dbc03 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 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?) Of course going on last has an advantage... that advantage is the fact that you were better than every corps before you on the day before. Other than that and maybe 15 extra minutes of practice time no I don't think there is an inherent advantage to going on last Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Completely, totally agree !!!Unfortunately, because of the theater show, the Top 17 have to remain the Top 17 -- although as a fix, I would suggest including all the corps on the theater broadcast -- but I wholeheartedly agree that the order for Quarters should be somewhat random -- if even in sub-groups of 6 or so. Semis and Finals order can be earned by Quarters, but I think Quarters should be an "open" competition not based on previous scores. Just MHO. This would make sense if finals week was an invitational that was not influenced by the rest of the season. If that were the case, though, there'd be no need for other shows during the summer. My ideal system (and I think we use a variance of this now) is a random performance order at all non-regional/finals week shows, OR going on in the reverse order of placement from that same show the year prior (and yes, this would mean corps going to a show they weren't at the previous year would have to go on earlier). Taking an average of those scores and only those scores determines the performance order at the first regional. Placement at each regional then determines the performance order of the following week's regional. (Yes, this means shows on the days between two regionals have no competitive necessity other than to get judges' feedback.) Then, finally, placement at either the most recent regional or an average of scores from all regionals (and only regionals, not regular shows) determines performance order at quarters. Quarters placement then obviously determines performance order for semis which determines performance order for finals. This system makes the entire season matter (which addresses something in another topic going on right now). Going on later, generally speaking, gives you a better chance of a higher score. There's a million and one reasons why that should or shouldn't be, but since it is that way this system chooses to embrace that, and thus give corps more incentive to do better. Doing better at a show gives you, essentially, the momentum to do better at the following show. The problem with this is that lower tiered corps will more than likely require a few years to build up a program rather than one very successful season. There's really no way around that, but in theory, is that really a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 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. Failed ??? In what way??? Did the audience think it failed??? Or was it just a portion of DCI BOD members that think it failed?? And in what way did they think it failed??? Is that the same criteria that you or I or the audience in general would use to say it failed??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tez Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 This would make sense if finals week was an invitational that was not influenced by the rest of the season. If that were the case, though, there'd be no need for other shows during the summer.My ideal system (and I think we use a variance of this now) is a random performance order at all non-regional/finals week shows, OR going on in the reverse order of placement from that same show the year prior (and yes, this would mean corps going to a show they weren't at the previous year would have to go on earlier). Taking an average of those scores and only those scores determines the performance order at the first regional. Placement at each regional then determines the performance order of the following week's regional. (Yes, this means shows on the days between two regionals have no competitive necessity other than to get judges' feedback.) Then, finally, placement at either the most recent regional or an average of scores from all regionals (and only regionals, not regular shows) determines performance order at quarters. Quarters placement then obviously determines performance order for semis which determines performance order for finals. This system makes the entire season matter (which addresses something in another topic going on right now). Going on later, generally speaking, gives you a better chance of a higher score. There's a million and one reasons why that should or shouldn't be, but since it is that way this system chooses to embrace that, and thus give corps more incentive to do better. Doing better at a show gives you, essentially, the momentum to do better at the following show. The problem with this is that lower tiered corps will more than likely require a few years to build up a program rather than one very successful season. There's really no way around that, but in theory, is that really a bad thing? Once again... consideration for audiences would be really poor with this system. I, for one, would really not like to go to only one show in a season and have each corps performance get steadily worse throughout the show. Exactly what problem are we trying to address here? Do you all really think that certain corps are getting screwed score wise because of when they perform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 This would make sense if finals week was an invitational that was not influenced by the rest of the season. If that were the case, though, there'd be no need for other shows during the summer.My ideal system (and I think we use a variance of this now) is a random performance order at all non-regional/finals week shows, OR going on in the reverse order of placement from that same show the year prior (and yes, this would mean corps going to a show they weren't at the previous year would have to go on earlier). Taking an average of those scores and only those scores determines the performance order at the first regional. Placement at each regional then determines the performance order of the following week's regional. (Yes, this means shows on the days between two regionals have no competitive necessity other than to get judges' feedback.) Then, finally, placement at either the most recent regional or an average of scores from all regionals (and only regionals, not regular shows) determines performance order at quarters. Quarters placement then obviously determines performance order for semis which determines performance order for finals. This system makes the entire season matter (which addresses something in another topic going on right now). Going on later, generally speaking, gives you a better chance of a higher score. There's a million and one reasons why that should or shouldn't be, but since it is that way this system chooses to embrace that, and thus give corps more incentive to do better. Doing better at a show gives you, essentially, the momentum to do better at the following show. The problem with this is that lower tiered corps will more than likely require a few years to build up a program rather than one very successful season. There's really no way around that, but in theory, is that really a bad thing? You're right -- this is similar to what we have now -- just taken to a more complete degree. The bolded part, though, I don't really agree with. I'm not advocating that the order be random because I think it will create more chances for other corps to score better or that I think that scoring now is influenced by performance order. I think the judging system would be able to adjust to whatever performance order we choose and the placements would come out generally the same. No, I am advocating a random performance order simply because I'd like to see other corps have an equal chance to perform later ("under the lights") at Quarters -- more like an "open" invitational as you mentioned, that's all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandbuck Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 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. I was at the '88 prelims and finals when the Scouts came from 'nowhere' to win, and I think I remember the crowd going absolutely nuts over their winning performance. With all the amazing quality in every corps, why do they need to be 'pre-judged' by their performance placement? If Blue Devils, for example, are the best, shouldn't they be number one no matter what time they perform? Why can't they go on at 6:45 and still win? If they don't, maybe they weren't the best to begin with.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Once again... consideration for audiences would be really poor with this system. I, for one, would really not like to go to only one show in a season and have each corps performance get steadily worse throughout the show.Exactly what problem are we trying to address here? Do you all really think that certain corps are getting screwed score wise because of when they perform? Not sure if I miswrote something or you misread something. I meant for the shows to get progressively better throughout the night, not the other way around. ie. Pioneer on first and Blue Devils on last (just picking two corps) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.morgus Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 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? Why are one corps scores dependant in any way on the performance of other corps? Shouldn't the judging be evaulating each corps based only on their own performance? It is the concept that a corps might be scored based on the percieved score of the "winning corps to be seen later" isn't the best way to evaluated performances in the first place that might be somewhat aleviated by have a random draw at the only contest that has all of the corps in it in the first place. As to the argument that some audience members only really want to see the winners (or near winners), then those folks should wait until semifinals, and come in late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I was at the '88 prelims and finals when the Scouts came from 'nowhere' to win, and I think I remember the crowd going absolutely nuts over their winning performance. With all the amazing quality in every corps, why do they need to be 'pre-judged' by their performance placement? If Blue Devils, for example, are the best, shouldn't they be number one no matter what time they perform? Why can't they go on at 6:45 and still win? If they don't, maybe they weren't the best to begin with.... Alright, honest question for you, and anyone else who was there in '88. Truthfully, if Scouts had not gone on last, do you think they would have won? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 If Blue Devils, for example, are the best, shouldn't they be number one no matter what time they perform? Is this not happening? Are corps being screwed over by the judges based on performance order? Please give an example of this happening 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.