would random order of performance change scores?

[Liam]

As for the scheduling thing -- why couldn't this be determined pre-season? We already know what shows each corps is playing at all season and they arrange their tour accordingly. Why couldn't the orders of performance be determined before the season, mixing up performance times so that each corps goes on early, middle, and late approximately the same number of times? Some corps would have an advantage some shows with the extra practice time, etc. Other corps would have the advantage other shows.

For Finals, it's a different story, but there still has to be a way to let corps know enough in advance to plan their days accrodingly.

[Liam]

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.

I agree -- and not that I follow BOA much so I may be wrong about this, but isn't this more or less the way it's done there. The finalists are announced and then they perform in random order. Not sure if they know their placement going in to finals, but I'm pretty sure they perform in random order that night. And sure, there are always complaints about the placements, but that will always be the case with so many top bands/corps, but I don't recall hearing the performance order used as an excuse much in BOA. Again, I could be way off on this becuase I don't follow BOA too closely, just what I get from the internet. Maybe Mr. Boo could shed some light here ....

[dbc03]

It's already happening. The lower tiered corps are penalized by performing first because they have less practice time. Even if one can't bring the same kind of parity that the pro-teams have, why not at least do it with the corps having the same amount of practice time? And who's to say the quality will drop? Remember, it's about practicing smarter, not longer or harder. BTW, the upper tiered corps would lose an hour or so?. You make it would like corps will lose half a day of practice.

The lower tiered corps have very similar practice time compared to the corps they are in immediate competition with. Fact of the matter is, Pioneer is not really in competition with BD. Realistically they are in competition with the corps 1 or 2 placements in either direction, in which case they receive comparable rehearsal time to their competitors.

Also, practing smart is all well in good, but it isn't inversely proportional to rehearsal time.

If the corps rehearses smart for 2 hours they will not improve as much as if they practiced smart for 4 hours. People talk like hard work isn't necessary if you practice smart, I say that's BS. A corps that works smart AND hard will improve more than a corps that works smart and not hard.

Edited October 4, 2007 by dbc03

[Liam]

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.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Liam

[Ray Priester]

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. Though when they are close, the actual performance quality is not always taken into account, but rather a natural progression seems to emerge - especially when you have a panel of lesser experienced judges.

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen final placements based on performance order, rather than actual performance. You can see two or three corps that are neck in neck, and based on the performance that night, placements should have shifted, but they didn't. The placement fell right in line with performance order.

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.

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.

Bingo, the judges have to judge the performance then and there, not the performance from last night or last week!

To look at it from another perspective, how about from the sponsors and performers point of view. How many times have you gone to a show early to see ALL the corps and noticed that the stands don't really seem to fill until the last 4 or 5 'contenders' hit the field? Unfortunately for the performers going on early, there aren't too many in the stands to see what is, sometimes, a truly noteworthy performance from one of the 'lesser' corps. With a random draw before the show, fans would have to make certain to get there on time so as not to possibly miss the performance of their favorite corps. With the stands filling earlier, the souvie and food markets would also benefit with more potential sales, as would the sponsoring group. I think that a random draw would increase the chances of a corps receiving a fair mark for THAT performance and would bring more of the 'lesser' corps into the limelight. The way it is set up now, with all corps knowing well ahead of time when they will perform and the fans having the same info, instead of being ready to let it all hang out on the field, they have good reason to believe that they won't finish lower than where they were the previous performance. Unfortunately, they can also be reasonably assured they won't place much higher, either.

FWIW, it seemed to be better for the corps back in the day when on any given day or night corps 'A' could possibly catch or beat corps 'B' who had beaten them the previous week. It just seems that, today, it's not a 'competition' between the corps so much as it is a summerlong project to increase the scores and points awarded but keep the order of finish intact. The unfortunate thing is that after just 2 weeks into the season, the 'slots' seem to have been set and the rest of the corps can just go through the motions, but they aren't going to get the opportunity to crack the next highest place. It just seems that the only reason to go to quarters, semis or finals is to see a well performed show by all the corps and not get upset about the placings, since they were set weeks beforehand. Nothing is random anymore. JMHO.

Ray

[dbc03]

FWIW, it seemed to be better for the corps back in the day when on any given day or night corps 'A' could possibly catch or beat corps 'B' who had beaten them the previous week. It just seems that, today, it's not a 'competition' between the corps so much as it is a summerlong project to increase the scores and points awarded but keep the order of finish intact. The unfortunate thing is that after just 2 weeks into the season, the 'slots' seem to have been set and the rest of the corps can just go through the motions, but they aren't going to get the opportunity to crack the next highest place. It just seems that the only reason to go to quarters, semis or finals is to see a well performed show by all the corps and not get upset about the placings, since they were set weeks beforehand. Nothing is random anymore. JMHO.

Ray

You must not have paid much attention this past season. Corps were all over the place.

[t-mac]

You must not have paid much attention this past season. Corps were all over the place.

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.

[prodigal bari]

There is a huge inequity in the seeding process....allowing for two different rules for determining Q-finals performance seeding actually allowed an advantage for a couple of corps (PC and Academy) to miss the first several regionals and not have what would have been a lower overall average count against them. (Surely DCI should have had enough brainpower to see THAT coming....). IMO that actually helped to skew the scores against the first several corps and affected placements in Semis.

However, this just goes to expose a larger problem...Judging perception and the ability to accurately place the corps without the impied bias of performance order. The performance boxes apparently are not being used as effectively as they should be; and the judges are trying to inadvertently create slots (I am NOT saying the corps are being slotted...)to drop corps into. There needs to be attention paid to the strict usage of the Box 1-5 system to place corps in each subcaption area and not look at performance history and placement as a guide to determing the rankings...and apparently, there is still some of this bias going on (although more so in the lower half of the division).

[dbc03]

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.

You're never going to have a situation where the 12th place corps one week is the 1st place corps the next week. There is just too much consistency as you move up the ranks.

There is a huge inequity in the seeding process....allowing for two different rules for determining Q-finals performance seeding actually allowed an advantage for a couple of corps (PC and Academy) to miss the first several regionals and not have what would have been a lower overall average count against them. (Surely DCI should have had enough brainpower to see THAT coming....). IMO that actually helped to skew the scores against the first several corps and affected placements in Semis.

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.

However, this just goes to expose a larger problem...Judging perception and the ability to accurately place the corps without the impied bias of performance order. The performance boxes apparently are not being used as effectively as they should be; and the judges are trying to inadvertently create slots (I am NOT saying the corps are being slotted...)to drop corps into. There needs to be attention paid to the strict usage of the Box 1-5 system to place corps in each subcaption area and not look at performance history and placement as a guide to determing the rankings...and apparently, there is still some of this bias going on (although more so in the lower half of the division).

Keeping the correct order and spread is more important than what the back of the sheet says a 91.95 means.

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.

[Liam]

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.

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.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Liam