Low scoring this year?

[MST3K]

Scoring is always so wacky. Way back in my first summer of drum corps, our first score was about 66 (we ended up in the 14th to 16th range at finals). Cadets first number this year was 66ish. Compare that with BD's first score in 2009 of 76.

Crazy times in DCI.

[ouooga]

[GUARDLING]

Another effect that you can't discount is the "box" system. For many years (and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still the same I think) they've used the box 1-2-3-4-5 approach. Box 1, 0-10; Box 2. 11-30; Box 3, 31-70; Box 4, 71-90; Box 5, 91-100. The thought at the time is that statistically, there would be a larger pool of groups in the mid-range, so more room for them. They apply criteria to each box as a guide for the judge. Meet all the criteria, you automatically fall into the range scoring-wise, then ranked and rated within that realm. Well, as we've all seen, the bottom box is non-existent, box 2 is rarely used, and that leaves us with a 70 point system. In my opinion, the "curve" nature of the system is broken, and with the high quality at the top, there really is a lack of room for a judge to work with. This subsequently pushes the scores even higher, and you will see *maximum* scores given out as a function of the system, rather than to reflect a "perfect" performance. Last year, you had seven finalists IN BOX 5 OVERALL, and you had groups as low as ninth place scoring in box 5 on individual sheets. Some revamping would be nice IMHO, not sure it will happen...seeing a large shift of 5-7 downward might be too tough for the "everyone gets a ribbon" crowd today. In the final analysis (Don Ellis reference intended), what really matters is ranking. Scores are simply a vehicle for doing that.

I would agree with the fact as the bar keeps getting higher and higher this needs to be looked t again. That mid range you speak of may have been close to top range just a few years ago

[BDCorno]

I would agree with the fact as the bar keeps getting higher and higher this needs to be looked t again. That mid range you speak of may have been close to top range just a few years ago

Yes, agree. I think the biggest issue preventing an "adjustment" is the quest for that highest score ever. With only .35 left for future expansion, it's going to be increasingly difficult to continue a "relative since forever" barometer on the activity's scoring. Personally, I'd like to see a big adjustment made so that judges can make decisions, instead of "stacking the tenths" ranking-wise in their individual captions. I'd also like GE to be reined back in as a major scoring emphasis. One of the things that has been lost in the activity is a high sense of precision and execution. Sure, kids these days do a tremendous job of handling some very difficult demands, but too often I feel that drum corps has "lost its way" and allows way too much dirt. I'm not one to dismiss that desire, simply by pointing out all they're doing...but what does it mean if you do really hard and impressive stuff, not all that well? The base competency/ensemble talent levels are far higher than in years past, so why not bring back some of the "old time" focus on technical discipline? You see how close all the groups at the top are, they're all so good at first glance. I just like to watch for past that first layer of execution and go to the individual detailing as it relates to the ensemble, then look at the uniformity of performance quality, and all of a sudden you start seeing some separation. I'm sure many judges see these things, but are handcuffed, especially in the non-GE areas. End result, you have groups unnecessarily packed together, where there should be some gap. Oh well, doubt they'll fix it but you can hope...

[HornTeacher]

Following BD getting the highest Finals score ever (and Crossmen getting the highest 12th place score ever) in 2014, it appears as if DCI last year deliberately reset the benchmark levels.

Does anyone know if DCI issues such instructions as, e.g., to the G.E. judges: "the highest score you can give is 15.0 in the first week, 15.5 in the second week, 16.0 in the third week, etc."?

I would hope not. To do so (at least to me) would be setting artificially-imposed limits. In terms of competition, there might be some justification for this (operative words being might be). But educationally? I can't see the justification.

[GUARDLING]

Yes, agree. I think the biggest issue preventing an "adjustment" is the quest for that highest score ever. With only .35 left for future expansion, it's going to be increasingly difficult to continue a "relative since forever" barometer on the activity's scoring. Personally, I'd like to see a big adjustment made so that judges can make decisions, instead of "stacking the tenths" ranking-wise in their individual captions. I'd also like GE to be reined back in as a major scoring emphasis. One of the things that has been lost in the activity is a high sense of precision and execution. Sure, kids these days do a tremendous job of handling some very difficult demands, but too often I feel that drum corps has "lost its way" and allows way too much dirt. I'm not one to dismiss that desire, simply by pointing out all they're doing...but what does it mean if you do really hard and impressive stuff, not all that well? The base competency/ensemble talent levels are far higher than in years past, so why not bring back some of the "old time" focus on technical discipline? You see how close all the groups at the top are, they're all so good at first glance. I just like to watch for past that first layer of execution and go to the individual detailing as it relates to the ensemble, then look at the uniformity of performance quality, and all of a sudden you start seeing some separation. I'm sure many judges see these things, but are handcuffed, especially in the non-GE areas. End result, you have groups unnecessarily packed together, where there should be some gap. Oh well, doubt they'll fix it but you can hope...

I think most of us involved look at the numbers as just that...just numbers, and I said earlier or in another thread , it's nice to have that so called perfect score but we know it doesn;t mean perfect, just the highest.

I think the effect scores, as the activity becomes what it is, ( others can choose to define it if they want ) is far more precise and will only grow in importance. If you really look back at many old videos, although it was great for the time, it can not be compared to today's demand on every performer and to the many layers being asked of them to do imo are extremely technical.

Judges do see that separation , especially as it affects the package. It also may not be as clean as we remember either.when we look back at those great videos and iconic times. Now this doesn't take anything at all away from them As a matter a fact 10- 40 years ago, every decade, added to the wonderful products we have today.

I think groups are packed together merely because today there are more groups at the highest level possible.

Edited August 4, 2016 by GUARDLING

[HornTeacher]

Edited to remove post. On my part, they were stupid assumptions, stupid/incorrect premises...and argued totally against the intent of the original poster (afd). I'm sorry.

Edited August 5, 2016 by HornTeacher

[GUARDLING]

I would venture that socio-economic realities of the present day vs. the past plays a rather important and influential role. As the costs of taking part in the activity rise, it has become an activity which may not be as readily opportune to the general 14-22 year-old population as it once was. I realize that I am making a rather wide generalization here; however, gone are the days when a horn is shoved into a kid's hands, fingerings are written on the page, and "it sounds like this if you play it right" might have been more possible. Now (I would venture for the most part), members must come into the activity with a fairly extensive background just to even hope to make a "cut." And for many, that involves more than a lesson a week from their home school music teacher (who many times isn't even a practitioner of the student's chosen instrument). Outside lessons don't come cheap by any means. We're not only getting a "cream of the musical crop," but in many ways, the cream of the crop in all ways. And this, along with better instruments, more thorough instruction, better diets, etc. is accountable for what may be considered to be a greater sense of equality across the activity. And in a very ironic sense, extra attention to detail is necessary on the parts of adjudicators in order to separate one unit from another. This extra attention, again ironically, might be what could be leading to a slight lowering of scores in terms of the ultimate assessment.

Agree completely

Its a very different activity( to some degree ) along with a very different world ( which also contributes to the differences in the activity, staff, members etc etc)

[snare_guy_83]

After Prelims, 8 corps scored over 90. Blue Stars were 0.025 from 90, or else it would have been 9 corps.

Only twice ('04 & '13) in the past 16 years have 9 corps scored over 90 at Finals.

So it appears scoring is as it usually is, and if Crossmen can get a 2.125 point surge by the end we could see 10 corps over 90.

[Jurassic Lancer]

After Prelims, 8 corps scored over 90. Blue Stars were 0.025 from 90, or else it would have been 9 corps.

Only twice ('04 & '13) in the past 16 years have 9 corps scored over 90 at Finals.

So it appears scoring is as it usually is, and if Crossmen can get a 2.125 point surge by the end we could see 10 corps over 90.

Additionally, every single corps score (ranked 19 and up) went up in quarterfinals. Edited August 12, 2016 by Jurassic Lancer