Do scores START too low?

[shaners]

At the original poster: I used to ponder the same exact question. The way I now view scores is as a living spread between corps that evolves throughout the season. I am of the opinion that a larger score spread would allow for a more organic growth through the season.

When I first started dealing with scores in the marching activities I tried compartmentalizing everything. I tried assigning abstract point values to specific elements of design and levels of execution. The problem with this way of thinking is that it implies that the content scores never change (which is far from true).

Similarly, comparing the finals week score of 13th place corps X to the early/mid season score of the Blue Devils is comparing apples to oranges. The content is totally different, and one show will always have more effect, regardless of the score or when it was given. Like I already said, a larger score spread would feel more natural in this regard.

In the end, who cares, right? The score is just an extrinsic motivator for corps to base their progress. In 10 years when I pop out my 2014 DVD, I'm going to watch the shows that I enjoyed, regardless of the score it was given.

[IllianaLancerContra]

This has been on my mind for a long time, and I hope I'm able to clearly convey my thoughts.

I've seen a lot of discussions on slotting and/or discrepancy on scores. But has anyone ever considered that scores start out too low in the first place? For example, (and I'll be using two of my favorite corps so that i don't want anyone to think this is a rant) tonight, Crossmen scored a 75.00; In their first competition, they scored a 62.20, and Blue Devils won that show with a score of 73.20. Are the Crossmen of tonight really 1.8 points better than Blue Devils of 3 weeks ago? That's not my main question, even I know the answer is absolutely not. But why can't scores start out higher? I personally believe that if Blue Devils opening show was somehow performed on Prelims night in Indy, it would score AT LEAST an 85.

This is my only beef with scores. I'd love to hear someones input so that I don't have a beef anymore with the scores or judging system. Don't get me wrong, it's not killing me, I just don't get it...

A thought or two -

If the same scoring sheets are used as the previous year, and the corps is better this year (as all are claimed to be), then scores should be higher for every corps from the get-go.

but....

The scores top out at 100.00. Every corps has to be ranked at the end of the season using the same scoring criteria as used at the start of the season, when every corps should logically (if they were indeed better out of the gate) initially scored higher than the previous season.

and

ideally there would be enough points between the lowest scoring corps and the highest scoring corps to fit all the rest of the corps into, while allowing for an accurate point spread between corps from second place through next-to-last.

Finally, another difference between the activity today and the stone age from whence I came is back then it was common to see in Drum Corps World statements such as 'Corps X was good last year, but this year they are much worse; must have had a rough winter'. Today there is criticism/critique of things such as design of the show, uniforms, music, etc. But it is rare to see phrases directly saying 'Corps X is really lousy this year - what happened?'

[wesleyrp]

Early season scores are like NFL preseason- just a chance to make changes and evaluate. Fun for us as fans but its more for the corps to show what can be improved. Why not score low, not every corps needs to be scored the same. If they all started at 70 then it'd be pretty silly. Spreads are the important sign of scoring. Where is the corps scoring in relation to groups around it.... As they improve does that spread stay the same or get smaller. So no, I think they're fine scoring the way they do, we just don't need to read into it as much.