CaviesFan17 Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 To this point I don't see anyone but BD, Bloo, and Crown in the top 3. SCV is really good this year and I love the show. Visual and music just rocks! The Cadets are struggling with show theme and some staging, visual issues. But they have top 3 caliber brass and percussion and are legendary marchers (usually) come August. They could be dangerous. So SCV and Cadets would be your only dark horses for a run at the top 3. Phantom, Cavaliers, Madison, BK are wonderful shows but I'm not sure they will crack the top 3, or top 5. Maybe Cavaliers can crack the top 5. Yeah, I hope Blue Knights start to improve. Boston as well, does anyone know what happened with Boston this year? Age outs or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Dixon Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) Yes I do. Can't see Cadets or Vanguard outscoring the other three, and I feel that Crown will win GE and Brass (maybe guard) when it's all said and done. Soooo... Crown > BD > Coats. You "feel" doesn't make something a lock. This thread is ridiculous. "Can't see " doesn't make something a lockNot picking on you, a better word choice than "lock" would be been terrific Edited July 7, 2016 by George Dixon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) I've been pondering how to introduce more sports-like randomness to the scores to add volatility in placements. The tick system had that, but was a poor general indicator of ability and encouraged easy content. See, that's just it. Team sports isn't interested in ability. Team sports is interested in who wins in spite of ability. Team sports is full of arbitrary pseudo-random events that can disrupt the effects of skill. Team sports requires people to adapt to events as random as a dice throw. That's why the better team might not win. But teachers (like DCI judges) grade students on their actual ability, and try to see past the frack or drop. They know that a student who fracks twice may be a stronger student than one that doesn't, if the demand was higher. And they will still be stronger tomorrow, and six weeks from now. Take the average of 150 kids and it's even more predictable. I'm fine with that, but if your really want to make things less predictable, add a tick system to the existing system. Yes, because then they still have to play difficult material to get the demand score, which increases the risk of mistakes. And they have to play it well generally to get the achievement score (and the better they play it the better the score, which the tick system lacks). But ... they have to make few mistakes. And that combined with the demand score which forces the material to be difficult, now that's interesting. I'm not recommending it, but it would create volatility, and few would say that BD or anybody else has a lock on the title even one day before Finals. The tic system was as subjective as it is today...maybe worse... Whats a tic , what isn't. It would bring back the horrible saying of " I called it like I saw it" No accountability. It was less predictable in the past merely because of lack of accountability or criteria being enforced. That and also corps are very consistent and have figured out what works for them year to year. Even in todays world, define difficult? Everything is difficult today and skill levels way higher than ever. You are quite right though about judges evaluating a drop and in the big scheme of things has it deterred from the overall effect and was it plainly a hot mess or not . There is far more today to evaluate than it used to be. Far more elements to a single 8 counts than there was in a larger chunk in the past. This doesnt make one better than the other just that we have evolved to a much more complex presentation. Even musically, today there is so much movement around the field when during the tic system we even stood still for a song ( for many ). Looking for a " tic " would be a daunting task and how realistic would it actually be. Bring anything like the tic system back? I sure hope not. JMO Edited July 7, 2016 by GUARDLING 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3PoC Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 If lock=guarantee, then at this point in the season, going only by the data available (using head to head spreads only), no group has a lock on a medal as things stand. We have 2 undefeated groups (BD, Bloo) who between them have gone up against all of the other contenders. We just don't know how the west coast scores will compare to the eastern scores until the groups meet. We know BD is up about 2 on SCV, and that Bluecoats are up about 1 on Crown and 1.5 on Cadets. If it turns out that BD is really 1 point ahead of Coats, then SCV could possibly be in a position to pass Crown. likewise, if Bluecoats turn out to be a point ahead of BD, then that would put BD about even with Crown and would have Cadets within striking distance of 3rd or even 2nd. However, if you broaden the data to include historical statistics from recent seasons, it starts to look very likely that the top 3 will be BD, Coats and Crown with SCV and Cadets (Cavies may still have a glimmer of hope as well) needing a game changing development to (particularly in GE) break in to the medalist tier. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortAndFast Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I've been pondering how to introduce more sports-like randomness to the scores to add volatility in placements. The tick system had that, but was a poor general indicator of ability and encouraged easy content. See, that's just it. Team sports isn't interested in ability. Team sports is interested in who wins in spite of ability. Team sports is full of arbitrary pseudo-random events that can disrupt the effects of skill. Team sports requires people to adapt to events as random as a dice throw. That's why the better team might not win. But teachers (like DCI judges) grade students on their actual ability, and try to see past the frack or drop. They know that a student who fracks twice may be a stronger student than one that doesn't, if the demand was higher. And they will still be stronger tomorrow, and six weeks from now. Take the average of 150 kids and it's even more predictable. I'm fine with that, but if your really want to make things less predictable, add a tick system to the existing system. Yes, because then they still have to play difficult material to get the demand score, which increases the risk of mistakes. And they have to play it well generally to get the achievement score (and the better they play it the better the score, which the tick system lacks). But ... they have to make few mistakes. And that combined with the demand score which forces the material to be difficult, now that's interesting. I'm not recommending it, but it would create volatility, and few would say that BD or anybody else has a lock on the title even one day before Finals. Here is a fun white paper from the RAMD days on the history of DCI adjudication systems: http://www.oocities.org/marchingresearch/pilsym00.txt. TL;DR - the switch from ticks to build up both raised scores and removed volatility. So historically speaking, you're absolutely right. If DCI wanted less predictable outcomes, they would need to reduce scoring emphasis on things that don't much change (the content and design of the shows) and increase emphasis on things that vary from performance to performance (performer excellence and precision). There are probably lots of ways to do this, even without the use of ticks. But the scoring is the way it is because the DCI corps want it that way. While fans might prefer a more volatile system where the 5th place corps at semis has a legitimate chance of winning finals, the corps collectively do not want that. So we get the status quo where a really strong performance can lift you above other groups in your neighborhood, but is unlikely to move you to a different scoring neighborhood. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 The tic system was as subjective as it is today...maybe worse... Whats a tic , what isn't. It would bring back the horrible saying of " I called it like I saw it" No accountability. It was less predictable in the past merely because of lack of accountability or criteria being enforced. That and also corps are very consistent and have figured out what works for them year to year. Even in todays world, define difficult? Everything is difficult today and skill levels way higher than ever. You are quite right though about judges evaluating a drop and in the big scheme of things has it deterred from the overall effect and was it plainly a hot mess or not . There is far more today to evaluate than it used to be. Far more elements to a single 8 counts than there was in a larger chunk in the past. This doesnt make one better than the other just that we have evolved to a much more complex presentation. Even musically, today there is so much movement around the field when during the tic system we even stood still for a song ( for many ). Looking for a " tic " would be a daunting task and how realistic would it actually be. Bring anything like the tic system back? I sure hope not. JMO I agree. You would have to give up accountability to get volatility because the kids don't get significantly better or worse from one day to the next (that is, the corps all improve pretty much together.) Judging has to be predictable if it is to be accurate and accountable (the teacher way of thinking), but you have to give all that up if you want volatility (the sports way of thinking). It's not worth it. The goal is to max out the student, not have wild and unpredictable outcomes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Maybe they should use these ... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Just looking at the chart updated from last night I can tell that Crown, Blue Stars and Colts and probably Pioneer all went to the same show, because they all dropped together by around 3 points. Survey said ... Bingo! The Thunder of Drums had only those four corps in WC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Maybe Cavaliers can crack the top 5. Doubt it. But time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) The Blue Devils are actually behind. Lemme 'splain. Last year at this point in the season BD was from 1-3 points ahead of both Crown and BC. But Crown was favored at Finals so Crown closed the gap. (Cadets was in between maybe one point or less behind the Devils on average, and Bloo was further behind.) This year BD are in a dead heat with both Crown and Bloo, so ... all-things-being-equal-which-they-are-not, including judging panels, difficulty vs. 'cleanability' of shows, staff, etc., etc. The Devs will lose to one of those two corps by 1 - 3 points! They should come in 3rd or lower. I don't really think this means much, but based on the limited and highly inaccurate cross-show data we have, BD is in trouble for a three-peat. Edited July 7, 2016 by Pete Freedman 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.