A Modest Proposal

[ShortyRock]

7 hours ago, craiga said:

Since the busses they use are 55 passenger busses, they would still need three.  But at 128 members, the third bus would be half full, so no savings in what is the biggest expense. 

There are passenger/charter busses that have fewer than 55 seats so using a 55 seat bus is not necessarily required.  I don't know the cost difference between buying/chartering busses of different sizes but a 128 member corps might still create a transportation cost savings versus a 150ish size corps.  

[ContraFart]

10 hours ago, lowend said:

How much would it save to drop back to 128 members?

That's the million dollar question. Many people think that is the answer, but in all actually it is not. 

[ContraFart]

1 hour ago, ShortyRock said:

There are passenger/charter busses that have fewer than 55 seats so using a 55 seat bus is not necessarily required.  I don't know the cost difference between buying/chartering busses of different sizes but a 128 member corps might still create a transportation cost savings versus a 150ish size corps.  

Not in the least. The rental and fuel costs will be almost identical. If there are any savings at all, it will pale in comparison to the additional tour fees of 30 more members

 

[IllianaLancerContra]

19 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

Not in the least. The rental and fuel costs will be almost identical. If there are any savings at all, it will pale in comparison to the additional tour fees of 30 more members

 

What they need to figure out is how to get by w/ fewer vehicles as the number of vehicles apparently drives the cost, not the size.  

[lowend]

6 hours ago, ShortyRock said:

There are passenger/charter busses that have fewer than 55 seats so using a 55 seat bus is not necessarily required.  I don't know the cost difference between buying/chartering busses of different sizes but a 128 member corps might still create a transportation cost savings versus a 150ish size corps.  

I also wonder what the savings cost for 128 would be in terms of food, equipment, insurance, needing less staff, fewer props on the field, etc.

[DudleytheWest]

Well I think DCI needs to level the playing field. This is why pro sports have salary caps - to level the playing field. There's none of that here. If there were maximum thresholds on each component of the budget it would bring down costs and create a level playing field.

If Troopers can operate a program for $1.1M in 2019, then why do the Blue Devils need to spend $4.7M? Answer - to win. This is why a corps like the Troopers will NEVER beat the Blue Devils. How can $1.1M compete with $4.7M? 

[Weaklefthand4ever]

On 12/14/2022 at 7:30 AM, Terri Schehr said:

Raising the number of members per corps was never a good idea.  They were/are hurting the lower placing corps. I don’t know if it was deliberately.  But I understand that they’re completely self-serving so no surprise there. 

This really got me to thinking. I would assume that the push was "Bigger 'cast' = bigger show = bigger score." Because my original music education career path was in choral music, I always kind of think of it like you would a stage production. Historically, very few small-cast stage productions do exceptionally well in the short term (I can think of two that were big hits....The Secret Garden with Mandi Patinkin and Evita.) Big shows generate big revenue. 

I think this applies to the drum corps world. You can do more vertical staging and other theatrical "stuff" with 154 cats than you can with 128 and that's going to push the scores to follow that mindset. Maybe I'm wrong. Tell me if I am, but I think it almost makes sense. 

[Jeff Ream]

19 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

I was not suggesting going back to olive drab wool and Sam Browne belts.

I was talking uniforms made in 2014

[DudleytheWest]

On 12/14/2022 at 4:30 AM, Terri Schehr said:

Raising the number of members per corps was never a good idea.  They were/are hurting the lower placing corps. I don’t know if it was deliberately.  But I understand that they’re completely self-serving so no surprise there. 

Exactly. I have thought of this too. I know it's not exactly like this, but this is how I have thought of it.

In 2022:

• 15 people that would have marched Bluecoats marched Blue Devils.
• 30 people that would have marched Vanguard marched Bluecoats.
• 45 people that would have marched Crown marched Vanguard.
• 60 people that would have marched Cavaliers marched Crown.
• 75 people that would have marched Boston marched Cavies.
• 90 people that would have marched Blue Knights marched Boston.

I think you get the picture here. This is what I'm talking about re: level playing field. The top corps seemingly steam roll the activity to the point where every change seems to benefit the top corps to the detriment of the lower corps.

It's irresponsible and stupid. DCI should be striving to grow the activity, not shrink it.

[Jeff Ream]

40 minutes ago, DudleytheWest said:

Well I think DCI needs to level the playing field. This is why pro sports have salary caps - to level the playing field. There's none of that here. If there were maximum thresholds on each component of the budget it would bring down costs and create a level playing field.

If Troopers can operate a program for $1.1M in 2019, then why do the Blue Devils need to spend $4.7M? Answer - to win. This is why a corps like the Troopers will NEVER beat the Blue Devils. How can $1.1M compete with $4.7M? 

Pro sports have players that get paid.