prodigal bari Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 It may not be popular, but that "firewall" is important. It prevents corps of limited budgets and travel from competitively upending corps that have full tours. Corps with full tours are the ones that make it to all of the big shows and put on a full summer of events. Protecting those groups pushes other groups to become more motivated to do a full tour and compete, offering a better product overall. Allowing D2 corps to compete and potentially win is deflating, and makes recruiting difficult. In fact, I'd put forward that part of the problem with Troop over the 90s and this decade had to do with that rule. Now if you want a full season tour, you go D1. It's much more clear. Well thought out points; I am just not sure I agree with you on some of what you brought up, with all due respect. :) I understand the need for the representative corps to tour within their division; otherwise there would be serious problems with having shows with enough name value to draw a strong audience (and that is NOT a slam on the smaller corps...). I don't see how having an occasional D2 corps go head-to-head at Worlds will do nothing but help with maintaining competitive intensity. And it helps bring along corps that may deserve a shot at D1 by giving them (as they deserve it) a boost in recruitment. And frankly, if you do not have the BEST corps competing in the Open Championships then it can lose some of its legitimatcy...and there has been in the recent past a question as to whether some of the top D2 corps would be competitive in the lower half of D1. History would say YES...and there is nothing wrong with that. Competition should not have anything to do with tour...it should be competition. And it would be a sign of the apocolypse if a D2 corps won DCI outright. (Remember, Magic was an abborition at the time...and their problems after their return had nothing to do with them competing. I personally found it exciting to see the Santa Clara organization get two corps into semi's that one year! The more the merrier, I say! ^OO^ Insofar as Troop is concerned; there problems did not lay with D2 corps competing with them. Their problems, as well as other bottom echelon corps (at that time) lay within, as always...to blame another corps for that is just not kosher. (Of course, looks like Troop has got it back together now ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn craig Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 (edited) It may not be popular, but that "firewall" is important. It prevents corps of limited budgets and travel from competitively upending corps that have full tours. Corps with full tours are the ones that make it to all of the big shows and put on a full summer of events. Protecting those groups pushes other groups to become more motivated to do a full tour and compete, offering a better product overall. Allowing D2 corps to compete and potentially win is deflating, and makes recruiting difficult. In fact, I'd put forward that part of the problem with Troop over the 90s and this decade had to do with that rule. Now if you want a full season tour, you go D1. It's much more clear. Why should the lower tier Div I corps be protected? If you look at Troopers, Esperanza, Kiwanis, or Magic it hasn't really helped. If the lower tier Div I corps can't hire and maintain good staff and attract members it's not the Div II corps fault, it's their own fault. If they don't want a Div II corps beating them at championships, which I think they should be given the oportunity to do, then maybe THEY should make internal decisions that attract the right talent and make them more competative. Edited November 21, 2006 by shawn craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 It may not be popular, but that "firewall" is important. It prevents corps of limited budgets and travel from competitively upending corps that have full tours. And why must that be "prevented"? It's a rare enough occurrence to begin with, given the tremendous disadvantage a corps of limited budget/travel faces against one with dozens more shows and all the experience, judging feedback and time together that brings. Corps with full tours are the ones that make it to all of the big shows and put on a full summer of events. Understood. They deserve a commitment from DCI to ensure they get a corresponding share of remuneration for their efforts. (And to be fully clear, yes, DCI provides that.) Protecting those groups pushes other groups to become more motivated to do a full tour and compete, offering a better product overall. Protecting them from what? I realize there was a time when a division I corps could end up taking a pay cut and losing full voting status because some division II corps with no intention of touring nudged them from 21st to 22nd place. That was wrong. The proper fix for that problem, however, would have been to grant membership to the 21 highest-ranking division I units (or all the full-touring corps). I'm not convinced that barring division II units from competing with division I units was necessary, or wise. Allowing D2 corps to compete and potentially win is deflating, and makes recruiting difficult. In fact, I'd put forward that part of the problem with Troop over the 90s and this decade had to do with that rule. Yet, eliminating that factor didn't seem to have any effect on Troopers' ability to recruit. Or Pioneer. Or Kiwanis Kavaliers. Or....well, you get the idea. And by the way, did anyone stop to ask the division II corps what they thought? Isn't it deflating for them to be denied any opportunity to gauge their progress against the division I corps? Some of these groups aspire to be division I someday, and they now have no idea whether they are competitively ready to make that leap. Even the ones that plan to remain in division II would benefit from the exposure of being in a contest like quarterfinals - not to mention the realization that they might match up well against some of the division I units on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodigal bari Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 (edited) Why should the lower tier Div I corps be protected? If you look at Troopers, Esperanza, Kiwanis, or Magic it hasn't really helped.If the lower tier Div I corps can't hire and maintain good staff and attract members it's not the Div II corps fault, it's their own fault. If they don't want a Div II corps beating them at championships, which I think they should be given the oportunity to do, then maybe THEY should make internal decisions that attract the right talent and make them more competative. You hit it on the head! There are three parts on the success triangle for any group; financial stability (to operate the corps); quality staff (to design and instruct to the level needed to compete at said level); and membership (to put that vision to fruition). All of this needs to be transparent and done without shortcuts in order for a corps to turn around for the long haul. The triangle points upside-down, however. Both staff and membership balance on that financial stability...if it is not there, then you will not maintain either of the other two for a sustained period of time. Either staff will suffer, which makes the product suffer and recruitment falter; or the membership will suffer (bad transportation, ineffective care of the tour needs, etc)...and membership falls off. All the failures of the four aforementioned groups have been due either directly or indirectly to funding...and the success or failure to recover completely lies in the ability to be financially solvent. I think the entire activity is watching the Troopers now in it's ability to look long-term as it reactivates...so far they look like they are laying out a model for insured long-term success; yet it took a complete collapse of the organization to bring it to this point. (In the long run might have been the best thing for the Troop...) Every group would do itself good to review its model and make certain it is well-grounded to weather whatever may be thrown at it....and look at the top groups. You do not hear of them having financial difficulties...and if they do, they have a means to deal with it. HOWEVER...touring mode does not necessarily mean qualified excellence; and I think it was a mistake for DCI to have firewalled D2 corps out of potential contention of a World's placement, simply because they did not bow down to the nation tour model. Qualify them as in the 90's, but at least give them the chance...and let the chips fall where they may. It makes for an HONEST competition. (Off-topic mode off... ) Edited November 21, 2006 by prodigal bari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn craig Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 (edited) In 2000 if the top Div II corps hadn't been allowed to march quarterfinals, there wouldn't have been any reason to have quatrerfinals; there weren't enough Div I corps to warent a 3 day elimination event. SCV B made it to semi finals. :) edited spelling because I keep typing the p before the r in coprs. :P Edited November 21, 2006 by shawn craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 And why must that be "prevented"? It's a rare enough occurrence to begin with, given the tremendous disadvantage a corps of limited budget/travel faces against one with dozens more shows and all the experience, judging feedback and time together that brings.Understood. They deserve a commitment from DCI to ensure they get a corresponding share of remuneration for their efforts. (And to be fully clear, yes, DCI provides that.) Protecting them from what? I realize there was a time when a division I corps could end up taking a pay cut and losing full voting status because some division II corps with no intention of touring nudged them from 21st to 22nd place. That was wrong. The proper fix for that problem, however, would have been to grant membership to the 21 highest-ranking division I units (or all the full-touring corps). I'm not convinced that barring division II units from competing with division I units was necessary, or wise. Yet, eliminating that factor didn't seem to have any effect on Troopers' ability to recruit. Or Pioneer. Or Kiwanis Kavaliers. Or....well, you get the idea. And by the way, did anyone stop to ask the division II corps what they thought? Isn't it deflating for them to be denied any opportunity to gauge their progress against the division I corps? Some of these groups aspire to be division I someday, and they now have no idea whether they are competitively ready to make that leap. Even the ones that plan to remain in division II would benefit from the exposure of being in a contest like quarterfinals - not to mention the realization that they might match up well against some of the division I units on the field. Actually I believe the rule was that if the DIV II corps that moved up did not tour as DIV I the following season then the DIV I corps they beat would move up a spot for pay and voting priveledges. Also, I believe someone did ask the DIV II corps what they wanted because it is my understanding that the DIV II/III directors voted in the new finals performance format. Yes I would love to see the top 5 corps from II/III finals move up to DIV I quarter finals, but obviously the DIV II/III directors prefered having the aditional show and the later performance dates instead of the chance to compete against the DIV I corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 But II/III didn't move their finals to Saturday until after division I closed off quarterfinals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Why not stop judging DI and DII/III on seperate sheets. That way if a corps is looking to move up they'll have something to compare the results to other than applause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 But II/III didn't move their finals to Saturday until after division I closed off quarterfinals. Actually the Div II corps voted to not compete in Div I quarterfinals and then changed their championship competition schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 First, I know I'm not going to change your opinions. This is like converting your religion; you guys aren't going to be impressed no matter how much sense this makes for the financial viability of the groups. I get that. But riddle me this: Why have a division all year long, and then toss it out the window at championships? In fact, if you take your line of thinking that other divisions should be able to qualify, they should also be able to not qualify. To that end, why have divisions at all? Let's eliminate the current Division 2 structure and merge it with Division 1. Then everything will be exceedingly fair, right? Right? 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.