.  I do see the copyright logo on the DCI product & it looks like Bose markets their product as "SoundSport Free" & "Wireless".   :sneaky: 

 

          

Edited by keystone3ply
cx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, keystone3ply said:

Having witnessed this company for some 25+ years as an educator, their simple goal is to use this "cool" & "hip" branding of "SoundSport" by DCI and bring it to the secondary school market as an alternative to local, state, & national competitions for school band programs.  In turn, it will give them much more exposure & a possible "monopoly" for their products.

Could their exposure bring a new opportunities?  Possibly, but time will tell the story with the directors "buying in" and/or "drinking their Kool-Aide".  I just think some of us are missing the "big picture".  Something about the "forest for the trees"?  (This is not directed at N.E Brigand.)

Did anyone know that "SoundSport" is also a wireless headphone product from Bose?  I wonder now about the copyright, etc.  I do see the copyright logo on the DCI product & it looks like Bose markets their product as "SoundSport Free" & "Wireless".   :sneaky: 

 

          

Copyright!?  SPONSORSHIP!

😀

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, keystone3ply said:

Did anyone know that "SoundSport" is also a wireless headphone product from Bose?  I wonder now about the copyright, etc.  I do see the copyright logo on the DCI product & it looks like Bose markets their product as "SoundSport Free" & "Wireless".   :sneaky: 

 

          

No, it is better than wireless.  It is "wirelesss".

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, garfield said:

And please, while the quote does exist, and I grant your interpretation is as valid in your mind as mine is in mine, can we please keep in mind two things:

1.  The very quote being challenged as the standard operating procedure for Varsity states "At  <  ONE > ..." event.  Webb said "ONE" event out of the hundreds of events (thousands?) that Varsity programs promote, and

2.  My understanding and belief are taken from, and backed by, the very words of the judge.  I'm not interested in debating possible interpretations of his grammar and syntax and I'm presuming that the verbiage, syntax, and grammar have been combed through in minutia by the parties that were directly affected, and some massively and financially, by the decision.

I mean, I love to BS scenarios and, for FUN, I'm perfectly willing to enter into a banter about "what ifs" the activity might face and what its leader should do UPOD.  But, in the end, I'm not so passionate about the discussion that I care to risk losing friends or spurring the scorn of anyone, for that matter.

Does the quote exist? I think it has to, but no one yet seems to be able to find it. I mean: we have yet to read what Webb actually said in this trial about scoring and the use of props. All we've seen from the trial documents on that subject are the defendant's attorney's and the judge's characterization of what Webb said (which, as I have said, is debatable, as your own reasonable interpretation shows). We've also seen later reports characterizing what Webb said, but it's not clear to me that those rely on his actual words or on the judge's description thereof.

Those later reports I mentioned refer, as you say, to this happening at just one event. But the judge doesn't say that. I'm inclined to agree with you that this may not have been the regular practice of Varsity's events, but we really don't know.

Given this lack of information, I think we're stuck on this point and just have to move on.

Edited by N.E. Brigand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, garfield said:

Your point here is the KEY part of the discussion that I have been loathe to bring up for fear of starting another attack by the purists.

And I would side with the purists.  I do not think it is ethical for the governing body of a competition as equipment-dependent as DCI to also be a supplier of said equipment.  For me, it would strain the credibility of DCI competition in a pro-wrestling sort of way.

But since "new revenue streams" are a desired topic of discussion for DCI, it deserves discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, garfield said:

I've already been encouraged to announce my snark before I say it to avoid hurting feelings of other posters.  Thereby, the next paragraph is dripping with snark and sarcasm even as I mean it to be encouraging.

While I appreciate that you may feel 45 minutes listening to a Podcast of opinions is less taxing than reading the actual court documents, I would encourage you to remember that, according to many people here and elsewhere, I'm not that smart.  (And, in many circumstances, I can't disagree.)  Therefor, you shouldn't believe me and, at the same time see that, if I can do it, so can you.

So far, darn near everything I've seen as evidence that Varsity is a bad partner is from other's opinions, and only one source needed - and obtained - are the opinions written by the courts that heard the evidence.

The class-action now pending (look closely at the relationships among the plaintiffs) is also worth a discussion, but elsewhere.

 

Thanks for the snark warning.

I agree that listening to a 45 minute podcast is less taxing for me than sifting through legal documents. I can listen to it while I cut my lawn, which is how I do it. On the other hand, reading legal documents for me is like having a tooth extracted, so I am sincere when I thank you for doing it. (I tend to be an auditory learner.) Also, I never heard anyone say you aren’t smart. We disagree on many issues, but I would never deny your intelligence.

Edited by Jurassic Lancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, garfield said:

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.

 

With today's society a judge's decision might as well be the guy at the VFW giving you financial advise. People do not respect a Judges or Jury decision any more. Sort of disgusting in my opinion. 

Then even when shown video proff off something people will find an excuse or create their own reality. Bits and pieces of info taken out of context to support a discussion and proclaimed as the truth. Story is getting old. 

What would we expect from people who get their facts from a podcast named drum corps af?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, garfield said:

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.

I hate to be a pest about this, but we need to be clear that still haven't seen Jeff Webb's actual words on the relationship between props and scoring at Varsity's competitions.

All we have seen are the words of the judge and the attorney for the defendants in the case in which Webb appeared as a witness.

Most people interpret those words as indicating that in at least one event, higher scores were awarded to those groups that used Varsity's pom-poms.

You have offered an alternate and not unreasonable reading of the judge's words. You may yet be shown to be right about that, but at the moment, you do seem to be pretty much alone in that interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, E3D said:

With today's society a judge's decision might as well be the guy at the VFW giving you financial advise. People do not respect a Judges or Jury decision any more. Sort of disgusting in my opinion.

Yes, sometimes judges are wrong. That's been true for as long as there have been judges. Dred Scott (1857)? Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)? Korematsu (1944)? Nobody would defend any of those rulings nowadays, and they're all more than 75 years old. So let's not pretend this has anything to do with "today's society".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...