Discussion about order of performance

[MikeRapp]

The top groups do not always perform last. There are shows every single season where they perform early. I believe the TOC shows intentionally rotate the order of appearance, for example. Regionals randomize the order within groups of corps. Historically, none of this has had a noticeable effect on either scores or placements.

The only shows where I think it matters are regionals/championships with very large lineups. It would be hard for any judge to accurately compare Blue Devils to Bluecoats if BD performed at 2:30 in the afternoon and BC at 10:00 at night.

But is that not the point? Judges should not be comparing one show to another for scoring. They should be scoring by performance only. If I follow your logic, Colts could never conceivably finish in the top third of any competition if they go on first. Your response is, well, Colts never deserves to finish in the top third...but that again reinforces the idea that the general pecking order is pretty much predetermined.

I get that Bluecoats won't always perform last...but I doubt we will ever see them perform first or second! Why not? If judges are supposed to only judge achievement by a predetermined score sheet, why would it matter where they perform?

[Cappybara]

But is that not the point? Judges should not be comparing one show to another for scoring. They should be scoring by performance only. If I follow your logic, Colts could never conceivably finish in the top third of any competition if they go on first. Your response is, well, Colts never deserves to finish in the top third...but that again reinforces the idea that the general pecking order is pretty much predetermined.

I get that Bluecoats won't always perform last...but I doubt we will ever see them perform first or second! Why not? If judges are supposed to only judge achievement by a predetermined score sheet, why would it matter where they perform?

DCI judging is spread based. Do you REALLY think BD was .35 points from a perfect show in 2014? No. They were just 2 points better than the rest

[MikeRapp]

DCI judging is spread based. Do you REALLY think BD was .35 points from a perfect show in 2014? No. They were just 2 points better than the rest

Please correct me if I am wrong, as I so often am, but judging is not supposed to be "spread based."

It should not matter what order a corps performs, period. Theoretically, if the Stanford performers performed in 10 different orders of performance, their scores should be identical.

If this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, it's going to take a herculean effort for a corps to advance in the pecking order, over MANY seasons. Order of finish is de facto built into the activity, and it obviously would become (and is) a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Edited June 27, 2016 by MikeRapp

[Cappybara]

Please correct me if I am wrong, as I so often am, but judging is not supposed to be "spread based."

It should not matter what order a corps performs, period. Theoretically, if the Stanford performers performed in 10 different orders of performance, their scores should be identical.

If this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, it's going to take a herculean effort for a corps to advance in the pecking order, over MANY seasons. Order of finish is de facto built into the activity, and it obviously would become (and is) a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here's my understanding of the system: it is partially spread based and partially based on the achievement level of the corps themselves.

Each corps, when they perform, is placed into a "box" with box 1 being the lowest and box 5 being the highest. This is the general range of which the scores for a particular corps will lie. However, assigning scores to a very subjective performance is difficult, even when placing a corps in a box. As a result, spreads are utilized in order for judges to get a more accurate score put down for each corps.

Judging purely on achievement and not on spreads would lead to extremely subjective and often inaccurate scoring that plays to the biases of each judge rather than the performance of the corps itself.

[ShortAndFast]

But is that not the point? Judges should not be comparing one show to another for scoring. They should be scoring by performance only. If I follow your logic, Colts could never conceivably finish in the top third of any competition if they go on first. Your response is, well, Colts never deserves to finish in the top third...but that again reinforces the idea that the general pecking order is pretty much predetermined.

I get that Bluecoats won't always perform last...but I doubt we will ever see them perform first or second! Why not? If judges are supposed to only judge achievement by a predetermined score sheet, why would it matter where they perform?

The judge's first responsibility is to rank the group against the others appearing at the competition. Please read the sheets (these are a couple of years old but I don't think anything substantial has changed: http://www.dci.org/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209937964). They all include language along the lines of "In all these regards, how do these performers compare to other performers in the competition."

So suppose that it's Atlanta and you're the brass judge. BD performs at 2:30 in the afternoon and you have no trouble rating them as an excellent brass line playing a fantastic book, who deserves mid-Box 5 numbers in both content and performance. 7 hours later, you hear Crown and again rate them as an excellent line with an excellent book, mid Box 5. But the sheets instruct you to rank Crown vs. BD. How accurately can you remember the fine nuances of a very comparable performance that you heard many hours ago?

Note that this is only a problem with groups at a very similar level (within a couple of tenths of each other). If you heard Jersey Surf at 2:30 and BD at 10:00, you didn't rate those lines the same so there's no difficulty in ranking them correctly.

You'll definitely see Bluecoats perform first or second at a TOC show this summer, and maybe at others, so you'll get to see what impact it has on their rank/score. In the past couple of years, performance order shuffling hasn't made any difference.

[MGCpimpOtimp]

Corps order is currently decided by three factors at non regionals: Previous year's placement, random draw, and home show/encore. You are placed into a neighborhood based on last year's scores (can't remember if it's groups of 3 or 6), within those groups it is a random draw, except when it is a corps' home show. So, BD, Crown, Coats, and maybe Cadets, will always be the last 4 groups at a show that isn't another corps' home show. Pretty good middle ground if you ask me.

[N.E. Brigand]

From my point of view I feel like this whole performance order argument stems from a misguided fairness issue. "Woah me, we just can't get a break. Someone just give us a better starting time and then we will beat more corps."

To me, this is what it feels like. It's as if they are saying "the judges are slotting us, not observing our capabilities. Just give us a better starting time and those same judges will see how much better we are when we go on 20 to 45 minutes later."

Quality is quality no matter what the starting time.

In which case, there's no harm in shuffling the corps a bit more.

I mean, if it doesn't matter, why tie performance order to previous placements at all?

[ShortAndFast]

In which case, there's no harm in shuffling the corps a bit more.

I mean, if it doesn't matter, why tie performance order to previous placements at all?

So far, this thread has talked about

- rotating performance order at TOC shows

- randomized order in groups, based on prior regionals, at regionals

- randomized order in groups, based on last year's placement, at non-regionals

Where else do you think they should do it?

I'd argue strongly that they should not randomize championships - you should earn your championship performance slot based on your prior scores, period.

[MikeRapp]

In which case, there's no harm in shuffling the corps a bit more.

I mean, if it doesn't matter, why tie performance order to previous placements at all?

Exactly my point. Now I understand the argument that it simply makes the judging job easier, but I am guessing the corps "stuck" at the bottom half of the pecking order don't care so much about making the judges job easier.

We've always discussed why there isn't more randomness and upward mobility in how Cops finish. For me, this is really the only thing I can find where it feels like the order of performance is fairly well set before every season starts, and therefore is much harder to impact. It's certainly much harder to impact in the short-term.

People would like to say oh it's simply doesn't matter, but if it doesn't matter then why do we do it this way? I guarantee you, if blue Devils were forced to perform in the first hour of every show, their leadership would not be happy. And they wouldn't be happy because they know their scores would be impacted in a negative way.

[Cappybara]

Exactly my point. Now I understand the argument that it simply makes the judging job easier, but I am guessing the corps "stuck" at the bottom half of the pecking order don't care so much about making the judges job easier.

We've always discussed why there isn't more randomness and upward mobility in how Cops finish. For me, this is really the only thing I can find where it feels like the order of performance is fairly well set before every season starts, and therefore is much harder to impact. It's certainly much harder to impact in the short-term.

People would like to say oh it's simply doesn't matter, but if it doesn't matter then why do we do it this way? I guarantee you, if blue Devils were forced to perform in the first hour of every show, their leadership would not be happy. And they wouldn't be happy because they know their scores would be impacted in a negative way.

Actually no it wouldn't impact them in a negative way. The only limiting factor in scoring is the number 100. BD could go first in a competition this week, have a judge put them at 75, and then have everyone else below them. There's no close upper limit. In this case, I'm all for randomizing the order (at non-regionals).

However, once you get to the championships, randomizing is a very dumb idea in my opinion. Firstly, the regionals are used as a way to seed the corps much like in a sports tournament. They have earned that advantageous position. Second, scores get too close to the 100 mark and randomizing the order starts to favor the corps below the top corps. Why? Take for example 2013 Carolina Crown. They earned a perfect score in brass performance, but they also performed last on finals night. I suspect, given how close Cadets and Crown were in brass that year, that Crown would not have received that score had they performed before the Cadets. Yes, there are some outliers such as Phantom 2010 receiving a perfect score in percussion despite performing 5-6th from last, but that's a rare occurrence.