One rule change that could modify the game

[Slingerland]

Make a bold proposal.

Mine is to make GE just 25 points of the score and take the 15 points freed up and put them solidly in captions that are unequivocally "execution" oriented.  Why? Because the kids in every corps can commit to cleaning the snot out of the work they're given, but they can't do anything to make a pig of a program all of a sudden well designed. Balance the "execution" element off with an "exposure" element (and yes, that is how it was done back in the day, so we know how it works).

Benefit? It makes five-figure program designers and program coordinators less important to the overall success, hence less important to seek out or retain. Side benefit - it would make it less risky for corps to hire younger designers, and Lord knows, we need some fresh ideas.

[jthomas666]

I like it.

[2muchcoffeeman]

The Elephant in Room: Will 19-year-olds pay for this execution-forward experience? They did in 1980; will they do it again 45 years later?

The biggest revenue driver is camps and tuition. Camps and tuition revenue are directly correlated to prospective-member interest level. Prospective-member interest is driven, first, by the show design that the corps put on the field in August. Show design drives member interest; prove me wrong.

Kids want to be part of something they think will make them cool among their peers.

The Colts are clean. Dollars to donuts that camp numbers at Colts are a fraction of the number at Bloo, and it's not because Bloo is incrementally cleaner. Nothing against Colts; it's just the way it is. Captivating, spellbinding — read: Expensive — design in August draws crowds in November and December. 

tl;dr: Does the customer want to buy what you're selling?

Edited November 7, 2025 by 2muchcoffeeman

[mcjordansc]

More saxophones.

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

The Elephant in Room: Will 19-year-olds pay for this execution-forward experience? They did in 1980; will they do it again 45 years later?

The biggest revenue driver is camps and tuition. Camps and tuition revenue are directly correlated to prospective-member interest level. Prospective-member interest is driven, first, by the show design that the corps put on the field in August. Show design drives member interest; prove me wrong.

Kids want to be part of something they think will make them cool among their peers.

The Colts are clean. Dollars to donuts that camp numbers at Colts are a fraction of the number at Bloo, and it's not because Bloo is incrementally cleaner. Nothing against Colts; it's just business.

tl;dr: Does the customer want to buy what you're selling?

Great points 

[cixelsyd]

10 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

The biggest revenue driver is camps and tuition. Camps and tuition revenue are directly correlated to prospective-member interest level.

Those are two - no, three different things.

Audition numbers certainly say something about "prospective-member interest level".  But subsequent camps whittle that number down for anyone with more than 165 interested.

Meanwhile, the larger revenue item is tuition.  But tuition says little about "prospective-member interest level".  Frankly, corps are limited by market forces.  They have to charge a proportionally similar amount for what they provide, compared to their competitors.  And if a few affluent corps at the top are charging half of what other live-in summer programs charge, then the whole activity ends up chronically undercharging members.  That may be a topic for another thread.

Quote

Prospective-member interest is driven, first, by the show design that the corps put on the field in August.

But no one gets to audition for a spot in the design of a previous season.

Audition time is actually the least design-centric time of year.  You are 7 months away from any chance of seeing the full design.  And if you do have great turnout, most of your attention is spent evaluating auditionees and deciding who you will call back.

Quote

Show design drives member interest; prove me wrong.

The audition numbers prove you wrong every year.  They go in competitive order of finish.  You also see it in the number of open spots in the spring... corps fill up in placement order.

[MikeN]

Could I wave a magic wand, I'd make it 60 performance, 20 ensemble visual and 20 GE.  

Mike

[Lance]

if the stakes are going to be that much higher for performance, I feel like it would require more strictly defined parameters about which types of movement and music books are most  "difficult" and therefore merit a higher score  What would that even look like since it's more dance/choreography than marching nowadays?  I know figure skating does it with defined move with set point value X grade of execution = score for each component of their programs.  I feel like that could apply to having some sort of metric to define the difficulty of music books as well. 

But scores are pretty stupid to me anyway, so why do I care?

 

Edited November 7, 2025 by Lance

[mingusmonk]

The level and depth of execution is insane today. The ceiling can only go so far, and the current floor of execution is wildly high. Not sure how you squeeze more juice any differently by simply changing point breakouts. It would have to be coupled with other changes in the rubrics on the sheets, and even the methodology (revamping the approach of field judging) to see appreciable change.

 

There is much more variation to be had in the design element. And I am not talking about props, costumes, and the colors of the flags or implements. For example, you're still going to pay a premium to someone like Tom Rarick to write appropriate content that still brings the vocabulary to exhibit the subtle differences in execution between the top tier percussions. Especially because Top Tier Percussion is a bigger bucket now than ever. 

Edited November 7, 2025 by mingusmonk

[contraguard05]

Don't forget, excellence is an effect. And GE is hampered by failure to achieve the written content.