George Dixon Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I kinda understand the scoring in DCI, although I am no sheets expert. But, I am not convinced that BD was 2.5 to 3 points superior to Coats and Cadets in 2014. None of the top 3 was pristine in execution, all 3 had different kinds of demand in their designs, etc. Subjectively, I thought the spread in the podium would have been closer to 2012 or 2013. I thought BD was that much better. Personally didn't think it was close at all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 This is why I can't wait for computers to judge everything but GE. Even if computers were judges, the results would still be subjective. Somebody has to decide what the standards are in the first place, which means that somebody else can and probably will (and maybe even should) disagree with them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyWonder1911 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I'd love to have seen how computers might've judged the Cavaliers winning DCI show " The Machine ". I think the machines would have judged them first the same way as the humanoids did. But who really knows. I don't think of these things all that much to be honest with you. That said, its impossible to ask humanoids to adequately compare and contrast such wholly and dissimilar things, and determine in any reasonable rational way which is " better ". We ask them to do the impossible however. So I see no reason to beat up on those we ask to do the impossible ( judges ), when we start from the beginning premise that its impossible to determine which is " better " . Heck, we have judges differing by as many as 4, 5 position placements in the same caption, on the same nite, looking and hearing the very same things. So what conclusions do rational and intelligent people conclude from this ? Well, you tell me.( haha!) First of all, I do understand how the judging system works. I understand that a judge gives a score based on comparing them to others. 1st corps to go on the field might get 8.5 in brass. Next corps goes on, if they are x amount better, will get 8.5 + x and so on and so forth. What my problem is, is that what does 8.5 actually mean? It means nothing in particular. Sure they might go by the judging sheets, but aside from that, 8.0 to 8.9 could all be the same. You also state your premise that "its impossible to determine which is 'better'". And you go on to mention multiple judges scoring differently in the same caption. First of all, it is not impossible to decide which is better. "Better" is clear-cut obvious. Your brass misses more notes than the last, you're not better. Your tone is worse, slightly less in-tune, someone holds a note over, you drop more flags, your flags aren't as in tandem, a box formation is off by so many steps, someone's feet get slightly out of step, etc etc etc. Is it judged like that? Mostly no, it isn't. If it were, it would be easier for judges to score objectively. 5 different judges on the same caption on the same corps on the same night all giving different scores? In any other kind of event in the world, that wouldn't happen except in the Olympics. Both happen to be non-profit, btw. I'd bet that if DCI were a for-profit venture, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of insane judging system. (Ok, we probably wouldn't have DCI at all if that were the case, but still to make my point.) I would like to see a computer system devised that would be able to judge cleanliness of drill, feet, guard, certain aspects of brass and percussion. Assume the computer is perfectly able to do its job. It would be able to see a curve, a box, a line, and calculate how far off from perfect that formation is, whether moving or not. In fact, it would be able to "see" the entire program, start to finish, and calculate a score based on 0-100 how far or close to perfect their performance was. This way, the computer won't take the 1st corps to perform, give them an arbitrary score, then try to place everyone else after them. Because of the system in place now, this is how a judge has to think: "Well I gave the first corps an 8.6 in brass, and this next corps was a little better, so I'll give them.....hmmm....I'll just give them an 8.8 just in case the next one is worse than this one, but better than the first one. Hmm...if I keep doing this I might run out of room at the top...better go and change the first one to an 8.5. Oops, can't do that. I'll just give this corps an 8.6 and hope the next corps isn't inbetween the two - and if they are, I'll just decide who they tie with. Oh, and look at this next corps! Their brass is a lot better than the last one - should I give them a 9.4? 9.5? I don't know...if I give them too high, then I'll end up giving 3 corps a 20. Can't do that! Better just give this corps a 9.1 and hope nobody complains enough that I get in trouble." After the night is over "Hmm...I should have given that corps a 9.5 after all. Oh well!" The scores literally do not mean anything in particular. They are just a means of trying to organize a ranking with numbers that the fans like. This is also why they refuse to draw the order of performance at complete random. Groups of 3's are risky but judges can normally work with it. But at complete random, no way. This is also why at Finals weekend they have a lot more judges - not to get the scores right, or to limit bias, but to limit complaints - they just hope that having more judges will end up "averaging" the scores enough so that the amount of complaints by the fans and corps are limited. It's quality control. That's all it is. They could improve the scoring system if they wanted, but they would rather just make it more and more subjective so that people will have less of a legitimate complaint. Smoke and mirrors. Did the Blue Devils really have a performance that was 99.65% accurate? No, of course not. In reality it may have only been 89.65% accurate on average from all captions. Does that mean I think the 1st place corps should get an 89.65 ? No, and I wouldn't really have a beef if they called an 89.65 a 99.65 - as long as it's equal and accurate across the board. I also understand that judging a corps performance is a difficult task, and they probably aren't paid as much as they deserve - but the entire approach to the judging system needs to be seriously looked at. There's no reason why scores need to be based on comparison, at least for the more objective-based captions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brichtimp Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I thought BD was that much better. Personally didn't think it was close at all. As excellent as BD design was and the playing and marching were the strongest, the alignment and phasing flaws and the equipment drops keep me from getting them above 99 for Finals.....I understand that isn't how the sheets work, so just my opinion. Edited June 3, 2015 by brichtimp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 2015 predictions? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsoprano Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 2015 predictions? Now don't you go getting all logical on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brichtimp Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 2015 crystal ball: BD, Crown, Cadets, SCV..... In some order, and hopefully dicing for the gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cainan Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I'm calling it now... 1. Bluecoats... Everyone writing them off and I simply don't know why... Same design staff... many returning performers and same leadership corps... they are winning the lot! 2. Crown 3. Blue Devils... yeah I did it... 3rd. 4. Santa Clara 5. Cadets 6. Cavaliers 7. Blue Knights 8. Phantom Regiment 9. Crossmen 10. Boston 11. Madison 12. Colts --------------------------------- 13. Blue Stars 14. Troopers 15. Oregon Crusaders 16. Pacific Crest 17. BDB 18. Spirit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I'm calling it now... 1. Bluecoats... Everyone writing them off and I simply don't know why... Same design staff... many returning performers and same leadership corps... they are winning the lot! 2. Crown 3. Blue Devils... yeah I did it... 3rd. 4. Santa Clara 5. Cadets 6. Cavaliers 7. Blue Knights 8. Phantom Regiment 9. Crossmen 10. Boston 11. Madison 12. Colts --------------------------------- 13. Blue Stars 14. Troopers 15. Oregon Crusaders 16. Pacific Crest 17. BDB 18. Spirit Same thing could be said for other corps irt design staff (others who have a history of winning). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cainan Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 To be fair... I reckon there will be 3 distinct groupings this year without much between the individual corps (or the groupings for that matter) 1-5... In the high 90's 6-10.. In the low 90's 11-14.. High 80's I don't honestly see there being more than a 10 point spread between 1-12th. Corps these days are of such a high quality it's really hard to judge them. Last years 12th place corps would have easily been top 5 in my day. 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.