would random order of performance change scores?

[dbc03]

Not sure about this. I mean, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have had more questions (complaints?) about who made semis than about who made finals in the past few years. (And none of them are "my" corps :) ).It does seem like there is less movement among the bottom 7 or 8 when logic would say that those corps should have MORE movement since they are not as consistently clean night over night. Another reason why I'd like to see the ones fighting for those last two spots in semis perform back-to-back on Thurs (in whatever order) instead of having a looooooonnnnnngggg break right in between them.

There is a difference between not agreeing with placements and claiming that it's due to the judges being biased.

[Liam]

There is a difference between not agreeing with placements and claiming that it's due to the judges being biased.

Yeah, I gotcha. And I thought of that after I posted. But I took what he said to be more of a bias towards performance order, not necessarily bias towards/against certain corps. :)

[Jared_mello]

I don't know. There was alot of movement, but here again, it seemed to stay within the same small groups of 2-4 corps throughout the summer. It was pretty much Group I: BD, Cavies, Cadets / Group II: Blucoats, Phantom and SCV, Crown / Group III: Blue Knights, Boston, Colts / Then the real jumping around began at the 11-16 group.

Overall, does anyone know who actually moved the most in overall placement over the cours of the summer? Just wondering.

madison and bluecoats, perhaps? troopers moved around a bunch too.

One other thing I will add here: one thing I would like to see (with our without randomizing performance order within groups) is that the break at Quarters not be between 17 and 18. I understand that there is the theater go-live to think about and all that. But that aside, I'd like to see the group of corps fighting for the last semifinals spot or two to all get to perform back to back without a break. Whether you randomize that group of say 16-20 or not, I think they should at least get to compete head on without a break in the middle. Same goes for corps 10-14 or whatever on semis night fighting for those last Finals spots. Randomize the group or not, but no break within that group fighting for continuation.

good point, agreed.

[Pinwiz]

madison and bluecoats, perhaps? troopers moved around a bunch too.

Troopers were the yo-yo of 2007. Losing six points between the previous show and Denver?

There was only one set of rules used to determine the QF performance order. Everyone that matters knew exactly what was going to happen before the season started.

Which is why I hope they fix it for 2008. This should not happen, and I can't imagine that the affected corps won't push for it. In the end it only screwed over one corps (Cascades) so the damage was minimal but unfortunate.

[Imamoonvomit]

How about this....randomize corps within their respective 'packs' during finals week. That completely fixes the problem of similar quality corps performing next to each other. If we used the sets of 4 idea this past summer, there would have been serious scoring gaps within these groups. What if the blue knights pulled the last time slot in group two and BAC pulled the first slot in group 3? If we create groups where similar scoring corps are randomized, judges would be able to effectively compare corps without worrying about performance slotting. Hell, to shake things up even more, we could randomize the pack orders.

I guess this method would pose a problem for corps who are trying to move up a pack, but if we only use this model during finals week, then the scoring gaps between corps would have already been established throughout the entire season. Honestly, was there anyone who thought any corps under the first pack was going to take gold this year?

[TAFL]

Also, it's hard to take anyone serious that is complaining about bias. My guess is your corps lost to someone and you've got some sour grapes about it.

Likewise, it's difficult to take seriously anyone who makes ad hominem attacks in response to a serious criticism. Were I to do the same, I'd offer that your corps is one of those slotted high and afraid of being beaten by one slotted lower without the protection of the slot. ^0^

As my corps is a fledgling DCA all-ages affair, I think it safe to say I have no sour grapes and I find the idea of anything other than random order abhorrent. :ramd:

TAFL

[dbc03]

Likewise, it's difficult to take seriously anyone who makes ad hominem attacks in response to a serious criticism. Were I to do the same, I'd offer that your corps is one of those slotted high and afraid of being beaten by one slotted lower without the protection of the slot. ^0^

As my corps is a fledgling DCA all-ages affair, I think it safe to say I have no sour grapes and I find the idea of anything other than random order abhorrent. :ramd:

TAFL

I challenge you to find a post by me where I complain about my corps or any corps placement.

Also, my "ad hominem" attack was not against a formal syllogism so it is not invalid. If his corps was in fact beaten by one of the corps he is claiming receive unfair bias from the judges then his opinion is blurred by his own bias and therefore the ad hominem is quite valid and relevant. If a person's corps did poorly they are more likely to accuse the judges of foul play than if they have no preference. Also, my reply had nothing to do with random ordering; I argue that the spread and placement are more important than specific numbers and boxes.

[84skyrydr]

Do you think Madison wouldn't have won otherwise? Just curious.

Personally, I think '88 was the most exciting finals ever, at least as far as watching the awards ceremony goes. I have always thought some version of this would be the most equitable method of scoring to reduce likelyhood of unintentional(intentional) "slotting".

By the way, I was concerned going in to the Atlanta Regional because of Crown's early performance order, but they ended up jumping two corps that performed after they did if I remember correctly.

Also, as far as '88 goes, I believe that it was revealed afterwards that Madison had actually won Semi's also.

I didn't say they shouldn't have won. I watched the entire show and am watching it as I type. I do stand by the position that it DID indeed help in their placement overall. The last month they didn't beat anyone of the top 3 and were down by almost three points to SCV, so they would have gone on BEFORE those corps, but random draw had them go on afterwards. I truly believe the slotting theory. Judges placing scores based on order with change coming if someone has an off night or an unbelievable night. So, YES, I do believe it helped them. Also, take any corps and put them in someone elses uniform and see how much the score changes. I don't believe in the judging system at all and I can enjoy the shows much more now that scores mean nothing to me.

[Liam]

I didn't say they shouldn't have won. I watched the entire show and am watching it as I type. I do stand by the position that it DID indeed help in their placement overall. The last month they didn't beat anyone of the top 3 and were down by almost three points to SCV, so they would have gone on BEFORE those corps, but random draw had them go on afterwards. I truly believe the slotting theory. Judges placing scores based on order with change coming if someone has an off night or an unbelievable night. So, YES, I do believe it helped them. Also, take any corps and put them in someone elses uniform and see how much the score changes. I don't believe in the judging system at all and I can enjoy the shows much more now that scores mean nothing to me.

I assume you're talking about Semis and not Finals, since they would have gone on last at Finals anyway based on their Semis score. Reality is though that Madison only placed lower than third once the whole year and that was early on at DCM. Exactly one week before Finals, they lost to SCV by only .4 and at Semis they beat BD by more going before them than they did going after them on Saturday. I know this 1988 experiment is thrown around a lot a "proof" that the randomizing is not fair -- but the reality is Madison won Semis without going last and then took finals by less by going last. Not sure what any of that means in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly doesn't prove (IMO) that " it DID indeed help in their placement overall".

I do agree with your last sentence, though -- when you give up caring about scores and placements, the shows are a lot more enjoyable in their own right!!!! :)

[Peel Paint]

The same can be said when performance order is based on previous placement. Like it or not, there is a natural bias that results, as the corps are performing in ever increasing quality...

As you note, the issue of performing hours apart exists today when you have corps that have captions that are significantly stronger or weaker than the overall placement of the corps.

Absolutely.

Personally, I loved the situation from 1988 - top 12 corps in semi-finals were not told their score or placement - just that they made finals. Performance order for Finals was broken into two groups - the top 5 that would be broadcast on TV live, and the remaining 7. All corps drew cards to determine their performance order in their groups. Looking back at the recaps and reflecting on the corps actual performances, I personally can't complain about a single caption placement or final score. I thought it was extremely fair. The judges had to judge the performance on the field.

Best finals ever, from the standpoint of genuine suspense in the stands. But the corps directors, especially BD's, who thought the Devils got hosed that year (they didn't), hated the unpredictability of it, and they voted to kill it the following winter. Too bad. Sometimes, having the foxes guarding the henhouse means things don't always operate in the interest of fans.