Liam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 where in the world did you get that stupid idea??? Please note sarcasm -- but that sentiment has been offered regarding other rules that have passed and should therefore never be revisited -- just being snarky ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_S Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 . . .because if you bill yourself as "Marching Musics Major League" and equate your Finals as an equivalent to a sporting event championship of some time . . .well, ties don't happen at the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup or anywhere else that is a "World Championship".The ordinals system was fair . . .he who has the lowest subcaption scores is the winner. Well, really any set of rules can be considered fair, as long as it is decided upon prior to the competition and applied uniformly to all participants. That doesn't necessarily mean that the agreed-upon solution is the best option. Take this past summer's Olympics, where there was plenty of outcry when Nastia Liukin tied with a Chinese girl for the top score in the uneven bars. IIRC, they had to get down to something like six tiebreakers before finally deciding a winner. (Ironically, a tie-breaker was needed in a subjective sport like gymnastics, but in the objective sport of track, they handed out two silver medals - a tie - in women's 100 meters) In a case like Liukin's, is anything truly gained by choosing one performance over the other? Or, to put it another way, what harm is there in handing out two gold medals? The same could be said of DCI, where the precedent has already been set, as we have handed out multiple gold medals in a year on three separate occasions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salad315 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Please note sarcasm -- but that sentiment has been offered regarding other rules that have passed and should therefore never be revisited -- just being snarky ... I realize it was sarcasm. My post was a sort of double sarcasm, making fun of everyone, including myself....i think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) Well, really any set of rules can be considered fair, as long as it is decided upon prior to the competition and applied uniformly to all participants. That doesn't necessarily mean that the agreed-upon solution is the best option. Take this past summer's Olympics, where there was plenty of outcry when Nastia Liukin tied with a Chinese girl for the top score in the uneven bars. IIRC, they had to get down to something like six tiebreakers before finally deciding a winner. (Ironically, a tie-breaker was needed in a subjective sport like gymnastics, but in the objective sport of track, they handed out two silver medals - a tie - in women's 100 meters) In a case like Liukin's, is anything truly gained by choosing one performance over the other? Or, to put it another way, what harm is there in handing out two gold medals? The same could be said of DCI, where the precedent has already been set, as we have handed out multiple gold medals in a year on three separate occasions. I agree -- then again, I'm one of the few (seemingly) that preferred college football before all this BCS nonsense. I never saw the reason to concoct a "National Championship" game. The few years that a consensus on who was #1 couldn't be reached wasn't that big of a deal to me compared to the excitement of the season and the bowl games and the arguments. This push to a playoff system is a mistake, imo, as the overarching demand for a consensus and recognized champion will diminish the excitement of the season and the bowl calendar. The current in-between nonsense that the BCS has created is a mess -- the worst of both worlds. As for DCI, I understand that the quest for a championship elevates the quality of shows and I appreciate that. At the same time, though, that championship is strictly in the eyes of the judges and I really don't give a hoot what number they put to the shows I enjoy (other than if I really wanted to see that 13th or 18th place show just one more time!!!). The arguments about who should have beaten who will continue on whether or not there are ties and are all part of the fun, imo. I guess in the end, I don't really care if they break ties or not because I don't really care about the judges placements regardless. Edited January 26, 2009 by Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_S Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I agree -- then again, I'm one of the few (seemingly) that preferred college football before all this BCS nonsense. I never saw the reason to concoct a "National Championship" game. The few years that a consensus on who was #1 couldn't be reached wasn't that big of a deal to me compared to the excitement of the season and the bowl games and the arguments. This push to a playoff system is a mistake, imo, as the overarching demand for a consensus and recognized champion will diminish the excitement of the season and the bowl calendar. The current in-between nonsense that the BCS has created is a mess -- the worst of both worlds. I agree, and I've actually been arguing on a separate website recently that the NFL playoff system shouldn't be held in the high regard that it is. Unfortunately in the rush to determine the one champion, we place undue emphasis on a handful of games in January versus the 17-week regular season. DCI doesn't suffer as drastically as there isn't really a playoff, but there is clearly a greater focus on Championship week than anything other point of the season, and it isn't close. One of the effects the playoff format has had in the NFL is that, for the teams that didn't make the Super Bowl, we focus more on their failure than on any success they may have had during the rest of the season. Take my avatar, for example. Peyton Manning has been one of the greatest QBs the league has ever seen, but rather than celebrating the fact that he has more victories than just about any other QB at this point in his career, large blocks of the NFL fan base would much rather focus on Manning's 7-8 record in the playoffs. The playoff format gives them reason to tear down a career that otherwise would deserve nothing but praise. I'm afraid the focus on Championship week sometimes has that same effect in DCI. Sometimes a great show that is worth all the praise in the world gets buried because that corps didn't win the title, or because they missed finals and didn't get to perform on Saturday night. I'm not advocating the touchy-feely approach of BOA, where we're all winners in life and all deserve gold medals just for working hard; what I'm advocating instead is that if the corps earned the number that they received, give them full credit for it. If we're going to err, let's err on the side of celebrating a great performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 . . .because if you bill yourself as "Marching Musics Major League" and equate your Finals as an equivalent to a sporting event championship of some time . . .well, ties don't happen at the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup or anywhere else that is a "World Championship".The ordinals system was fair . . .he who has the lowest subcaption scores is the winner. Disagree. That's just an excuse to place someone second, IMO. A score is a score. If it ends up the same between two corps at the top...it's a tie. Counting ordinals makes no sense at all to me in trying to decide which corps was better, which is why I am glad they chnaged that rule. Neither was better in the combined opinions of all of the judges...they ended up the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salad315 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Indeed. Counting ordinals is just a crapshoot, to me. I understand what the ordinals represent, and it makes no sense to me. If a corps ties for first because their hornline and guard blows everyone away by a point, they shouldnt lose just because they came in 2nd by a tenth in a bunch of other captions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 This all relates to the discussion of what is the proper way to evaluate a show? Is it the sum of the parts (percussion + brass + color guard, etc), or is it the overall combination or "effect" of the show in total? The use of ordinals as a tiebreaker kinda speaks of the former -- do more parts better than the other guy and you win -- even if the overall effect of what he did was the same. The "no-tiebreaker" side speaks of the latter. It doesn't matter who had more "parts" better than the other -- the parts that you had better weren't enought overcome the wider margin I had on other "parts" so in total, our shows are deemed equal. The whole shift of judging from a tic sysem, precision, pperformance, marching and manuevering-based system to one of general effect has moved us from the former category above to the latter -- from a judgment of the parts to a judgement of the whole. So to create a tie by judging the whole and then breaking that tie based on a judgement of the parts does seem a bit odd to me -- but then again, like I said before, I don't really care what the judges think anyway -- parts or whole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCSoprano9702 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Play off! Have the other corps leave in performance order, send the drum majors to the center x to flip a coin with the head judge and choose whether to go first or second. They play again, tired, emotionally taxed, and with an insanely excited crowd as the DCI season continues for another hour. And the judges don't get any overtime for the extra work - it is their fault it's a tie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaSqueegee Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Well, just look at 2008, is that not the closest it can be without a tie? Can the math folks out there analyze the recap and see if a tie last year "could of" happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.