Numbers Management

[Machine]

Here's something I thought about while attending Championships this year... Why do we necessarily have to score groups "__ out of 100"? In a year such as this when everyone in the top 7 was so strong, it seemed as if the judges were forced to make a decision early in the evening as to where they were going to place a corps in a given caption. Essentially they had to decide if Corps X was going to be the gold standard for the night or if they were going to leave room for the 4, 5, or 6 corps to follow.

What if the scoring cap were to be removed, so that there is no limit to how good you can be? Leave the box criteria in place but take the cap off of box 5. That way if corps number 6 comes out with a blazing brass line, a judge can confidently give them a 19.8 or 19.9 without fear of having no room for the rest. If the rest of the corps come out on fire as well, maybe your top brass line ends up scoring 20.5. Who cares? We all say it's not about the score, but the spread. But when you get into championships week and the top corps are maxing out their shows, the current scoring system only allows for accurate ranking. Scores AND spreads go out the window in order to keep room at the top.

Does this make sense? Would this be a good idea?

[Tekneek]

In this 'build-up system', I can see your point that capping the score at 100 seems a bit arbitrary. A cap works when you start at 100 and work down much better than starting from 0 and going up with mostly subjective numbers.

Since a score of 100 doesn't mean perfection, the number is meaningless in our current judging system, isn't it?

[ChicagoFan]

To take your idea to the extreme, why not just do away with numbers altogether and simply assign placements?

[octavia9299]

To take your idea to the extreme, why not just do away with numbers altogether and simply assign placements?

Because spreads matter.

My favorite is honey walnut, from Panera.

[ChicagoFan]

I like those cream cheese ones with fruit.

Yes, spreads do matter and judges have to have some means of justifying WHY they've ranked corps in a certain order. That's why whenever I contemplate a system without numbers, I realize it would be extremely problemmatic.

[vferrera]

The judges job is to rank and rate. The ratings are supposed to reflect the extent to which the quality of one performance can be discriminated from the quality of another performance. It is sheer stupidity to use the extreme end of the scale except in extremely rare instances. If you have a 10-point scale, then 5 should be the most common score and the vast majority should be between 2 and 8. Only about 5% of the scores should be above 8.

When you routinely give out 9.9's and 10's, you are not judging, you are cheerleading. You are letting your emotions overwhelm your intellect. If you can honestly say that a performance is so close to perfection, then why not really reward it by shifting the rest of the scores down and making the gaps bigger?

This was never a problem when the top score at Finals was around 90. When the scores shot up to the 98 range, things got ridiculous. Especially when you have a 0.2 difference in total score between first and second. There is just no way a difference that small can be meaningful.

[year1buick]

Because spreads matter.

My favorite is honey walnut, from Panera.

I''ve always been a sucker for their asiago cheese bagle, with plain cream cheese. (Favorite place to study--free wifi)

[drumcat]

Very simply, if you don't maintain an upper bound, the valuation percentage of each category is compromised.

For example, if you let the drum judge assign a 38 instead of a 19, that drum judge has given himself twice as much weight to his score, and if all else stayed equal, would then make his score twice as important as brass, et al.

I get what you're saying, and the prior poster is correct -- if you want that, you simply want ordinals. However, if you do that, you give up the right to assign a spread. Chase your tail.

[GMichael1230]

Because spreads matter.

My favorite is honey walnut, from Panera.

OMG, LOL, the irony !! I just got nack from there and am eating that exact spread right now !!!! LOL

Yes, spreads show how "close" corps are in relative to the product they put out. I can see the idea of no cap, ie: not letting 100 be the highest score.

Is a 98.4 given now the same in regards to quality and achievement as it was say, 20 years ago ??

What does an 80 mean now a days ?? how about a 90 ??

~G~

[year1buick]

Would it be feasible for judges to make notes during performances and assign scores at the end? Probably not, but I do see the problem with saying caption scores for an individual corps only have meaning in comparison to the rest, considering actual assignment of the score happens prior to all being seen.