JUDGING NUMBERS MANAGEMENT

[IllianaLancerContra]

I want to see what happens at Prelims if they pulled the performance order out of a hat. I'd really, really like to see what happens.

That was done in 1988, BD drew. IIRC, 5th from last. Madiso drew last in performance order and won

[loopin' froot loops]

And how do you know they "get it right" anyhow?

Just once, I'd like to see Prelims judged normally, then Semi's order randomly drawn. They can go back to ranked order for Finals. But just one time I'd like to see it happen.

A 19.3 should be a 19.3 any day, any time, any corps.

WGI does something like this at World Championships, and usually they're pretty good at giving groups the numbers they deserve, regardless of when they go on. If a group goes on 3rd out of 20 and deserves a 19.2, they give them the 19.2 more often than not.

[Jeff Ream]

Too hard for the judges to "get it right" if they have to score the top 3 hours apart instead of minutes.

happens in WGI a lot, and it's many of the same faces. Plus WGi allows the judges to hold the numbers for the round and make adjustments if need be...I'm pretty sure DCI and DCA do this now for a certain number of corps.

It can be done, and it's not that hard...usually the hardest part is managing the middle numbers. The top and the bottom usually separate themselves out pretty quickly

[skevinp]

WGI does something like this at World Championships, and usually they're pretty good at giving groups the numbers they deserve, regardless of when they go on. If a group goes on 3rd out of 20 and deserves a 19.2, they give them the 19.2 more often than not.

How are you yourself determining what they deserve here, though?

[Cappybara]

So many liberal socialist on here.

Welcome to the interwebs.

[loopin' froot loops]

How are you yourself determining what they deserve here, though?

Usually by then, the judges for that class have seen every group they'll be judging at least a couple times via video, so the have a somewhat good idea of which groups are around each other. Are there surprises throughout the round of groups doing much better (or worse) than expected? Absolutely, so they score them as such. Usually though, if group X is seen in video to be in the top 3, they're not going to score them 10 points less than they deserve, just because they are performing early in the round. I hope that somewhat made some sense. My apologies if it didn't.

[skevinp]

Usually by then, the judges for that class have seen every group they'll be judging at least a couple times via video, so the have a somewhat good idea of which groups are around each other. Are there surprises throughout the round of groups doing much better (or worse) than expected? Absolutely, so they score them as such. Usually though, if group X is seen in video to be in the top 3, they're not going to score them 10 points less than they deserve, just because they are performing early in the round. I hope that somewhat made some sense. My apologies if it didn't.

Well i think i understand what you are saying, but I am left to wonder then what was the advantage in mixing them up to begin with. I thought people were saying they should be mixed up so as to avoid assumptions about where they belong. But is sounds like you are saying it is OK to mix them up because they know what to assume anyway.

Personally, I don't see how a random mix helps avoid slotting, especially with plenty of preconceived notions about where corps belong. Not having the closest corps perform closest together would seem to decrease the chances of confidently determining that one corps is better than another despite an expectation otherwise.

[loopin' froot loops]

Well i think i understand what you are saying, but I am left to wonder then what was the advantage in mixing them up to begin with. I thought people were saying they should be mixed up so as to avoid assumptions about where they belong. But is sounds like you are saying it is OK to mix them up because they know what to assume anyway.

Personally, I don't see how a random mix helps avoid slotting, especially with plenty of preconceived notions about where corps belong. Not having the closest corps perform closest together would seem to decrease the chances of confidently determining that one corps is better than another despite an expectation otherwise.

From personal experience, if you were one of those groups that depended on a great run to have a chance at finals, you didn't want to perform during the "breakfast club", since the judges were less likely to give the (for lack of better terminology) lesser echelon groups the number they might deserve in fear of scoring themselves into a box. However, performing later in the round & after some of the upper echelon groups have already performed, the judges at that point know what is good enough to make finals and will score you accordingly. It's a number management, logistical nightmare for the middle groups: 10-20 groups fighting for 6 or so spots, and it usually depends on when you perform & sometimes who you perform after.

Example: if Colts perform right after Mandarins, it's easier to compare them and score them accordingly than if Colts performed after Crown. However, regardless if Crown performs before or after Colts, they'll get the number they deserve. It's the middle guys that are so close in show design, execution, etc. that are most likely to benefit or be hurt by performance order.

Edited June 27, 2014 by loopin' froot loops

[Jeff Ream]

How are you yourself determining what they deserve here, though?

the sheets have criteria. if the unit meets the criteria for say box 5, then the judge determines what part of the box the score should be in. usually the boxes are broken into thirds....so if someone deserves mid box 5 in book, and low box 5 in performer, you're likely to see a score like a 19.3 on the sheet.

the biggest misconception people have about judging is the bottom number. You have to manage in the sub boxes too. the real key to understanding who goes where is to look at how the sub boxes break down, not just the final number

[skevinp]

From personal experience, if you were one of those groups that depended on a great run to have a chance at finals, you didn't want to perform during the "breakfast club", since the judges were less likely to give the (for lack of better terminology) lesser echelon groups the number they might deserve in fear of scoring themselves into a box. However, performing later in the round & after some of the upper echelon groups have already performed, the judges at that point know what is good enough to make finals and will score you accordingly. It's a number management, logistical nightmare for the middle groups: 10-20 groups fighting for 6 or so spots, and it usually depends on when you perform & sometimes who you perform after.

Example: if Colts perform right after Mandarins, it's easier to compare them and score them accordingly than if Colts performed after Crown. However, regardless if Crown performs before or after Colts, they'll get the number they deserve. It's the middle guys that are so close in show design, execution, etc. that are most likely to benefit or be hurt by performance order.

If performing early is a disadvantage because the judges are afraid to score a corps as high as it deserves for fear of not leaving enough room, then I don't see how a random mix makes things any more fair because, being random, it might or might not benefit a given corps.

If there are two corps who are very evenly matched, then a random draw might have one perform early and one perform late, giving one an unfair advantage over the other. That seems to add much more unfairness. At least the current bias has the justification of arguably rewarding corps that have performed better over the season up to this point.

If not having enough room for scores is the problem, maybe the range they use should be adjusted downward, leaving plenty of room at the top and on the way to the top so every year is not a race to the mythically perfect 100 score?