Feelin' Fresno!

[N.E. Brigand]

If it really bothers you that much get someone to sponsor a rules change.

http://dci271.dci.org/rules/rules_change.cfm

Actually, if I'm following most of the comments correctly, the grumbles seem to be less about the rules as written and more about how they're being enforced.

(But it doesn't actually bother me that much.)

[N.E. Brigand]

For all those who haven't seen the Blue Knights show, they are doing a lot of difficult choreography, that nowhere near as easy as marching...it requires an intense amount of emotion and dancing skills that other corps don't have to learn, but the end product will be soooo worth it

And when BK doesn't finish first in Finals, will it also be because their show was too hard to get as clean as other corps' shows?

[N.E. Brigand]

Who cares? It's June. These scores do not matter right now.

Well, they don't matter and yet maybe they do. I think there is some tendency by the judges to score corps based on the scores they've already earned--you infrequently see big changes in score from one show to the next even when a corps has made big changes to its production--so that starting out with high scores gives corps a leg up as the season progresses.

[N.E. Brigand]

You guys . . . it's not that deep. Every corps grows in their own way, and that's BK's way of doing it. It's not the first time they've done this for their first performance, so I don't understand why there's such shock on here. Also, BK didn't even place the highest, so I don't see why people are freaking out again. They could have placed higher if they had a full show, and I think it's safe to say they know that.

To my eyes, the response is not so much shock as: "Really, again? When will BK start to act like the other corps?"

As for BK not placing the highest, the argument seems to be that they nonetheless were placed or at least scored too high.

(I haven't seen the performance and have no opinion on it.)

[N.E. Brigand]

Mind the sarcasm.

Maybe they were penalized last night. Maybe they should've been 5 points higher but weren't bc they were missing 3 minutes of the show.

Could be, but the math doesn't make sense. Even five points higher for quality should have resulted in a lower score based on quantity than they got.

[N.E. Brigand]

I want any corps to do what they need to do to have the best possible show on the field at finals. If that means coming out with 75% of a show...that's fine by me.

It's fine by me, too. But it does seem like their score should be marked down 25%, and it seems impossible that's happening.

For instance, let's suppose that both Blue Knights and Madison Scouts are each as good this year, comparable to the other, as they were last year.

Both at the beginning of season last year (in separate shows) and at the end (together in Finals), BK was getting scores on a given date that were about three points ahead of Scouts.

So on Friday this year, Madison Scouts with a full-length show get a 64.25.

If, moment for moment, Blue Knights are putting out a product that is three points better, then if their show were complete, they'd earn a 67.25.

But their show is 25% shorter (to use your figure) than it will be, and in fact will have to be, and therefore ought to be docked accordingly.

So BK ought to have gotten a score of approximately 50.4.

Now maybe BK is actually going to end up much better relative to Scouts this year in Finals. But at most that will be about ten-twelve points better. Even if you grant them those points right now, meaning they put out a show whose quality at full-length would be 79.25, their score accounting for length would be about 59.4.

Well, that's only a few points less than they really got. So if they end up twelve points ahead of Scouts in Finals, then we'll know that their Fresno score was fair.

[N.E. Brigand]

Nobody in their right mind is claiming that BK students and staff aren't working hard. That's not the claim. You're putting words in others' mouths.

And nobody here is claiming that BK's methods aren't effective. They reported to spring training a full week earlier than, for example, Troopers did. No question they could have put their entire show out there by June 24 if they wanted to, but for their own reasons they decide not to do it that way. Yet we all expect them to be in the hunt for a top-6 finish this year. Clearly, whatever they do, however they do it, works.

So, the issue is not work ethic. It is not effectiveness.

Can we all agree on that? And stop assuming motives?

The questions, and they are fair ones, are 1) how the scoring system should respond to BK's methods, and 2) how fair are BK's methods to the ticket-buying public?

Based on what some others on this thread have said, I take it that the score BK received Friday night took into account their abbreviated performance and was not as high as it would have been had they performed more material. In other words, the "penalty" is already baked into their score. I don't know if that's way things actually work with judges, but if it's true and if BK performed only about 7 minutes -- or roughly 2/3 as much time as others did -- their score does not strike me as 2/3 that of others. If BK got a 62 and it represents a 2/3 score, that projects to a 90-something once they put a full show out there. So whatever the penalty is, it doesn't appear to be derived from the time gap between them and other corps. Which raises the question: How, exactly, is any penalty for a short show assessed? If there is no value entered in the "penalties" column on the scoresheet, then we're all left to only guess at how any penalty was built into the score. Perhaps judges have guidance on this?

As for the fans, yeah, it's a disappointment. But I take the charitable view. If I paid for a ticket to a MLB game and they played only 6 innings, I'd complain to the management. Those guys are professionals, and they are selling a product, pure quid pro quo -- your money for our game. But this is drum corps. For the most part, I put my DCI expenditures into the donation category. My expectations about DCI's end of the bargain are not held to the same standard as MLB's end of the bargain. Understanding the nature and purpose of the activity, I cut it some slack. Even with BK playing only a partial show, the overall lineup at Fresno would have provided more than my money's worth of entertainment for the evening. I would just choose not to sweat it. With BK, you get what you get in June, that's just the way it is. If it meant that much to me, I'd move to Allentown.

Superb post. The best one yet on this subject. Makes my points much better than I did.

[Newseditor44]

I've been told that the reason the show is incomplete is partially because of some rewrites and partially because it's been a bear to teach. They also get out of school a bit later in the Denver area and haven't had a full corps until just a few weeks ago. Not one set of circumstances but many involved. Show is nearly complete and should all be on the field shortly.

What really surprises me is I cannot believe for a second that they aren't marching the complete show in rehearsals. I am obviously not in the know, but I would be surprised if it isn't on the field. So, I scratch my head as to why they wait. I understand they want to to be better than it is now, but I'm sure everyone wishes they were better than they are not.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Newseditor44

[Newseditor44]

Why, as an activity, would we want to waste our time trying to calculate exactly how many points to deduct from a score because a corps did not have its full show on the field the first week of tour? Who specifically does this serve? The corps? The fans? How does it better the activity?

The most important idea here is not the correct placement or the score - these will fluctuate throughout the year and honestly not matter at all until we get to Texas in mid July. What matters most is the evaluation of the on-field performance for the performers and staff to help them better their programs. I do not understand how docking scores for something that it is not being presented is in anyway beneficial to the activity.

It's fine by me, too. But it does seem like their score should be marked down 25%, and it seems impossible that's happening.

For instance, let's suppose that both Blue Knights and Madison Scouts are each as good this year, comparable to the other, as they were last year.

Both at the beginning of season last year (in separate shows) and at the end (together in Finals), BK was getting scores on a given date that were about three points ahead of Scouts.

So on Friday this year, Madison Scouts with a full-length show get a 64.25.

If, moment for moment, Blue Knights are putting out a product that is three points better, then if their show were complete, they'd earn a 67.25.

But their show is 25% shorter (to use your figure) than it will be, and in fact will have to be, and therefore ought to be docked accordingly.

So BK ought to have gotten a score of approximately 50.4.

Now maybe BK is actually going to end up much better relative to Scouts this year in Finals. But at most that will be about ten-twelve points better. Even if you grant them those points right now, meaning they put out a show whose quality at full-length would be 79.25, their score accounting for length would be about 59.4.

Well, that's only a few points less than they really got. So if they end up twelve points ahead of Scouts in Finals, then we'll know that their Fresno score was fair.

[N.E. Brigand]

Why, as an activity, would we want to waste our time trying to calculate exactly how many points to deduct from a score because a corps did not have its full show on the field the first week of tour? Who specifically does this serve? The corps? The fans? How does it better the activity?

The most important idea here is not the correct placement or the score - these will fluctuate throughout the year and honestly not matter at all until we get to Texas in mid July. What matters most is the evaluation of the on-field performance for the performers and staff to help them better their programs. I do not understand how docking scores for something that it is not being presented is in anyway beneficial to the activity.

Eh, it's not that important to me, although it does make me wonder why, for instance, there's a whole page titled "An Introduction to DCI Judging 'By the Numbers'" in the program I bought at tonight's Massillon show.

Which nowhere says, "Tonight's scores don't really mean anything, so don't bother reading this page."