Rank and Rate...managing numbers...Kind of?

[Jeff Ream]

All of the people used at these shows tend to be people who keep spreads tight. No one wants to be the one to put a dpread in so they get used again. IT IS THE WGI WAY

not on the percussion side

[Jeff Ream]

You might have an emergency in your bag? />

/>

But I think others have spoken it well: doesn't the preconceived notion of their appropriate slot automatically tend to hold them to that slot for only numbers management?

Well, no. A few years ago, I judged a 27 band Championship event, and I had seen all of the players already. It was a stacked deck too...I mean 10 really strong drumlines coming in. As the week before went on, I thought back to each of their shows, anxious to see how they had grown.

Then, the night of the show, in a torrential downpour ( at Allentown no less).....one team that coming in would have been considered middle of the pack of those 10 absolutely threw down the performance of a lifetime. I'm a stinge with numbers, but if there had not been 3 units to go, I would have 20'd it. It was that ###### amazing. And everyone that followed didn't outperform it. They won.

[jjeffeory]

Now, since there are no ties at the caption level, I'm not sure that makes a difference, except to show some carelessness.

What's more, properly following numbers management procedures, as Jeff desires, would mean that it was impossible for twelve corps to have a brass line that performs at a "Box 5" level, even if they are really all that good. Therefore, it might be desirable to allow judges to have an extra digit to work with.

...and this was the problem that I was wondering about; it seems that the numbers management game penalizes a caption's performance level, just so that the corps can be ranked, I'd rather that a Box 5 performance be scored as a box 5 performance and if there's a tie, so what?

[N.E. Brigand]

...and this was the problem that I was wondering about; it seems that the numbers management game penalizes a caption's performance level, just so that the corps can be ranked, I'd rather that a Box 5 performance be scored as a box 5 performance and if there's a tie, so what?

I guess the feeling is that this is a competition, and the judge's first job is to rank the competitors.

[N.E. Brigand]

In 1989, my corps (Suncoast) was scoring in the 50s in July. At semifinals we had the show of our lives, and, even though we were in 10th place after prelims, we pulled 3rd in Brass GE and Brass Performance, beating John's Blue Devils! Of course, at Finals we reverted back to our normal selves and dropped, but for that night (which was my most fond memory of corps, ever) we were behind only Phantom and SCV.

Is there a recording (audio or video) of Suncoast Sound's 1989 semifinals performance? Or have I perhaps heard it? I know that the CDs issued in 1989 --which I'm grateful to have-- featured BD from semis, since the frack isn't there; is it possible they took the best recording of Suncoast as well? I guess I should closely compare the sound to the DVD.

[Kamarag]

I guess the feeling is that this is a competition, and the judge's first job is to rank the competitors.

That is correct. At finals *only* the judge's first job is to rank, then rate. That's why they get away with so many sub-box ties.

[perc2100]

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard a judge's tape where the judge told the corps or band, "I'd have given you a higher score, but I couldn't because there are too many corps / bands performing after you?"

* I've heard that before (my group won the show, so I couldn't really complain)

* I've also heard tapes where a judge, in the wrap-up, say things to the effect of, "you're a great corps, but this was not a great run. I'm going to underscore you so you don't get too cocky for Finals tomorrow night. Keep up the great work, and make sure you're Finals run is better." The judge tanked the corps, gave the corps an awful, low number that the corps hadn't seen in almost a month, and gave them a ranking the corps had NEVER seen all season. The corps ended up missing finals by .1

[Kamarag]

* I've heard that before (my group won the show, so I couldn't really complain)

* I've also heard tapes where a judge, in the wrap-up, say things to the effect of, "you're a great corps, but this was not a great run. I'm going to underscore you so you don't get too cocky for Finals tomorrow night. Keep up the great work, and make sure you're Finals run is better." The judge tanked the corps, gave the corps an awful, low number that the corps hadn't seen in almost a month, and gave them a ranking the corps had NEVER seen all season. The corps ended up missing finals by .1

It wasn't on the tape, but the field brass judge in 1986 at finals wrote something along those lines on the sheet when he gave Suncoast Sound a 9.9 with six corps to go. That following the prelims performance where they corps as a whole got blasted for a sub-par performance, and was vastly underscored. The prelims panel cost the corps a legitimate shot at third place.

[ScoutMello]

I agree. Further evidence for slotting and pre-judging.

I think it's more realistic to see it as evidence of score compression.

Looking at the recap for Music - Brass (just as an example)

The judge started the night giving Blue Stars an 88 in both sub-captions. Now, if a group isn't as good as Blue Stars, then he's got plenty of scoring space to work with below them. But if each group is better than the previous, then the judge is pretty much forced to give out 1 point increments. (With 1 point of wiggle room) Meaning the 12 corps would be rated 88, 89, 90 ... 99. That being the case, if the judge sees a big jump in quality from one group to the next, he's taking a big risk with a point spread, as he could put himself in a position where he has nowhere to go before the last group performs.

Complicating matters, the judge might be painted into a corner by the previous nights scores. What if Blue Stars scored an 89 in Semis, and got better at finals? Give them a 90, and you cannot fit the rest of the performers above them without ties. Or if the judge gives them a lower score so there's more room, then the perception is that they got worse in the judges eyes.

If scoring in finals started in the 60's, then this would be far less of an issue. But that would require changing the scale throughout the season so that the scores still make sense in context.

[cixelsyd]

Look, the drum judge at finals isn't stupid. He'd seen BD and Crown back to back the previous week in Allentown, as well as SCV/Cadets back to back the night before. I *guarantee* you he was in the audience, probably low, for prelims and semifinals. Judges on finals week panels have done their homework, particularly the finals panel. He knew that short of divine intervention, Crown wasn't going to crack the top three in drums. That's not slotting.

What?

Sorry, but explain to us all how any judge can "assume" that the corps who placed 4th in a caption on Friday cannot possibly advance one spot in that caption Saturday... and how that assumption would not constitute slotting (or something worse).

If we "knew" such things in advance, we would not need judges. Your phrase "done their homework" sounds like the definition of slotting to me. Glad you are not judging in DCI, and hope your local band circuit gets better judge training soon.