FrenticAmnesic Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Hmmm, doesn't seem right to me. Not one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdkappasig Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 why ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikekhs Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Cause they were dirty as **** from where I was! SCV number is low....Cavies had the cleanest battery night. MIKE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdkappasig Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 sound must have been crazy in different places in the stadium cuz where i was they were clean. plus there pit is getting them a huge boost in that score. they are effing incredible. people forget that the pit is part of that score sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikekhs Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 No I have not forgotten the pit. Hence the reason I would have had Cavies up. BD also had the perfect storm of Dynasty and Evans. MIKE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullethead Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 It's all relative, and you can't reasonably compare scores from year to year, or even night to night. It's easy for a judge to evaluate things by the given criteria and then find himself in a hole and thus, gives very high scores. Likewise, it can be the case that a judge overly prepares for such a scenario and gives lower scores throughout. I can assure you that judges are firstly concerned with providing an appropriate placement and order for each group. This is also primarily determined by the specific criteria of the sheets that are provided to them as a reference for their critique. Beyond that, when a number of groups meet a criteria that affords them a certain score (via the sheets), it make the successive scores rise by default, as there is no place left to go in order to accurately place each group. In personal experience, I can tell you that, as a member of Star of Indiana....we actually scored higher in drums in '92 than we did in '93......however, (although '92 was great, we really didn't have a good show at finals) I doubt anyone would dispute that '93 was superior to '92. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikekhs Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 ALL Hail 93! Give my best to Clark! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrenticAmnesic Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 It's all relative, and you can't reasonably compare scores from year to year, or even night to night. It's easy for a judge to evaluate things by the given criteria and then find himself in a hole and thus, gives very high scores. Likewise, it can be the case that a judge overly prepares for such a scenario and gives lower scores throughout. I can assure you that judges are firstly concerned with providing an appropriate placement and order for each group. This is also primarily determined by the specific criteria of the sheets that are provided to them as a reference for their critique. Beyond that, when a number of groups meet a criteria that affords them a certain score (via the sheets), it make the successive scores rise by default, as there is no place left to go in order to accurately place each group.In personal experience, I can tell you that, as a member of Star of Indiana....we actually scored higher in drums in '92 than we did in '93......however, (although '92 was great, we really didn't have a good show at finals) I doubt anyone would dispute that '93 was superior to '92. Thanks for the reply. It does make sense that a lot of times, a judge would place himself in a hole like that, it kinda sucks. But what I'm trying to say is, in my opinion, Blue Devils percussion section isn't .2 away from perfection. Especially when something like Phantom 08 was .2 away from perfection last year. It's just frustrating to see =] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicBobert Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 But what I'm trying to say is, in my opinion, Blue Devils percussion section isn't .2 away from perfection. It's got little to do with being .2 away from perfection and more to do with the fact that the scores below them were high so that's where the spreads put them. The Blue Devils have gotten a 20.0 in brass before (wasn't even finals) but that hardly means their performance was perfect. It means the judges didn't manage their numbers carefully and ended up with nowhere to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikekhs Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Numbers management....Steve has been around 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.