Heat Wave Inactive?

[camel lips]

Because if no one sponsors shows, there will be no shows.

How does excluding those corps help? Seriously?

To be specific, let's take a Southern show as an example. Look at the Rockmart lineup for this year:

CorpsVets

Music City Legend

Alliance

Gulf Coast Sound

Shenandoah Sound

Heat Wave

Say the three latter corps fall just short of the 35-member mark. Now you have, at best:

CorpsVets

Music City Legend

Alliance

Gulf Coast Sound (exhibition)

Shenandoah Sound (exhibition)

Heat Wave (exhibition)

How does the three-corps contest with three exhibitions improve matters over the originally-scheduled six-corps contest?

Worse yet, if the exhibition groups decide it's not worth traveling all that distance when not allowed to compete, you're left with only three performances. How would that show draw compared to the six-corps show?

w/Stp:

[KeithHall]

Here's the sad part...just when DCA is growing even more, now corps are going inactive. Don't we all want growth? Competition? Heat Wave has been going up north every year since they started competing and doing it with a small corps. Everyone enjoyed having them at their show no matter how big or small they were. So lets say FOR AN EXAMPLE...NY Skyliners have only 29 people (hypothetical), they name alone will draw fans and the sponsor isn't going to care how big or small they are.

If it's about money then only the bigger corps will survive (and for how long?) and all the smaller corps will cease to exist. So now what do we do? DCA is built on the same premise as junior corps was in the 70's, "come to my show I go to yours" How many northeastern corps participated at a Heat Wave show? How many corps had Heat Wave at their contest?

[Dale Bari]

Cute oversimplification.

I didn't oversimplify anything. I used Sam's logic exactly as he wrote about being right in his "deduction". His conclusion doesn't hold up. But maybe for you, I could have simplified it further.

So you want to talk about "logic"?

Yes, but honor does not permit me to take on a challenger who is unarmed.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in what DCA is doing. Why even have a "class A" if DCA, as an organization, is not willing to tell show sponsors that small corps have entertainment value?

I didn't address what DCA was doing, I was only addressing what Sam wrote in one particular sentence. You're trying to stretch a handkerchief into a beach blanket, and it's not working.

Calling this "evidence" is even worse than the above "logical fallacy".

Again, you're not reading what I wrote. You're taking my language - that isn't germane to your point - and twisting it to fit your own prejudices.

So what? Fact is, Heat Wave cited the 35-member rule in their own press release. That rule was part of their decision-making process in 2007. That proves causality.

Actually, the press release said this: "Due to newly created DCA rules regarding minimum corps size, there are currently no plans to return to the field of competition." (emphasis mine) Duh! Of course, they can't compete. That's what the rule means. But, they didn't have to fold the corps because of the rule. Not competing doesn't equal not existing.

To quote HW member Alan Mundy: "Nevertheless, the tale of how we got to the point where we had to worry about that rule is a Shakespearian drama that extends back several years and has nothing to do with DCA as an organization or its constituent corps." (emphasis mine) The rule is not the reason HW folded. The membership unanimously chose to fold because they lost hope. (Alan Mundy: "But the 'next year' we kept hoping for and believing in never came, and gradually the struggle wore people down until the last two years where the active veteran marching members could be counted on your fingers.") Therefore, you can cry "victim" all you want. The fact is that the DCA rule didn't "kill" Heat Wave. Was Heat Wave in competition last year? No, they weren't, so obviously the corps was having problems - problems which they could not fix.

Is the rule good for DCA? I'm not sure. The negative effects are painful and obvious. The positive effects (more {and more profitable} shows) are a lot harder to see, especially since we haven't even gotten to the competition season yet. And, they probably won't be seen for a year or two longer, if ever. (What show sponsor will come on DCP and prove that the rule caused them to put on a show or to make more money?)

But most importantly, the yakking on here about this goshdarn (DCP prevents me from saying what's actually in my mind) rule is TOO much! Get a life! Some of you people need to get off DCP and find a new hobby to give your ragged minds rest from THIS hobby! Sheesh! Drum corps will still be here when you return (more sane), I promise!

(Where's the emoticon that has foam dribbling from the corners of its mouth?) I guess this will do:

[Sayre Kulp]

All I'm gonna say, is instead of passing a rule to ban small corps from competing, that same energy could've been focused towards helping them get bigger. Frankly, the fact that anyone (yet alone the voting membership of DCA) could consider this a good idea sickens me to the core. This is why Drum Corps United is a good idea. Help each other out. Make each other better and revel in the overall success of the activity. Or I suppose you can win the battle by forcing everyone else to fold. Whatever works for you.

[mjpudster]

Because if no one sponsors shows, there will be no shows.

How does excluding those corps help? Seriously?

To be specific, let's take a Southern show as an example. Look at the Rockmart lineup for this year:

CorpsVets

Music City Legend

Alliance

Gulf Coast Sound

Shenandoah Sound

Heat Wave

Say the three latter corps fall just short of the 35-member mark. Now you have, at best:

CorpsVets

Music City Legend

Alliance

Gulf Coast Sound (exhibition)

Shenandoah Sound (exhibition)

Heat Wave (exhibition)

How does the three-corps contest with three exhibitions improve matters over the originally-scheduled six-corps contest?

Worse yet, if the exhibition groups decide it's not worth traveling all that distance when not allowed to compete, you're left with only three performances. How would that show draw compared to the six-corps show?

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. You don't get it. And based on your circular arguement you won't. And as for you 3 competing corps, 3 exhibition corps example, last years Houston show only had two competing corps because Heat Wave pulled out of the show (ummm...there wasn't a 35 member rule last year, was there?) and there was a local Shrine corps exhibition, and a Junior corps exhibition. Somehow the crowd actually seemed to be entertained. Was it a big crowd, no. Did the Houston corps make money, no. Will they run another show this year, yes. If Heat Wave really wanted to continue they could have. I'm sure the Houston show would have accepted them as an exhibition as would the rockport and any other show in DCA South. They could have still gone to DCA and performed in the mini-corps show. Let me see. I have a team in a softball league. The league says that I have to put at leat 8 people on the field in order to play the game. My team shows up with 7. Do I play the game? NO. The rules say I need 8. In every aspect of our life we have rules that we have to follow. If you don't like the 35 member rule then go to the DCA meetings and complain to the membership. Maybe they will listen to you. Better still, start your own corps. Have more than 35 members, go to DCA and place in the top 10 and get a vote. Maybe you can change the whole organization. However, quit blaming the rule for the demise of Heat Wave. It isn't the reason they folded. Even one of their own members came on the forum and said that. I don't know what your involvement with the activity is, but many who have been involved with the activity for years seem to understand the arguement. It only seems that it is those on the perifery that can't accept the reality of the situation. I'm sorry Heat Wave folded. I will miss them. I have known Vic for many years. Heat Wave was his baby. He gets it and understands it.

Mike

[Gary Matczak]

Dale and Mike,.........................trust me, he won't get it,............

[audiodb]

Well, thank you all for deciding what I can and can't "get". Hopefully, at some point in the future, you will come to understand that:

- I am not saying that the 35-member rule was the only factor in Heat Wave's demise.

- I realize that corps have the option of continuing to operate as an exhibition group.

Still, no one can illustrate how this rule "helps". Is anyone up to that challenge, or will you all deflect that issue with clever repartee instead?

So I'll ask again. Aside from certain Northeastern show sponsors, how does this rule benefit anyone? If you wish to believe that it's benefit to NE show sponsors trumps all else, then it's a great idea....for the NE. But that has no relevance in the South or Midwest, where there are no paying show sponsors.

On the flip side, you cannot dismiss the deleterious effect this rule has on corps anywhere near the membership minimum. My point is not to engage in a debate over what arbitrary number of members constitutes a "corps" worthy of competitive status. The more important question is - why remove a corps from the contest? No one has explained the rationale:

1. What does loss of competitive status accomplish that loss of appearance fee alone would not address equally well?

2. Some contend that the rule excludes no one, as corps can still appear in exhibition status. Yet, their justification for the rule is that show sponsors don't want small corps at their shows. Isn't that paradoxical?

Of all people, I would think the ones who are piling on right now would be the ones who could explain these things.

[mjpudster]

Dale and Mike,.........................trust me, he won't get it,............

Sorry, Gary. I should have figured that out on my own. Thanks for the "Heads up". :)

Mike

[Gary Matczak]

So I'll ask again. Aside from certain Northeastern show sponsors, how does this rule benefit anyone? If you wish to believe that it's benefit to NE show sponsors trumps all else, then it's a great idea....for the NE. But that has no relevance in the South or Midwest, where there are no paying show sponsors.

The deal is this,.............show sponsors foot the bill one way or another, even in the south, MW and west.......................if corps A sponsors a show and gets corps B thru E to come, and then agrees to perform at corps B thru E's shows that season, then yes, there is no performance fees paid by corps A, however, they still need to get to corps B thru E's show, which comes with expense,............it's kinda like "pay me now, or pay me later",................now, for the outside show sponsor, (i.e. not a competing corps, or related entity) then you have to pay everyone now,.................it's that simple!

[KeithHall]

The deal is this,.............show sponsors foot the bill one way or another, even in the south, MW and west.......................if corps A sponsors a show and gets corps B thru E to come, and then agrees to perform at corps B thru E's shows that season, then yes, there is no performance fees paid by corps A, however, they still need to get to corps B thru E's show, which comes with expense,............it's kinda like "pay me now, or pay me later",................now, for the outside show sponsor, (i.e. not a competing corps, or related entity) then you have to pay everyone now,.................it's that simple!

Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is all the "experts" trying to "speak" for Heat Wave! Mike, I respect what you have done in the past but if you are pointing the finger at Heat Wave it may not be the proper thing to do. A rule that was voted on probably had alot to do with why Heat Wave is going inactive. I don't know the particulars and the organization has yet to come out publicly to address our concerns, I am sure they will soon. The people that run this corps today and last year made some hard decisions and I know going inactive was the HARDEST thing to do for them. I know these people and they bleed drum corps like the rest of us and this is extremely hard on all of them. Unfortunately, we all have opinions and we all say what we feel on DCP...HOWEVER, we are not sitting in every rehearsal and staff and board meetings to know what Heat Wave is talking about. I was with the corps the first few rehearsals and saw positive things happening musically. JJ and Bill had a handle on the corps and the management got the corps down to NO debt! The present management had a HUGE task of keeping this corps together two years ago and I, for one, applaud their efforts because what they did was remarkable. Yes they went inactive for 2006...if you tried to endure the heck they went through at that time you would have done the same thing. I don't know what happened after January till now to make the decision they did BUT I am sure that the very intelligent people running this corps knew exactly what they were doing and why.

Dale, statistics are great for some people but you have to have facts and you and Mike and I along with the rest of DCP don't know what all the facts are to Heat Wave going inactive. So we can go round and round and everyone can accuse or blame, but the bottom line is...WE DON'T KNOW THE FACTS! Let's wait till the management of the corps makes it public.