Change to Judging

[Stu]

The winners of the Academy Awards and The People’s Choice Awards are rarely ever the same. The Academy Awards are determined by internal means where the Hollywood cohort congratulate and complement themselves; The People’s Choice Awards, however, are determined by sampling the people who actually pay to watch those movies. This begs a question: Which group is correct and qualified in their assessment of 'Best Movie', 'Best Actor', etc…; the group evaluating themselves or the people who pay to watch those movies? Answer: Both groups are absolutely 100% correct according to the rules, regulations, and means of evaluation within their respective competitions. So, if DCI wants a closed system like the Academy Awards, which is the current system, that is fine; and if DCI wants to add in an element of the audience evaluating the corps with their input affecting the rankings that is fine also. Nevertheless, no matter the system the rankings will still be mere opinion based on given set evaluation rules.

[fsubone]

Why do they need to be the same show? Why does the best performed show have to be the most audience-friendly every year? Think about VK. Exciting, entertaining, and fun as all heck, but not clean enough to win. I doubt though that anyone cared about them not winning, either in the corps or in the stands. They weren't the best out there, but they were the ones that made the lists of classic shows over the winner that year. There are enough shows out there that everyone can pick their favorite and the one they think is the best.

[Jeff Ream]

got a question..being we have a pretty good dialog at times..lol.....which shows arent likeable?..ok we know BD is topping that list , although it doesnt seem to hurt in the membership department..so kids must like their approach..( which todays member is tomorrows spectator..hopefully...how things could really change if you think about that )..who else? and isnt there enough out there for someone who hates something to like another?..I would think so ..we all didnt like everything bitd either..we just didnt have a computer and a keyboard to express it...the good and BAD of that

does the shot at a ring override the enjoyment of the product? I'm guessing for several kids, it does

[fsubone]

does the shot at a ring override the enjoyment of the product? I'm guessing for several kids, it does

Of course it does. Some are in it only for the win or the medal. Most are there for the experience and education, some only want the easiest path to a ring. Same reason kids blow off their local college football program to go to the SEC or B1G for the best shot at the title every year or a big bowl game.

[Jeff Ream]

Of course it does. Some are in it only for the win or the medal. Most are there for the experience and education, some only want the easiest path to a ring. Same reason kids blow off their local college football program to go to the SEC or B1G for the best shot at the title every year or a big bowl game.

and i'm not saying it's a bad thing. i'm just saying let's be realistic.

shared a flight with a BD member on the way home from Indy in 2010. I was complimentary and congratulated them, even tho I didn't like the show. The kid admitted he wasn't a fan, but he wanted the ring. i gave him props for honesty as well as for some great ScoJo stories

[jjeffeory]

sure it makes sense I wouldn't care at a regional....for sxxxx and giggles if it were done at a regional..as long as it had nothing to do with scoring..but you examples you sited and how things become a wash and you show to show, year to year etc etc..kinda makes the whole things useless..unless Im not gettting it...........yeah the internet is great for education unless ( more often than not) it becomes a place for the person who wouldnt dare say what they do face to face..or it became a place where the person who really didnt have a voice for many reasons has one now......not saying it about anyone in particular..just the internet in general...in theory its a great thing but actually..it is an entertaining thing..lol.........and thanks..i enjoy your posts also

The show to show, year to year comment means that I base my opinion of shows based on the product that I see at that time. From show to show, the product execution and design can change, so my "fan" score would change as a result of that just like a "real" judge* (* I would hope)

I think one thing you're referring to as being useless is the comment I made about how some people would always give certain corps low fan scores in one area, but then that would be offset by those would always give those corps higher praise ( because there are people who just vote that way because of whatever reason), making it a wash. What I meant to say is that I feel that we would get "those" groups canceling each other out, and then there would be people in the middle who would actually try and be objective and rank and rate, just like the regular judges. Maybe some corps has an incredible year where even their haters have to give it up, and that's reflected by the fans. Maybe they have a magical night? Who knows? It's just fun to think about.

...and if a corps consistently gets low fan scores, I'm sure they could figure out a way to get those fan scores raised by changing the design or execution, just as they now do with scores on the regular sheets.

Oh and were you saying that you wouldn't want this scoring to be part of the final score just like what was done to the old guard scores in the past, where they had nothing to do with the final scoring? Instead maybe choosing a "People's Champion" or something like that?

Edited March 14, 2014 by jjeffeory

[jjeffeory]

Which, to be blunt, would be completely undeserving; as would Blue Devils not winning in 2010.

IF the criteria included the fan judging system as illustrated above, then Blue Devils would not have deserved to win.

BD won with the criteria that was in effect during that time.

We're just having fun and plugging in different scenarios to see how another system would have changed outcomes.

[jjeffeory]

SCV changing from 4th to 2nd isn't changing the outcome that much?! Blue Devils going from a close second to a distant 4th?

It doesn't matter, except for the sake of argument, since DCI has zero plans of implementing this (that I've heard, at least). But I still think it's an unwise move that would likely cause more fan frustration than it would create excitement.

Right, this is supposed to be "fun", not blood pressure raising, as it seems to be doing to some people around here. DCI is not going to do this, so there's no need to get "hurt" over it...

Obviously there are going to be different outcomes benefiting different corps at the expense of other corps based on the two methods chosen. That's the whole point of shaking up the scoring system.

...to see how the placements would change. N.E. Bregand took the time to actually run some numbers, so that we may quantify how the outcome would have changed. In the grand scheme of things, we'd get 5 corps who would have placement changes, and there would be 7 corps that would not change. 10th-12th place wouldn't change. The changes would happen in the various scoring clusters

1st - 4th place had some changes & 5th - 9th did as well. 10th - 12th didn't budge. Not a huge change,in my opinion. We'd still have the same champion last year. I'm betting that Troopers would have been 12th if they had been on the list. Still it wouldn't have caused Madison to jump into the top 5 and it wouldn't have cause Blue Devils to drop out of the top 5. The show design of the corps with poor "fan scores" may have been altered slightly to raise them, which would have been interesting as well... Anyway, the placement shuffling around of some of these corps, while staying in the same scoring cluster is pretty minor to me. I know it's not nothing if you're the corps who didn't benefit from the change. I disagree with scores a bit as it goes anyway. I'm sure I would still disagree with some scores even with the changes that have been brought up here, but I'm just trying to have an open mind about this discussion and have fun with the topic.

Edited March 14, 2014 by jjeffeory

[cixelsyd]

You said 5% of their score. 5% of Madison's 2010 Finals score is 4.45. No, they wouldn't have passed the Blue Devils. But it would have made a big difference in their Finals placement. Would have bumped them from 10th to 6th.

No, I never said 5% of their score. I said 5% of the score, as in a 5 point caption. The example N.E. Brigand gives is an appropriate enough illustration for discussion purposes.

Would this hypothetical 5% fan vote be an all-or-nothing proposition, or would it be a score based on the number of votes each corps receives? In the latter case, it could be a standard reduction for each placement, e.g., 5% for the most votes, 4.6% for the second-most votes, 4.2% for the third-most votes, etc. (call this the "first model" for the recalculations below); or it could be a straight percentage of the percentage (call this the "second model").

Even in Madison, the Scouts probably wouldn't be the favorite of every single audience member, and if we were to take last year's Finals as an example, we might find that the fan favorites were apportioned something like this:

35% Santa Clara Vanguard (= 5.0 pts. in the first model or 1.75 pts. in the second model)

33% Carolina Crown (= 4.6 pts. in the first model or 1.65 pts. in the second model)

30% Madison Scouts (= 4.2 pts. in the first model or 1.50 pts. in the second model)

25% Phantom Regiment (= 3.8 pts. in the first model or 1.25 pts. in the second model)

23% Bluecoats (= 3.4 pts. in the first model or or 1.15 pts. in the second model)

20% Cadets (= 3.0 pts. in the first model or 1.00 pts. in the second model)

18% Spirit of Atlanta (= 2.6 pts. in the first model or 0.90 pts. in the second model)

15% Cavaliers (=2.2 pts. in the first model or 0.75 pts. in the second model)

13% Blue Devils (=1.8 pts. in the first model or 0.65 pts. in the second model)

10% Boston Crusaders (= 1.4 pts. in the first model or 0.50 pts. in the second model)

8% Blue Knights (=1.0 pts. in the first model or 0.40 pts. in the second model)

5% Blue Stars (=0.6 pts. in the first model or 0.25 pts. in the second model)

Don't worry about the order or the percentages too much. It doesn't matter for the present purpose, which is to observe that a system could be set up to allow the audience a vote without any one corps getting a five-point advantage on the rest of the field. For this hypothetical exercise, if we reduce every 2013 Finals score by five points and then add back the numbers above, we get:

first model

97.90 Carolina Crown

97.85 Santa Clara Vanguard

94.95 Cadets

94.85 Blue Devils

92.05 Phantom Regiment

91.75 Bluecoats

89.30 Madison Scouts

87.70 Cavaliers

86.80 Boston Crusaders

84.00 Spirit of Atlanta

83.75 Blue Knights

81.05 Blue Stars

second model

94.95 Carolina Crown

94.60 Santa Clara Vanguard

93.70 Blue Devils

92.95 Cadets

89.50 Phantom Regiment

89.50 Bluecoats

86.60 Madison Scouts

86.25 Cavaliers

85.90 Boston Crusaders

83.15 Blue Knights

82.30 Spirit of Atlanta

80.70 Blue Stars

Now, this being DCP, reactions run full scale from "yawn" to this:

disaster.....5% would change outcomes and also make it nothing more than a popularity contest which could have nothing to do with who is best

Obviously, allocating 5% to a fan vote does not turn the whole event into nothing more than a popularity contest.

kinda interesting that many from BITD now dont want to be spectators but want to judge..hmmmmmmm not saying you in particular , there are some who want it to be what it was ..well it never was a spectator judged event......dont get why someone would want to get involved in a judging position rather than sit and enjoy.....or why those who feel the need to judge havent done just that.....if people want a fan favorite ( which maybe can be done at a regionals ) not local shows I guess it can be ok...but NEVER with the power to change placements.................................If thats what the activity becomes, then there is a heck of alot that would have to change throughout the entire activity...ALOT!........hey to each his own................I love it when im at a show ( winter or summer " where i DONT have to " Judge something "....lol

I thought you said that being open minded to change can be a good thing.

SCV changing from 4th to 2nd isn't changing the outcome that much?! Blue Devils going from a close second to a distant 4th?

How is 0.1 "distant"?

Okay, I get it - you are a Blue Devils fan. But be honest - are you truly concerned that the 2013 Blue Devils would have taken 9th in a fan vote, as in the hypothetical example above?

It doesn't matter, except for the sake of argument, since DCI has zero plans of implementing this (that I've heard, at least). But I still think it's an unwise move that would likely cause more fan frustration than it would create excitement.

I think it would relieve frustration and generate excitement. In this age of more advanced communication technology, all kinds of businesses are using similar tactics to get feedback on their products and/or strengthen the connection with the customer. This does both.

[Stu]

...I thought you said that being open minded to change can be a good thing....

It does not surprise me at all. This contradiction is actually consistent with those who espouse the theories of 'Perception is Reality' and 'Truth is Relative'; because at some point they always go past just stating their opinion and end up standing strong for a position instead of remaining completely and utterly open-minded. That creates a oxymoron where their theory and their actuality clash; and I, for one, find it funny to always see this contradiction manifest itself.