Jeff Ream Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 What would be interesting is to see the last one of these job descriptions, and compare it to this one. Did they add that, after this year's lower (for SCV) placing? I wonder... Placement in DCI means a lot in terms of money and drawing power, I think, and it is natural for a group to aim for it. I don't think it's wrong to emphasize winning, since competition's a fact of life. Over-emphasis might lead to some problems, though. Besides, this is a director's job description and not necessarily what would be said to the marching members. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> agreed. to get the visibility and cash, top 5 IS the way to go. smart goal of the organization Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom&Phitch Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Maybe they should hire J.W. Koester, then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> YES!!! finally soemone who agrees with me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwscv87 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 This description places such an emphasis on placement (specifically, top 12) that it is inconceivable that one can have a successful season without making the top 12 (which we would agree is completely untrue). I'm not so sure we all can agree on that point. Clearly not making the top 12 would not be a successful season for SCV. Corps that consistently place in the top few and occassionally win don't do so by accident. They set a goal, write it down, and strive to achieve it year after year. You stated that the goal to make top 5 is "so profound" because it is the third bullet point?? I don't understand that at all. How does listing it third make it profound? If anything the goal is not strong enough IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradrick Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I think at least one reason why the Board of Directors feels the need to maintain a high placement is probably financial. (I'm assuming this description came from them.) SCV didn't get to do at least one show this year (Murfreesboro) because they were ranked a little too low to make the cut. That is a financial loss because there was a lost performance fee. It is part of any Board's responsibility to look after the financial well being of the organization (whether it's drum corps or not). If you take that into consideration, it doesn't sound unreasonable to have a higher placement as a goal. And that is not the same thing as living your whole existence in the shadow of placements. A SCV member just posted earlier that he didn't even hear the staff mention placements except to tell them not to be worrying about them. So I don't think this represents any real problem with the philosophy of the Vanguard organization...IMO it seems pretty reasonable. Just my humble opinion... B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssorrell Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 When you have an organization that is traditionally near the top of the rankings with very few slips out of the top 6 or so, why is it so hard to believe that the Board's goal would be in line with their history? The Board would be failing the organization if they didn't keep someone in the director position that continues to push for that goal. Writing it down in the job description makes sure that everyone involved knows what the goal is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR_ducky Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I didn't read thru all the posts, but the main reason top 12 is a goal is the cash. In 86 when 27 didn't make finals, the money they lost caused them to fold (probably were close to folding anyway) I don't believe succes of a season should be measured by placement, but how many people here marched in a top 12 corps would have thought not making finals was acceptable? When I was in Regiment and we finished 10th it was considered a disaster. With SCV finishing 8th this year they are probably realistically concerned about making finals the next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I agree that the board should be concerned about placements because of its financial implications. Placements also have an effect on recruiting, because the higher a corps is ranked, the more auditionees they attract. I also am glad to hear of corps members saying that their staff never emphasized winning to them, that they never got them concerned with scores. The concern of scores and placements is a burden that should not be on the shoulders of marching members. They just have to bust their butt and do the best they can and perform. Staff can have their members' back in judges' critique but again ultimately it's the judges' pens writing down the numbers. So I guess the question is, do you send mixed messages to the corps by saying to the members that you shouldn't worry about scores and you should just work hard and peform your best, and at the same time that the director should maintain top 12 status and try to achieve at 5th place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssorrell Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 So I guess the question is, do you send mixed messages to the corps by saying to the members that you shouldn't worry about scores and you should just work hard and peform your best, and at the same time that the director should maintain top 12 status and try to achieve at 5th place? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think you'll be sending mixed messages to the corps if you stress to the members that numbers are not important while at the same time you require the staff to focus on the competition. The staff is hired to get the corps to where they want to be. The members are merely the vehicle that puts the staff's efforts on the field. They have no control over their placement. However, the design and instructional team have a direct effect on the placement of the corps, and who is in charge of that? The Corps Director. He has to wear two hats and he knows it...he keeps the members' heads in the right place by making sure they focus on the right things while he continues to monitor the competitive success behind the scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradrick Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I don't think you'll be sending mixed messages to the corps if you stress to the members that numbers are not important while at the same time you require the staff to focus on the competition. I completely agree However, the design and instructional team have a direct effect on the placement of the corps, and who is in charge of that? The Corps Director. He has to wear two hats and he knows it...he keeps the members' heads in the right place by making sure they focus on the right things while he continues to monitor the competitive success behind the scenes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True also. But this thought just occured to me. (and I'm not talking about SCV because I have no idea how they operate on this level) Aren't there some corps that delegate the management of the design and instructional team to a Program Coordinator? Does that take the Corps Director out of the responsibility loop for the field show to some degree? (I really don't know the answer. But I'm curious.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssorrell Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 The corps Executive Director would still oversee all aspects of the corps. Sure, a Program Coordinator is the person responsible for those things, but he/she answers to the Executive Director. So, in the end, if the corps fails in that area, the buck stops at the Exec Director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.