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

[garfield]

6 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

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.

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.

Edited September 3, 2020 by garfield

[garfield]

4 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

That sounds like VFW/AL.

EDIT: Sorry, I see you were pointing to a specific and my reply below doesn't necessarily address that specific similarity.  I don't think they're far apart, though, because they both represent the basic human desire to see something good expand and grow in a controllable way.

I wonder: Would drum corps as we know it even exist today but for the VFW/AL and churches that first fostered it?  Would cheer be what it is had it not been for Webb?

One decision (yank away from VFW/AL and we have drum corps today) and the other decision (make it profitable and engage thousands, millions world wide) resulted in a nearly two-billion-dollar organization that youngins' are, literally, hurting themselves to join.  (See, I'm not wearing blinders to the reasons Webb claim(s) cheer is not a sport.)

As I've chewed on this, the greatest distinction between the operating MOs is largely that drum corps is non-profit and cheer is, largely, for-profit.  But in both cases, the activity is organized to craft programs that are so attractive that both kids and sponsors are willing to throw money at it to do it.  And MORE kids.  GLOBALLY.

Hmm...  AL?  VFW?  Varsity?  Not sure it's the same at all, in fact.

Edited September 3, 2020 by garfield

[cixelsyd]

5 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. 

This seems like a fair summary of what we know so far.  And (excuse the pun) props to N.E. Brigand for digging through the court docs.

That said... if the allegation is that Varsity made rules that gave more points for use of Varsity products, then the evidence of that should be in their rule book.

[garfield]

8 hours ago, Jurassic Lancer said:

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.

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.

 

[garfield]

7 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

This seems like a fair summary of what we know so far.  And (excuse the pun) props to N.E. Brigand for digging through the court docs.

That said... if the allegation is that Varsity made rules that gave more points for use of Varsity products, then the evidence of that should be in their rule book.

I would encourage you to peruse the Varsity webpages - they have outstanding resources of judging rubrics (you think DCI's rules are hard to understand?  Wait until you read cheers!).  I have "perused" (specifically not scanned in details) to find any reference at all to criteria for costume brands used or prop brands used.  I do clearly see the metrics for the "cheer" minute before the tumbling portions where teams are encouraged to use all props necessarily needed to excite the crowds and get their response levels up.

Good gooly, this sounds just terrible.  Terrible.  Drum corps is doomed.

(OK, do I really?  That last was sarcasm...)

 

[cixelsyd]

14 hours ago, garfield said:

The facts, as he sees, do show two components: one is that non-Varsity props were allowed at Varsity events and the other is that teams received more points for using more props.

Maybe there is more to it than that.  But if not, it still establishes a business model to reward use of props, while simultaneously profiting from the sale of those same props.

Getting back to an earlier contention of yours... 

On 8/30/2020 at 1:31 PM, garfield said:

But to suggest that DCI can't learn a bunch from a billion-dollar performance organization is complete folly.

... but you can learn from them without going to all the trouble and risk of a contractual partnership venture.  For instance, the example here teaches that perhaps more money can be made by taking greater ownership/market share of the supplies required to compete effectively in your activity.  To restate that in DCI strategic plan language, DCI could "generate new revenue streams" by getting into the uniform/costume business.  Or props.  Or tarps.  Or mixing board carts hardened for outdoor use.  Or even the manufacture of horns and drums.

[cixelsyd]

40 minutes ago, garfield said:

I wonder: Would drum corps as we know it even exist today but for the VFW/AL and churches that first fostered it? 

No.

I have considerable appreciation for the contribution VFW/AL have made to the activity over the decades.  But when it comes to the specific issue I commented on, I find it silly to insist that 50 state championships and one national should be the model.  It worked for VFW/AL because they were already having conventions in each state anyway.

[garfield]

42 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Maybe there is more to it than that.  But if not, it still establishes a business model to reward use of props, while simultaneously profiting from the sale of those same props.

Getting back to an earlier contention of yours... 

... but you can learn from them without going to all the trouble and risk of a contractual partnership venture.  For instance, the example here teaches that perhaps more money can be made by taking greater ownership/market share of the supplies required to compete effectively in your activity.  To restate that in DCI strategic plan language, DCI could "generate new revenue streams" by getting into the uniform/costume business.  Or props.  Or tarps.  Or mixing board carts hardened for outdoor use.  Or even the manufacture of horns and drums.

Thank you for not taking offense at my counter.

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.

One of DCI's committee's is referred to as the "New Revenue" committee.  You list many of the ideas worth salivating over if you were sitting on that committee, eh?

I can't tell you how many times over the years I've heard a response to a "Sounds Crazy, Might Work" idea was "drum corps doesn't have the scale to do those things".

It's not directly linear, but I think DCI's bigger problem is being relevant enough to keep Varsity's interest.  

Edited September 3, 2020 by garfield
spelling

[garfield]

19 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Maybe there is more to it than that.  But if not, it still establishes a business model to reward use of props, while simultaneously profiting from the sale of those same props.

Getting back to an earlier contention of yours... 

... but you can learn from them without going to all the trouble and risk of a contractual partnership venture.  For instance, the example here teaches that perhaps more money can be made by taking greater ownership/market share of the supplies required to compete effectively in your activity.  To restate that in DCI strategic plan language, DCI could "generate new revenue streams" by getting into the uniform/costume business.  Or props.  Or tarps.  Or mixing board carts hardened for outdoor use.  Or even the manufacture of horns and drums.

Absolutely, and I would suggest that what you describe is exactly why DCI was open (anxious?) to enter the discussion.  Let's face it, from a revenue perspective, SS is apparently a wonderful idea that is underperforming its potential, and maybe by a lot, which might be why Varsity be interested in the first place.  Sorry that it sounds blunt, but what will DCI lose if the idea tanks and VarsitySS is ignored by scholastics?

Committing SS feels much more like that "baby step" you describe would be prudent for DCI.

[garfield]

10 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

No.

I have considerable appreciation for the contribution VFW/AL have made to the activity over the decades.  But when it comes to the specific issue I commented on, I find it silly to insist that 50 state championships and one national should be the model.  It worked for VFW/AL because they were already having conventions in each state anyway.

Yes, sorry for my misdirect.  I agree.  DCI has an opportunity via Covid and via the potential Varsity association to reimagine what an ACTUAL long-term strategic plan might look like and have some avenues for funding that doesn't require the corps pitch in current cash (when they can't afford it) to make it work.

Frankly, this feels much more to me like one of those "Signs" of life that the activity should take seriously for reasons that might not be evidently in front of it.