Post Scranton, Buccaneers ...poll

[VOReason]

They only march on the weekends so lets just give them all an 82...ofcoarse not. But getting beat by 25 Pt's with only 6 corps competing isn't right either

I certainly don't want anyone to feel bad. All I am saying is that if the Bucs score a 98 point something and set a new record, that perhaps our enthusiasm should be somewhat tempered if the the 8th place corps breaks 90. Looking at some historical championship scores, the Sunrisers won the '82 championships, and NOBODY broke 90. Hawthorne won in '74 while scoring a paultry 83 and change. Shoot, those boys must STILL be in therapy!!

[FuzZyBeaR]

Comparing scores between years and shows is pointless. It's all about the spreads baby!. In regards to the build-up scoring system, you'll drive yourself nuts trying to make sense of it. How many corps with their best Sunday sound and back to back rehearsal days will have their score stay the same or go down from Prelims to Finals? If your score doesn't move but you pass 2 corps the next show does it really matter what the number is?

[Tom D'Bomb]

Comparing scores between years and shows is pointless. It's all about the spreads baby!. In regards to the build-up scoring system, you'll drive yourself nuts trying to make sense of it. How many corps with their best Sunday sound and back to back rehearsal days will have their score stay the same or go down from Prelims to Finals? If your score doesn't move but you pass 2 corps the next show does it really matter what the number is?

You nailed it Fuzzy Bear.

That's why MBI's achievement last Labor Day Weekend caught everyone's attention: Same amount of remaining rehearsal hours, but they were the ones who jumped two spots.

[VOReason]

Comparing scores between years and shows is pointless. It's all about the spreads baby!. In regards to the build-up scoring system, you'll drive yourself nuts trying to make sense of it. How many corps with their best Sunday sound and back to back rehearsal days will have their score stay the same or go down from Prelims to Finals? If your score doesn't move but you pass 2 corps the next show does it really matter what the number is?

This new scoring system also pretty much eliminated spreads. It's now all about rankings, as it probably should be. And your right, if your corps wins or beats the corps they have been chasing all year, who cares what your score is. However I will not be one of those folks oohing and aahing over the announcement of the first place score with a 98 plus....

[Jeff Ream]

I certainly don't want anyone to feel bad. All I am saying is that if the Bucs score a 98 point something and set a new record, that perhaps our enthusiasm should be somewhat tempered if the the 8th place corps breaks 90. Looking at some historical championship scores, the Sunrisers won the '82 championships, and NOBODY broke 90. Hawthorne won in '74 while scoring a paultry 83 and change. Shoot, those boys must STILL be in therapy!!

totaly different scoring system and philosophy back then

[TomPeashey]

couple judging system comments

Yes, it is a slippery slope to compare scores from show to show. This is because of show dynamics. Every show has its different sets of parameters: viewing, height, lighting etc. but most important is - Who goes on first. Rank and Rate is all set by the first score you give in a contest. Because of human instinct and a bit of judge's instruction, show dynamics are also effected by the number of corps you are going to adjudicate. If you have 5 corps to judge in the show, your first number might (with emphasis on might) be a little more generous. If you're doing prelims, you might be thinking very hard about the many corps to come after and that might have an "effect" of tempering that first number... but whatever - everything else is compared to the number before it in your attempt to not only properly rank the groups but properly rate them (get the spread right!)

There is nothing wrong with this... it's just how it's done... a tried and proven system that is the only thing consistent in all our adjudication whether it be DCA, DCI, WGI or BOA... whatever...

Now, to Jeff's comments on the scoring systems being radically different are true. No comparison. I can remember well when the top scores were indeed 83. This was a combination of how the systems worked and the tick system. Ticks caused lower scores because no one was perfect.

That being said...

The biggest behind the scene change was the adoption of the modified bell curve. This actually gave the judges the ability to do a better job in Rating the best of the best and made errors in placement - especially in the top 5, much less likely.

The original Bell Curve assumes that the larger quantity of corps will be average and very few will be near the highest achievement - so in the bell curve - if you had 10 points in a caption to give (100 for our purposes), it might be broken down as follows:

Box 1 - 5 points

Box 2 - 20 points

Box 3 - 50 points

Box 4 - 20 points

Box 5 - 5 points

This is called a "pure" bell curve. The problem with the pure curve it does not reflect reality. First, no one wants to embarrass a corps by putting them in box 1 - so any points allocated for box 1 are LOST for use by the judge. Pure assumes that the majority of corps will be in box 3 "average". Late season in DCA, the break down of corps does not work out that way. By the end of the season, the majority of the corps are in box 4. Which brings us to the problem. With only 2 points in box 5 and at least 3, 4 or even 5 or 6 corps at finals achieving box 5, the judge has no room to rate within sub captions. Sub caption ties were common and - by the way - let to the tendancy for overall ties in the 80's and even into the 90's.

Now, we use a modified bell curve that reflects reality and still allows the judge to rank and rate - especially by giving him more room in Box 5.

Box 1 - 40 to 49

Box 2 - 50 to 65

Box 3 - 66 to 79

Box 4 - 80 to 93

Box 5 - 94 to 100

This is why it's impossible to compare scores from year to year. Things change - systems change... And yes, this system is also responsible for the high scores at finals near the top. It's simple, the judge is trying to do two things critical to his score: Identify who belongs in box 5 and then rank and rate within box 5. He must use every tenth available to him and will often go to near the top to make the correct rating work...

[melligene]

couple judging system comments

Yes, it is a slippery slope to compare scores from show to show. This is because of show dynamics. Every show has its different sets of parameters: viewing, height, lighting etc. but most important is - Who goes on first. Rank and Rate is all set by the first score you give in a contest. Because of human instinct and a bit of judge's instruction, show dynamics are also effected by the number of corps you are going to adjudicate. If you have 5 corps to judge in the show, your first number might (with emphasis on might) be a little more generous. If you're doing prelims, you might be thinking very hard about the many corps to come after and that might have an "effect" of tempering that first number... but whatever - everything else is compared to the number before it in your attempt to not only properly rank the groups but properly rate them (get the spread right!)

There is nothing wrong with this... it's just how it's done... a tried and proven system that is the only thing consistent in all our adjudication whether it be DCA, DCI, WGI or BOA... whatever...

Now, to Jeff's comments on the scoring systems being radically different are true. No comparison. I can remember well when the top scores were indeed 83. This was a combination of how the systems worked and the tick system. Ticks caused lower scores because no one was perfect.

That being said...

The biggest behind the scene change was the adoption of the modified bell curve. This actually gave the judges the ability to do a better job in Rating the best of the best and made errors in placement - especially in the top 5, much less likely.

The original Bell Curve assumes that the larger quantity of corps will be average and very few will be near the highest achievement - so in the bell curve - if you had 10 points in a caption to give (100 for our purposes), it might be broken down as follows:

Box 1 - 5 points

Box 2 - 20 points

Box 3 - 50 points

Box 4 - 20 points

Box 5 - 5 points

This is called a "pure" bell curve. The problem with the pure curve it does not reflect reality. First, no one wants to embarrass a corps by putting them in box 1 - so any points allocated for box 1 are LOST for use by the judge. Pure assumes that the majority of corps will be in box 3 "average". Late season in DCA, the break down of corps does not work out that way. By the end of the season, the majority of the corps are in box 4. Which brings us to the problem. With only 2 points in box 5 and at least 3, 4 or even 5 or 6 corps at finals achieving box 5, the judge has no room to rate within sub captions. Sub caption ties were common and - by the way - let to the tendancy for overall ties in the 80's and even into the 90's.

Now, we use a modified bell curve that reflects reality and still allows the judge to rank and rate - especially by giving him more room in Box 5.

Box 1 - 40 to 49

Box 2 - 50 to 65

Box 3 - 66 to 79

Box 4 - 80 to 93

Box 5 - 94 to 100

This is why it's impossible to compare scores from year to year. Things change - systems change... And yes, this system is also responsible for the high scores at finals near the top. It's simple, the judge is trying to do two things critical to his score: Identify who belongs in box 5 and then rank and rate within box 5. He must use every tenth available to him and will often go to near the top to make the correct rating work...

Color me "Wrong" here if you will but, after reading this it gives more creedance to the "Tick" system. Within that system.........every Corps' was considered PERFECT until an error was made. Under the current system, which everyone seems to think works....and with drill design being what it is.......is probably necessary.......every adjudicator has to perecieve something that has not yet happened with expectations that something may be better or worse. How do you do that....?

Edited August 8, 2009 by melligene

[VOReason]

couple judging system comments

Yes, it is a slippery slope to compare scores from show to show. This is because of show dynamics. Every show has its different sets of parameters: viewing, height, lighting etc. but most important is - Who goes on first. Rank and Rate is all set by the first score you give in a contest. Because of human instinct and a bit of judge's instruction, show dynamics are also effected by the number of corps you are going to adjudicate. If you have 5 corps to judge in the show, your first number might (with emphasis on might) be a little more generous. If you're doing prelims, you might be thinking very hard about the many corps to come after and that might have an "effect" of tempering that first number... but whatever - everything else is compared to the number before it in your attempt to not only properly rank the groups but properly rate them (get the spread right!)

There is nothing wrong with this... it's just how it's done... a tried and proven system that is the only thing consistent in all our adjudication whether it be DCA, DCI, WGI or BOA... whatever...

Now, to Jeff's comments on the scoring systems being radically different are true. No comparison. I can remember well when the top scores were indeed 83. This was a combination of how the systems worked and the tick system. Ticks caused lower scores because no one was perfect.

That being said...

The biggest behind the scene change was the adoption of the modified bell curve. This actually gave the judges the ability to do a better job in Rating the best of the best and made errors in placement - especially in the top 5, much less likely.

The original Bell Curve assumes that the larger quantity of corps will be average and very few will be near the highest achievement - so in the bell curve - if you had 10 points in a caption to give (100 for our purposes), it might be broken down as follows:

Box 1 - 5 points

Box 2 - 20 points

Box 3 - 50 points

Box 4 - 20 points

Box 5 - 5 points

This is called a "pure" bell curve. The problem with the pure curve it does not reflect reality. First, no one wants to embarrass a corps by putting them in box 1 - so any points allocated for box 1 are LOST for use by the judge. Pure assumes that the majority of corps will be in box 3 "average". Late season in DCA, the break down of corps does not work out that way. By the end of the season, the majority of the corps are in box 4. Which brings us to the problem. With only 2 points in box 5 and at least 3, 4 or even 5 or 6 corps at finals achieving box 5, the judge has no room to rate within sub captions. Sub caption ties were common and - by the way - let to the tendancy for overall ties in the 80's and even into the 90's.

Now, we use a modified bell curve that reflects reality and still allows the judge to rank and rate - especially by giving him more room in Box 5.

Box 1 - 40 to 49

Box 2 - 50 to 65

Box 3 - 66 to 79

Box 4 - 80 to 93

Box 5 - 94 to 100

This is why it's impossible to compare scores from year to year. Things change - systems change... And yes, this system is also responsible for the high scores at finals near the top. It's simple, the judge is trying to do two things critical to his score: Identify who belongs in box 5 and then rank and rate within box 5. He must use every tenth available to him and will often go to near the top to make the correct rating work...

Holy crap...you must need a Phd. in statistics just to judge a 'friggin drum corps! Shoot, I had Reading in first place at Scranton after their opener and I didn't require a scientific calculator.

[Fran Haring]

I certainly don't want anyone to feel bad. All I am saying is that if the Bucs score a 98 point something and set a new record, that perhaps our enthusiasm should be somewhat tempered if the the 8th place corps breaks 90. Looking at some historical championship scores, the Sunrisers won the '82 championships, and NOBODY broke 90. Hawthorne won in '74 while scoring a paultry 83 and change. Shoot, those boys must STILL be in therapy!!

I'm with ya on most of this. The point spreads and position changes from prelims to finals, if any, are the thing to keep an eye on these days.

However, if someone ...Bucs or whoever...breaks the current high-score record of 98.6 (Brigadiers, 2002) this year, next year, or whenever... I still think that would be very impressive.

Fran

[Jeff Ream]

Color me "Wrong" here if you will but, after reading this it gives more creedance to the "Tick" system. Within that system.........every Corps' was considered PERFECT until an error was made. Under the current system, which everyone seems to think works....and with drill design being what it is.......is probably necessary.......every adjudicator has to perecieve something that has not yet happened with expectations that something may be better or worse. How do you do that....?

except the tolerance for what a "tick" is varied greatly from judge to judge.

go look at old recaps.....you can see wild variances when two people judged the same show on the same caption