would random order of performance change scores?

[SkyRyder_FMM]

The one thing that bothers me about this thread is that it's all based on one flawed assumption. The assumption that judges are not making the right calls now.

Would anyone care to suggest which calls were missed because of a lack of randomocity? In addition, would anyone care to suggest why those corps with a bad/early draw won't be hurt equally as other corps are helped? Would you like to be the one to tell the 12th-place corps on semis night that they're on first? If you believe that the judges are so inept that they'll get it wrong because of step-off time, then why is it also fair that some corps will get randomized away from a placement?

Say said corps misses finals, but the 13 seed advances in 12th because they were on later. How has this benefited anyone fairly? You're suggesting that the greenshirts are influenced by order, and even if that is true, why is it suggested that a corps who might win if placed back to back is better off performing hours earlier, and then penalized for inept numbers management?

First, it doesn't make it better. Second, I don't buy that the judges are so influenced by whether the sun is up or down. Third, the same thing applies when you're talking about parity, which I'm all for -- the examples you've used to prop up this point don't account for the harm it would do. It would do more harm because every placement of help also adds a placement of hurt, and along with a scattered show that fans generally will find schizophrenic, you also show a public distrust of your own judging.

I wouldn't mind seeing the odds and evens switch on a given night when everyone is there, thus reversing a head-to-head so that the judges can reduce any influence they may have felt because of order, but complete randomness is unhelpful, can produce scattershot results and fewer changes. If anything the psychology on a fully random show is to re-order it as you know it. I'm all for semis going off as 9-10-8-7-5-6-3-4-1-2, but I'm not for a straw draw.

I understand what you are saying, but this view is also based on a flawed assumption that all captions are at an equal placment. When there are captions that are scoring several placement higher or lower than a corps overall placement, simply competing in performance order based on overall score does not put the captions in direct competition with their true competition.

By basing performance order solely on reverse order of finish from prior contests, there is a natural bias in the numbers management for captions to follow the performance order, regardless of where an individual caption is placing. This is somthing that is impossible to resolve to anyones complete satisfaction.

Your example of the 12th and 13th place corps switching placements due to randomization, it assumes the 12th and 13th place finishes were correct, and the switch is an error. Isn't it possible that these two corps were very close and the 13th place corps really deserved to move up, but didn't because of the natural bias in performance order?

There are numerous examples you can point to over the years (at regular shows, regionals and championships), where placements should have shifted night to night based on the actual performance on the field, but it didn't happen. Placements followed performance order. There is no need to get into the littany of issues, but a little searching on the review forums will bear this out again and again.

[Pinwiz]

When corps that are in honest competition perform in order, it doesn't matter who goes on first. The better corps will usually win. If there's an unreasonable difference, like a three corps gap or a 60 minute break between 18th and 17th, then things start to become unfair.

Doing something like randomizing Quarterfinals similar to the Regional lineups will not affect the fight for 12th place if Semis is based directly off of Quarters scores. Two shows is enough to correct any imbalance that the original random seeding caused.

[drumcat]

There are numerous examples you can point to over the years (at regular shows, regionals and championships), where placements should have shifted night to night based on the actual performance on the field, but it didn't happen. Placements followed performance order. There is no need to get into the littany of issues, but a little searching on the review forums will bear this out again and again.

And this is the flaw your argument faces. You can't have it both ways. Either the judges get it wrong, or performance order does matter. It's an either-or distinction. If you think the judges got a call wrong, then it had nothing to do with performance order. Otherwise, you're suggesting that performance order pre-ordains placement, and if that's the case, you're suggesting the judges are in fact influenced by what order they go on, claiming that they can't manage their own numbers.

"When there are captions that are scoring several placement higher or lower than a corps overall placement, simply competing in performance order based on overall score does not put the captions in direct competition with their true competition.

And by this logic, there is enough randomization that the stepoff should not ever matter. Are you suggesting that we have performances scheduled via subcaption results? And by the way, which one?

Take the Bluecoats' situation. They were on in the 7th-to-last, and they managed to even win a subcaption along with many different top 3 scores. Now tell me... are you suggesting that had they gone on, say, after Phantom, they might have improved two spots? If you are, you're questioning the integrity of the judges, or saying that they are so influenced that they can't help but make scores go higher as the night rolls on... either way, it's standing on thin ice.

I think you're bothered by the "momentum" of GE scores, and how those are generally unresponsive. I'd take up that flag; GE is more about doing what is suggested on the prior night in critique as opposed to that actual effect that night, and for that, it's a lagging indicator that never catches up to real-time. That sucks.

[eqlou]

I'd like to see random placings for quarters and semis. but not finals.

[sburstall]

But corps already deal with the same amount of rehearsal time between the corps they are in immediate competition with.

How bad would it suck for a 13th place corps to be quickly closing in on the 12th place corps, but then a week before finals they start getting bad draws and suddenly the 12th place corps gets a couple more hours a day of rehearsal time than the 13th place corps and pulls away because of it?

Wouldn't it be much more fair to give them relatively equal rehearsal time so that the luck of the draw is not deciding placements?

"Relatively equal time"? I don't quite understand what is ment by that. If I imply, your saying that the top corps still get more rehearsal time than the lower corps, still giving them the advantage.

[SkyRyder_FMM]

And by this logic, there is enough randomization that the stepoff should not ever matter. Are you suggesting that we have performances scheduled via subcaption results? And by the way, which one?

This would be true if every corps had extremely strong or extremely weak captions relative to their overall placement. This is not the case, so there is no "logic" to the argument. It was simply an observation that the problem of not having head to head competition by performing in reverse order of finsh already exists. And yes, I'd say there are a number of times where judges get the captions wrong based on the performance night to night. Scores tend to follow performance order. You can see time and time again where many people comment about how corps x was flat one night, or had this issue or that issue, yet where did the scores in those captions fall? Right in line with performance order and the previous night. There should have been movement, but there wasn't. It's nothing new either.

I never suggested there should be performances scheduled by captions either, so your last comment is completely off the mark. I am suggesting that random performance order forces the judges to judge the show in front of them and not simply slot and manage numbers. So where do you get the idea that I in some way advocate performance order based on a sub-caption????

[drumcat]

I understand what you are saying, but this view is also based on a flawed assumption that all captions are at an equal placment. When there are captions that are scoring several placement higher or lower than a corps overall placement, simply competing in performance order based on overall score does not put the captions in direct competition with their true competition.

By basing performance order solely on reverse order of finish from prior contests, there is a natural bias in the numbers management for captions to follow the performance order, regardless of where an individual caption is placing. This is somthing that is impossible to resolve to anyones complete satisfaction.

Your example of the 12th and 13th place corps switching placements due to randomization, it assumes the 12th and 13th place finishes were correct, and the switch is an error. Isn't it possible that these two corps were very close and the 13th place corps really deserved to move up, but didn't because of the natural bias in performance order?

There are numerous examples you can point to over the years (at regular shows, regionals and championships), where placements should have shifted night to night based on the actual performance on the field, but it didn't happen. Placements followed performance order. There is no need to get into the littany of issues, but a little searching on the review forums will bear this out again and again.

By what you said here. ^

When you say,

"You can see time and time again where many people comment about how corps x was flat one night, or had this issue or that issue, yet where did the scores in those captions fall? Right in line with performance order and the previous night. There should have been movement, but there wasn't. It's nothing new either."

You are suggesting that the judges get it wrong, and they get it wrong in the order of the performances that night consistently. But what I don't understand is that if you believe that the judges really are wrong, and are influenced by order, then you are advocating that any semblence of relative competition be removed by adding a random draw.

In other words, if you assume that the judges are affected by order, and you randomize the order, the results will be random. Is that what you want?

Otherwise, if you want a random draw, you have to have enough confidence in the judges that performance order doesn't matter, therefore rendering a random draw unnecessary...

[Liam]

So this is an interesting little conundrum:

If the judges are influenced by order, and you randomize the order, then the judges will still follow order and the results will therefore be influenced by the random draw...

--or--

Maybe if the draw were randomized, the judges would change the way they judge and judge the corps in front of them and stop being influenced by performance order...

-- but then --

If the judges are capable of doing that by choice, who's to say they aren't doing that now and they are therefore NOT influenced by performance order even though we think they are ....

Whew!!!!!

Let me add this though -- EVEN IF the judges get it right now, I would still be in favor of randomizing (or systematically re-working) the perfomance order to some degree (in small groups, for example) for the benefit of the fans. Seeing shows in a little different order I think helps US to gain a little perspective on the shows and enhances OUR enjoyment. If we trust the judgement of the judges, then it should make no difference to them -- but might be more enjoyable to us!!!!

Good discussion !!!!!

Edited October 7, 2007 by Liam

[Jared_mello]

Take the Bluecoats' situation. They were on in the 7th-to-last, and they managed to even win a subcaption along with many different top 3 scores. Now tell me... are you suggesting that had they gone on, say, after Phantom, they might have improved two spots? If you are, you're questioning the integrity of the judges, or saying that they are so influenced that they can't help but make scores go higher as the night rolls on... either way, it's standing on thin ice.

i dont think the point was that absolute. i think its more so that if the corps had gone on in 5th or 4th or something (and this is completely irrelevant to what SHOULD have happened in the caption, thats not my point at all), its reasonable to say that it would have been EASIER to give the brassline a 19.7 or whatever if there hadnt been 6 corps performing afterwards. now, this is with the knowledge in mind that albert lo was judging, and he put the corps in 1st in horns at several different regionals and shows (and then put the cadets on top at shows where the hornline relatively underachieved, so i can respect that as well), so he surely knew that it wasnt definite that he needed .6 worth of extra points on top of the score for the corps remaining. i still wouldnt say that its out of the question that it could have made his decision easier if the corps performed later though, just for his assurance's sake. going on early but having specific strong captions makes it harder to for judges to compare the corps to other corps that go on later in the night.

(i personally think judging in captions like that is more relative than people would assume, not that i feel like theres anything wrong with that, but variables like performance time do POTENTIALLY affect it.)

i dunno, i like the idea of random draws within small groups of performing corps.

edit - as long as corps are going on later in the night than in 2007, sheesh. glad that probably wont be a problem in indy.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Jared_mello

[drumcat]

So this is an interesting little conundrum:

If the judges are influenced by order, and you randomize the order, then the judges will still follow order and the results will therefore be influenced by the random draw...

--or--

Maybe if the draw were randomized, the judges would change the way they judge and judge the corps in front of them and stop being influenced by performance order...

-- but then --

If the judges are capable of doing that by choice, who's to say they aren't doing that now and they are therefore NOT influenced by performance order even though we think they are ....

Whew!!!!!

Let me add this though -- EVEN IF the judges get it right now, I would still be in favor of randomizing (or systematically re-working) the perfomance order to some degree (in small groups, for example) for the benefit of the fans. Seeing shows in a little different order I think helps US to gain a little perspective on the shows and enhances OUR enjoyment. If we trust the judgement of the judges, then it should make no difference to them -- but might be more enjoyable to us!!!!

Good discussion !!!!!

You got it, Liam, exactly. In fact, I'd be all for some sort of gimmick; maybe a coin toss at the beginning of the show. It works for football...

Edited October 7, 2007 by drumcat