Rockford Lounge

[27/soa]

Getting back to the slotting/seeding idea.

I truly believe that there is NO collusion, in a sit-down-and-plan-scores sense.

I do, however, believe that judges see a particular uniform (Maroon, Green, Blue, White....pick one) performing, and in their minds that corps' reputation plays a role in how they are scored, regardless of whether said Fabulous Corps is having an off year.

Of course, I can't prove it.

Edited June 22, 2008 by 27/soa

[patblamo]

Hopefully we get a different judge to get a different read.

I thought the five judges was to save on travel. I would expect the same judges to follow the corps to tonights shows. Does anyone have any inside info on this?

[BRASSO]

a good analogy to what you are saying might be the NBA.

there are some fans ( a minority of them ) that think NBA Basketball is fixed, and there have been an instance or two over the years ( like DCI ) where a ref ( or a judge ) were disbarred for cheating on the scores.

But in regards to alleged " slotting " the analogy gets probably a little more closer to the truth when it comes to the analogy.

NBA " star " players historically get the benefit of the doubt on foul calls. If they are driving to the basket and are barely touched by an opponent, that opponent more often times than not has a foul called on them, and the " star " player gets to go to the free throw line and shoot a couple of free throws.

But if it's NOT a " star " ( elite ) player driving with the ball to the basket, and is touched by an opponent.......' say it's a rookie with the ball, and the " star " guarding him..... the rookie is simply not going to get that foul call and get to the free throw line, ( unless he's almost knocked down ) as the " elite " player would

Is this " fixed " ?..... well, technically, no.

But does it make it harder for the " non star.... the non elite " to get the calls ? Yes.

Do most NBA fans know that the handful of" elite " players get the close calls in the games, perhaps with a little bit favoritism ? Yes

Do most long time DCI fans know the " elite Corps " get the " close calls" and a little bit of favoritism ? Yes.

Do most DCI fans however think that DCI is " fixed " ? No

Is there a little bit of " star power" pull built into the DCI scores and placements ? Especially early in the season ? Probably.

Edited June 22, 2008 by BRASSO

[drepsed]

With only five judges, expect some wild swings in scoring early this summer. One judge has way to much influence on the total score.

Looking at Phantom and Cavies score breakdowns, you can see this as well. Chumley had a 0.9 spread in Vis Ens between Cavies and Phantom (though still had them 1-2). That's a rather large gap between two consecutive corps. With Phantom taking vis GE, be curious to see whether the vis ens spread holds, or if the corps are really within 1-2 tenths of each other.

[Fleur-di-lis]

Memo to all first time score watchers. If you are looking for a bigtime place jump over a certain corps IN THE FIRST SHOW compared to last year's standings, 95% of the time it does not happen. The corps has to "earn" the jump in the eyes of the judges. For all we know, Blue Stars may actually be better than Colts or Phantom may actually be better than Cavies. We won't know jack until the first regional.

Thanks for your comments.... makes me scratch my head as I try and figure out this activity. So - are you saying that slotting exists at least in the beginning - until the appropriate position is "earned" and if so --- do you guys think this is fair?

[BRASSO]

Thanks for your comments.... makes me scratch my head as I try and figure out this activity. So - are you saying that slotting exists at least in the beginning - until the appropriate position is "earned" and if so --- do you guys think this is fair?

Exactly. From a pure logical standpoint, a Corps that has 2 members fall down in a show, " visually " can not have a better " Visual General Effect " score. Not when other Corps close in that caption do not have members fall down during the performance. ( happened in Toledo last night )

If an ice skater does very well for most of their performance but falls down twice in the show, invariably the ice skater that might have had an easier routine, but does not fall down twice scores higher. We understand this. It's hard to see how Corps that have members fall down, or fall into the staging, can score " visually " higher in a " General Effect caption " when reasonable people can conclude that the "visual general effect" of such falls was unnerving and uncomfortable to view to say the least, and it's " effect " took away substantially from the overall " General Effect " visually of the performance.

Edited June 22, 2008 by BRASSO

[bksnare84]

Exactly. From a pure logical standpoint, a Corps that has 2 members fall down in a show, " visually " can not have a better " Visual General Effect " score. Not when other Corps close in that caption do not have members fall down during the performance. ( happened in Toledo last night )

If an ice skater does very well for most of their performance but falls down twice in the show, invariably the ice skater that might have had an easier routine, but does not fall down twice scores higher. We understand this. It's hard to see how Corps that have members fall down, or fall into the staging, can score " visually " higher in a " General Effect caption " when reasonable people can conclude that the "visual general effect" of such falls was unnerving and uncomfortable to view to say the least, and it's " effect " took away substantially from the overall " General Effect " visually of the performance.

Does this same theory hold true then to corps not marching the entire show early in the season, or their opener in the case of Crown?

[Matt_S]

Exactly. From a pure logical standpoint, a Corps that has 2 members fall down in a show, " visually " can not have a better " Visual General Effect " score. Not when other Corps close in that caption do not have members fall down during the performance. ( happened in Toledo last night )

If an ice skater does very well for most of their performance but falls down twice in the show, invariably the ice skater that might have had an easier routine, but does not fall down twice scores higher. We understand this. It's hard to see how Corps that have members fall down, or fall into the staging, can score " visually " higher in a " General Effect caption " when reasonable people can conclude that the "visual general effect" of such falls was unnerving and uncomfortable to view to say the least, and it's " effect " took away substantially from the overall " General Effect " visually of the performance.

Wrong. An ice skater is one person performing a handful of jumps and spins over a couple minutes, max (I don't follow ice skating, I don't know the length for sure). A drum corps is (now) 150 people performing both 200+ sets of drill and guard work similar to any figure skater's routine, over a twelve minute show. If three of those 150 members happen to fall and miss one set out of 200, how much do you truly expect a corps to be penalized? The truth is, a fall is barely a dent against the credit that the corps has earned for everything else that they've pulled off during the rest of their show.

[GGarrett]

so just out of curiousity... when we all speak of "slotting"... are we speaking of some type of collusion in judging? Everytime I bring this up (since 1976 by the way) people get all upset. But I CONSTANTLY hear about "slotting" and "seeding" ... and it makes me wonder if the implication is there is some type of meeting someplace where all the judges decide before the shows even begin where the corps will place.

Is that what "slotting" is?

This was my post last night on "slotting" or "seeding" as some call it. I have been asking this question for YEARS, and generally get an earfull when I suggest such things. But there are a lot of folks who talk about this happening every year. So another way to ask my question is:

Are we saying that the judging is based on some pre-existing frame of mind in the judges head, or an idea of "oh, this is so & so corps, they should end up here as I see it" ... as OPPOSED to simply blindly judging a corps from the criteria required and scoring them as such?

Admittedly, for 30+ years now, I have been an open critic of judging and its impossible task to wear blinders in this activity. This subject could be an interesting thread of it's own, if only the folks who want to squash out such questions wouldn't come in strong and shut it down fast.

Edited June 22, 2008 by GGarrett

[oldtimedrummer]

Exactly. From a pure logical standpoint, a Corps that has 2 members fall down in a show, " visually " can not have a better " Visual General Effect " score. Not when other Corps close in that caption do not have members fall down during the performance. ( happened in Toledo last night )

I disagree. A member falling is just a small piece of the entire picture. It's certainly not going to help, but you can't discount the achievement in any caption because of one flaw. It could become a tie breaker maybe with two equally matched corps.