Marvelous Minneapolis Matchup

[JonW]

That really is a pretty clear explanation, thank you.

It has spawned several questions, but since they all revolve around the "human" aspects (primarily ego), I'll not post them.

I will ask though: (ex:)If corps #9 sets the field ablaze with a rock-solid performance, hitting every aspect of their show flawlessly, and #8,7 and 6 put on a somewhat muddy display, will #9 be vaulted to the #6 spot?

I'd suspect not simply because #9 has already been placed far enough down to accommodate the remaining performances, and it'd be unlikely that the judges would squeeze #8-6 between #10 and 9, regardless of how poorly they may have performed that evening.

Admittedly, I lack any experience in judging, and unfortunately have too much experience in the dark side of human nature (20 years in advertising will do that).

Ah well, just tossing it out there, doesn't require any clarification - I'll just keep rereading the above explanation until either it clicks or I do...

[bluesman]

I think he is referring to BD. Those poles are trees. Word on the street is sometime later in the season BD is supposed to make those poles look like trees. Dont know if that is actually true or not. If so, that should be a big GE Visual boost.

No. I was actually referring to Phantom Regiment with my mention of trees. My point was Troopers and Colts were fielding very entertaining shows without the need for any the props that too many the G7 are do not need and are wasting money on. Too many of the props add next to nothing to programs these presenting. The cost to make or purchase these props as well as the added transportation moneys needed to haul them all over the country seem disproportionate to what they add to the programs. As a matter of fact in too many cases they end being a distraction the the program not to mention watching so many corps members waste time setting them up and then pushing them when hey should be playing their horns, bugles or performing in the guard.

[THeShadeOfNight]

No. I was actually referring to Phantom Regiment with my mention of trees. My point was Troopers and Colts were fielding very entertaining shows without the need for any the props that too many the G7 are do not need and are wasting money on. Too many of the props add next to nothing to programs these presenting. The cost to make or purchase these props as well as the added transportation moneys needed to haul them all over the country seem disproportionate to what they add to the programs. As a matter of fact in too many cases they end being a distraction the the program not to mention watching so many corps members waste time setting them up and then pushing them when hey should be playing their horns, bugles or performing in the guard.

If they can "waste time" like that and still pull off the scores and programs that they are, power to them. Props and equipment dont take away the fact these are some of the best performers in the activity.

[skywhopper]

I probably don't understand scoring as well as you but, still, your post doesn't seem to make sense, Sky.

Not saying I understand the scoring deeply and I don't know what training the judges receive, but just given the scoring system we have, where the judges can score in tenths of a point and no finer, where for a show like Minneapolis they have to fit all 20+ corps they see into a relatively narrow band of scores, where ties in captions are discouraged, and where they have to submit a score for the corps they just saw prior to seeing the corps that go on after it. Start from there, and the rest is, to me, just the logical steps towards what is very likely the case.

First, you start with not comparing scores between shows, but then you divert to judges scoring one show by leaving room to slot later finishers.

My point there was that folks complaining about how their corps scored in Minneapolis compared to X previous show. The five point drop is not due to some conspiracy or due to the corps itself falling apart, but it's just due to the fact that the judges have less leeway at Minneapolis than they do at a local show with six corps.

And is the correct word "subjective" and not objective?

While I realize there are supposed objective standards for scoring, I would call all judging subjective. And certainly the specific numbers given are subjective. That's proved by the five point drops among sub-top-12 corps come the first regional.

Next, the characterizing of highest score (presumably for the night) as "maximum reasonable" leaves lots of ambiguity and, reasonably, subjectivity.

I believe the evidence is pretty clear that if not explicit guidance, there's an understanding among judges, reinforced by DCI's and the corps' feedback about how scores should progress over the season, and when is the appropriate time to start giving scores over 80, over 90, etc.

Lastly, your concept, therefor, would suggest that judges come into the show with some preconceived notion of the "reasonable" high and low scores for this point in the season, and simply divides that range among corps they slot that night.

I wouldn't use those terms. Imagine you're the brass judge. Crown, Cadets, and BD all have great lines playing incredibly challening music, all achieving incredible things. You know this ahead of time, perhaps you've already judged a few shows. Let's say SCV has just gone on and you gave them an 81/79. Crown goes on next and they achieve at a much higher level. So you give them an 88/87. Then Cadets come on, and they're better than Crown, but just by a tiny bit. How do you score Cadets, while leaving open the possibility that you might think BD performed between the two of them? If you give Cadets an 89/87, then BD comes on and does better than Crown but worse than Cadets, you have no room to put them in. So do you give Cadets an extra bump, to 89/88, or to 90/89 so that you can give BD an 88/88 or 89/88 if necessary? What if BD comes out and blows away Cadets? Do you give them a 95/92 at this point in the season?

Isn't your analysis, if true, actually a damning condemnation of our "scoring" system? If judges are truly just plugging in numbers to justify their slotting subjective opinion that night, why all the bother with captions and boxes at all?

I don't know how to improve the judging system. Let the judges give scores in 0.05 increments if necessary? Let them take notes and then assign numbers at the end of the show? Eliminate the subcaptions and just have them give one number from 0-100? Remove the 100 limit? But I do think the system and the expectations people have of it put the judges in a bad position.

I don't think that removing the scores and just doing rankings will work, because the spread should have some meaning. But there are problems. Take finals night. The only corps that's going to be able to score perfect 20s in a caption is the last one that goes on. Is that fair?

Edited July 16, 2013 by skywhopper

[theCHEZman]

Not saying I understand the scoring deeply and I don't know what training the judges receive, but just given the scoring system we have, where the judges can score in tenths of a point and no finer, where for a show like Minneapolis they have to fit all 20+ corps they see into a relatively narrow band of scores, where ties in captions are discouraged, and where they have to submit a score for the corps they just saw prior to seeing the corps that go on after it. Start from there, and the rest is, to me, just the logical steps towards what is very likely the case.

My point there was that folks complaining about how their corps scored in Minneapolis compared to X previous show. The five point drop is not due to some conspiracy or due to the corps itself falling apart, but it's just due to the fact that the judges have less leeway at Minneapolis than they do at a local show with six corps.

While I realize there are supposed objective standards for scoring, I would call all judging subjective. And certainly the specific numbers given are subjective. That's proved by the five point drops among sub-top-12 corps come the first regional.

I believe the evidence is pretty clear that if not explicit guidance, there's an understanding among judges, reinforced by DCI's and the corps' feedback about how scores should progress over the season, and when is the appropriate time to start giving scores over 80, over 90, etc.

I wouldn't use those terms. Imagine you're the brass judge. Crown, Cadets, and BD all have great lines playing incredibly challening music, all achieving incredible things. You know this ahead of time, perhaps you've already judged a few shows. Let's say SCV has just gone on and you gave them an 81/79. Crown goes on next and they achieve at a much higher level. So you give them an 88/87. Then Cadets come on, and they're better than Crown, but just by a tiny bit. How do you score Cadets, while leaving open the possibility that you might think BD performed between the two of them? If you give Cadets an 89/87, then BD comes on and does better than Crown but worse than Cadets, you have no room to put them in. So do you give Cadets an extra bump, to 89/88, or to 90/89 so that you can give BD an 88/88 or 89/88 if necessary? What if BD comes out and blows away Cadets? Do you give them a 95/92 at this point in the season?

I don't know how to improve the judging system. Let the judges give scores in 0.05 increments if necessary? Let them take notes and then assign numbers at the end of the show? Eliminate the subcaptions and just have them give one number from 0-100? Remove the 100 limit? But I do think the system and the expectations people have of it put the judges in a bad position.

I don't think that removing the scores and just doing rankings will work, because the spread should have some meaning. But there are problems. Take finals night. The only corps that's going to be able to score perfect 20s in a caption is the last one that goes on. Is that fair?

Mr.Whopper, or can I call you Sky? That's a great explanation. It really does show the huge responsibilities of the judges. Take the percussion guy running around the field for a large regional show, attempting to get a good listen to each line regardless of heat, fatigue and then having to assign a number and manage those numbers since you have another 12 lines still coming.

[theCHEZman]

The whole numbers management concept also assumes a judge will be comparing different brass lines to the standard set by ie: CROWN.

If I am going to give Crown a 90/89 today which is a range consistent with this date for the potential winner of my caption, I have to judge the other groups according to that standard. Easy if their are 5 corps competing but when the shows are larger and you have other contenders, it becomes very demanding.

[gbell211]

My experience at DCI Minnesota was absolutely great!! The crowd was great, loved the venue, and enjoyed the performances. Here are my memorable performances:

Troopers - very impressed with them; very nice sound and good color guard.

Madison Scouts - their show will probably be my favorite this year. This corp keeps getting better and better. I think their color guard has made leaps and bounds.

Santa Clara Vanguard - love the Les Miserables show!! Performed it very well. Is it me or is their color guard underrated?

Carolina Crown - the show has it all. Great brass sound and color guard. I want them to win it all!!

I ended up making a vacation out of it anyway and will consider come back!!

[Lead]

Crown - Talented corps. Odd show. Boring show. Loved the tag of the music from The Abyss.

Blue Devils - Talented corps. Odd show. Boring show. The field looked like a ring toss game. A few super awesome jazz chords.

Cadets - Talented corps. Couldn't help but think of '99 SCV and '93 Star. The guard looked like a container of brightly hued Tic-Tacs.

SCV- Talented corps. Awesome uniforms! The '89 Cadets still can't be surpassed in the Les Mis department. :thumbup:/>

Phantom Regiment - A field of lack luster Storm Troopers. :laugh:/> Very boring show.

Bluecoats - I like the uniforms. Disliked the show. I'm just into small town Americana themes. Not a fan of the bleachers on the field.

The Madison Scouts - Boring. For all this "reinventing" the Scouts brand; there is nothing exciting about it. They are doing the same schtick from years ago when Stewart was at the helm.

The Cavaliers - Another case of "oh how the mighty have fallen." The drumline is their lone bright spot. Boring show.

Boston Crusaders - I really, really wanted to like this show. The entire gray to red thing wasn't as exciting as everyone made it out to be. SCV's tunnel is still way more "Ooo and Ahh" inducing than what Boston did; and that was way back in '85 and '86. :thumbup:/>

Blue Knights - Boring. A return to body work for the sake of body work, silly corps proper skipping and flailing about, looking like the early '90s Glassmen. The voice effects overwhelmed the music.

Spirit - Should have been beat by the Blue Stars. A yawner of a show. For a corps that's trying to include a touch of the old Spirit, they are missing the boat. If they really want to grab the crowd while playing something classic; they should play thier '83 opener "Brothers of Bop." I'd welcome that back in a heartbeat from Spirit!

Blue Stars - 99.9% awesome! Best uniforms! Great show; classic in styling and, yet, fresh and new. Very exciting. The flags need a lot of attention. The gap between them and the corps below them has widened. They should and deserve to be ahead of Spirit and very, very close to the Boston Crusaders.

Crossmen - This show reminded me of thier '06 production. It's a jumbled mish mash of tunes. I'm all for a great variety of different music; but the theme just isn't putting them all together. Jazz it up, next year, Crossmen!

Troopers - Welcome back! I would have liked to see them with the navy blue jacket they were considering; pretty cool, uniform, however. This show brought back memories of the '80s Troopers.

...I didn't see the rest of the corps.

So... what section is your kid in in the Blue Stars? Hope they're having an awesome summer.