Idea for Quarterfinals; Mix up the Order of Corps

[HolyName06]

I'm not here to say that there is some sort of scoring conspiracy, but having a non-traditional lineup might induce more honest scoring.

But then again, traditionally the expectations from the corps rise as the evening progresses.

The only thing worse than not having a full house watch your show is when everyone leaves before your show starts because they've already seen what they want to see. Not that it ever happens, but maybe the systems works out the way it does for a reason...

[Bruckner8]

Here's another reason why it won't happen: The judges don't want it to happen. The current setup is based upon CI (the corps with the most inertia goes on last, generally) This makes the judging aspect WAY easier (which is totally fine...the job is hard enough as it is).

The random setup also would force the judges to pay much more attention to the sheets, which they've already stated isn't their purpose (remember, the judges are "artsists"--not scientists). So that ain't gunna happen either.

I cannot think of one good reason to make randomized lineups, unless our total mission was to pick the best winner. Ya see, if it were completely random, the judges wouldn't be able to compare corps-to-corps as easily. They'd actually HAVE to look at the boxes, the criteria, and honestly decide which number makes the most sense. When the next corps comes on, there'd be much more probability of a clean slate, since the quality of that incoming corps might be vastly different.

...and that would be ABSOLUTELY DRAINING on the judges. With today's lineups, they get a slight, welcome pass by knowing that the corps are "probably" going to get better as the night wears on. Everyone on the inside of the activity (maybe the outside too) understands that going on last is a HUGE advantage.

It might even help the "lower" corps, cuz the judge might actually think to himself (for once) "Ya know, a good % of that was as good as the prior corps!" My point is that there would be a much greater probability of an open mind.

Scores would be lower, and spreads further...closer to reality, IMO.

[j.morgus]

I cannot think of one good reason to make randomized lineups, unless our total mission was to pick the best winner.

Nice.

[Liam]

I cannot think of one good reason to make randomized lineups, unless our total mission was to pick the best winner.

I like this line

As for the rest of your post -- the judges don't have anyone on the rule-making panel, so they don't get to set the rules. Still, though, I agree that it would probably never happen because not only do the judges like the status quo -- so do the top corps who generally set the agenda for the rest.

Still ... sometimes I like to present things I'd like to see, even though I know full well it'll never actually happen .... Like I've got a great, cogent argument as to why Jenifer Aniston should be my girlfriend, but I'm not holding my breath on that one either

Edited July 9, 2009 by Liam

[dbc03]

I just love this idea. I'm a believer that there is "performance order" bias among the judges.

The reason drum corps usually finish in the order they perform in isn't because of judging bias, it is because they are performing in that order based on how good they are

[dbc03]

I cannot think of one good reason to make randomized lineups, unless our total mission was to pick the best winner.

Can you give me examples of when the best winner wasn't picked due to performance order?

Is there some example of when Boston came out at Finals and really performed better than The Cavaliers but didn't win because of performance order?

[crfrey71]

The reason drum corps usually finish in the order they perform in isn't because of judging bias, it is because they are performing in that order based on how good they are

Thank you!

Also, the random order was tried and it failed. If it didn't fail, it would have lasted longer than just the '88 year.

[Bruckner8]

Can you give me examples of when the best winner wasn't picked due to performance order?

Is there some example of when Boston came out at Finals and really performed better than The Cavaliers but didn't win because of performance order?

Nice try. I'm not going to bite. Way to pick an outlandish comparison.

Lemme ask you this: Do you agree that going on last has any advantage at all? (why or why not?)

[luvs me sum mello!]

Imagine this scenario:

The Cavaliers and Blue Devils are neck and neck going into championship week with the Cavaliers being a slight margin ahead. Hard to imagine, I know, but bear with me.

The day of Quarterfinals the Cavaliers get a bad draw and has to go on first while BD gets a great draw and goes on last.

Now Cavies are at a severe disadvantage going into the show because they don't have as much time to practice as BD.

How is this more fair? It could realistically make a lottery drawing be the deciding factor of a championship.

In the current system each corps gets approximately the same amount of time to practice as the other corps in their competitive grouping.

Yes, the top corps get more practice, but they have earned that extra practice by being the top corps. If you want more practice time then get better and earn it

Because some people honestly think judges, with their years of experience and advanced degrees, are morons. They think that the lowest scoring corps going first and the highest scoring corps going last is a conspiracy. And only if DCI would remove the blindfold and let a 12th place corps go on last that they could win it all! Because surely it is a judging conspiracy and not that some corps are better then others.

And before anyone gets angry and hits the reply button, go to dictionary.com and look up the word "hyperbole."

[Tez]

Nice try. I'm not going to bite. Way to pick an outlandish comparison.

Lemme ask you this: Do you agree that going on last has any advantage at all? (why or why not?)

I really don't think going on "last" necessarily has any advantage, the advantage is that when corps compete closely to ones who they are close in level to, they are scored more accurately and fairly. So yeah, the way we have it now is easier on the judges. But shouldn't it be like that? Why make it harder on the judges by making them "remember" how a corps performed several hours ago, when comparing to the one they just saw? Well, you'll say, it's supposed to be about the sheets. The sheets, are just a guideline, nowhere on the sheets does it describe what the difference between handing out a 17.4 and a 17.6 is. The sheets are really more of a guide for the corps, and they tell the judges generally where a group should be scoring. When we are talking about a group of corps who are all very similar in achievement level (like 7 corps within 4 points)... every little 10th of a point a judge decides one way or another makes a big impact on the scores. I don't in anyway see how judging by the sheets will help here. If any one of the 12 judges last year at finals would have scored the Blue Devils just one tenth higher in any subcaption, we would have had a tie. Think about it this way.... what if two corps (let's say Crown and BD) are scored by the brass judge and he determines their performances were almost identical in achievement.... but he feels that BD had just the slightest of edges.... going by the sheets, they were easily both "box 5." How can you tell me that the judge should not directly compare these two corps? How could he do this accurately if they performed 4 hours apart? This is why I believe that a random draw would actually create less accurate scores for the corps.