84BDsop Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I was off by .4 and a year. still..... I'm still waiting for you or John to address my scoring system proposal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I'll revise them to make everyone happy. I figured it out. "No corps left behind act." Gold medals for all and a trophy that says winner. Who needs scores. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precious Roy Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) How about leaving the 10 point sub-caption cap, but allowing more decimal points? "Wow, they were high end box 5, but I've got more corps yet to perform. 9.9" "Wow, they were even better. But still a couple more corps yet to compete. 9.95" "VERY close to the best, but not quite. 9.925" "Darn near the best I've ever seen, and clearly the best tonight. 9.975 (or 9.98 or 9.99)" (Edited scores to more accurately depict that these are sub-caption scores) Edited August 11, 2014 by Precious Roy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 How about leaving the 20 point sub-caption cap, but allowing more decimal points? "Wow, they were high end box 5, but I've got more corps yet to perform. 19.9" "Wow, they were even better. But still a couple more corps yet to compete. 19.95" "VERY close to the best, but not quite. 19.925" "Darn near the best I've ever seen, and clearly the best tonight. 19.975 (or 19.98 or 19.99)" This is what I keep proposing too. I think it's a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortAndFast Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 How about leaving the 20 point sub-caption cap, but allowing more decimal points? "Wow, they were high end box 5, but I've got more corps yet to perform. 19.9" "Wow, they were even better. But still a couple more corps yet to compete. 19.95" "VERY close to the best, but not quite. 19.925" "Darn near the best I've ever seen, and clearly the best tonight. 19.975 (or 19.98 or 19.99)" I also favor this. At finals, most judges had to fit 8 or 9 corps between 90 and 100. Doesn't leave much room to show a spread. You'd get more meaningful comparisons if the judge was putting those groups between 900 and 1000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 How about leaving the 20 point sub-caption cap, but allowing more decimal points? "Wow, they were high end box 5, but I've got more corps yet to perform. 19.9" "Wow, they were even better. But still a couple more corps yet to compete. 19.95" "VERY close to the best, but not quite. 19.925" "Darn near the best I've ever seen, and clearly the best tonight. 19.975 (or 19.98 or 19.99)" Thanks, Roy. That is one question I've had all this time, but haven't been willing to make myself look stupid by asking. (Wait a second...that didn't come out right. You're NOT stupid! I only meant...oh, never mind.) I've been a good boy and have perused the "official" sheets on more than one occasion. That being said..using the current system, is a judge beholden to submitting whole number scores only? Does he/she have the option to submit an "87.5" in their own -- or do they have to choose between an 87 and an 88? I realize that once they start splitting hairs this much, they will only make the job tougher on themselves with each succeeding group. Just wondering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I'm still waiting for you or John to address my scoring system proposal... Do you want the short version which will irritate you or the long version? it's confusing as hell, and illogical to what the corps want. They want to be scored on comp/rep and achievement. your system doesn't take that into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 How about leaving the 10 point sub-caption cap, but allowing more decimal points? "Wow, they were high end box 5, but I've got more corps yet to perform. 9.9" "Wow, they were even better. But still a couple more corps yet to compete. 9.95" "VERY close to the best, but not quite. 9.925" "Darn near the best I've ever seen, and clearly the best tonight. 9.975 (or 9.98 or 9.99)" (Edited scores to more accurately depict that these are sub-caption scores) WGI percussion uses the 100th ( aka .005) and it seems to work well for them in jams. I'm not sure I'd want to add the .025 level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Do you want the short version which will irritate you or the long version? it's confusing as hell, and illogical to what the corps want. They want to be scored on comp/rep and achievement. your system doesn't take that into account. Go for it...that's why I put it out there. I don't see what's confusing, however, about assigning 100 points to each caption and then averaging them together to get the final score. I'm aware that it's an embryonic system, but I'm trying to find a way for a corps going on early to get a score that reflects a "golden show," rather than being punished because you need to leave room at the top. A stellar performance should be rewarded as such...or do you really believe that SCV's drum line would be allowed the kind of scores they were getting this year if they had to go on 3rd or 4th in a 12 corps lineup? Back in the day, 27th could go on 2nd at finals and take 2nd in drums (1984), or Bridgemen/Oakland Crusaders could take 4th/WIN drums in prelims and not even make finals (1984/1977). Tell me that can happen today....or that it's fair. At least the tick system allowed a stellar line to be scored as such if they didn't make many mistakes. There was no "leaving room"...a good performance was a good performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Go for it...that's why I put it out there. I don't see what's confusing, however, about assigning 100 points to each caption and then averaging them together to get the final score. I'm aware that it's an embryonic system, but I'm trying to find a way for a corps going on early to get a score that reflects a "golden show," rather than being punished because you need to leave room at the top. A stellar performance should be rewarded as such...or do you really believe that SCV's drum line would be allowed the kind of scores they were getting this year if they had to go on 3rd or 4th in a 12 corps lineup? Back in the day, 27th could go on 2nd at finals and take 2nd in drums (1984), or Bridgemen/Oakland Crusaders could take 4th/WIN drums in prelims and not even make finals (1984/1977). Tell me that can happen today....or that it's fair. At least the tick system allowed a stellar line to be scored as such if they didn't make many mistakes. There was no "leaving room"...a good performance was a good performance. you really believe that BITD with the tic system that whoever got lets say a 10 out of 10 meant perfect? or no mistakes?. Also , as Jeff said, corps chose to be scored the way it is Edited August 12, 2014 by GUARDLING 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.