Finals Scores

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, ironlips said:

There is something to be said for the old saw:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Throughout the history of the activity, it has often been the case that the winner of prelims did not take finals.

Why would anyone wish to minimize the chance that a particular corps could deliver the performance of their lives at the penultimate contest and yet not win the championship?

In fairness, other sports are evaluated that way, but Drum Corps is so much more than a mere "sport", in my view.

The Chicago Symphony may be the finest orchestra in the country on average, but the best orchestral performance I ever witnessed was delivered by the NY Philharmonic.

In ancient times, the Philistines held off the Hebrews in Prelims, but in the Finals David beat Goliath, providing a much better story.

yeah but did David have Chumley on the panel?

[Sideways]

On 7/27/2022 at 8:14 PM, brassboy said:

I think averaging the three scores would likely be LESS interesting if after the first two nights it’s clear that it would be virtually impossible for another corps to score high enough to make the average work in their favor. One of the incredible things about finals night is how corps tend to find that extra little spark to make their performance extra special. So it’s even more spectacular when a corps comes from behind because of it.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a completely doubled panel for finals night though. 

Average scores would actually have the potential to add more bias into finals night since judges would know the spreads needed to make a placement shift happen or not.

[henry7184]

4 hours ago, Sideways said:

Average scores would actually have the potential to add more bias into finals night since judges would know the spreads needed to make a placement shift happen or not.

Those spreads would probably have to be pretty big though. In most years the champion also wins quarterfinals and semifinals. I think if there is bias in judging is present all the time and not some of the time, anyway.

[ironlips]

12 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

yeah but did David have Chumley on the panel?

Clever response, but be careful about naming names. That said, I'd have called out    J. Missing, who just combines other people's numbers.

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, ironlips said:

Clever response, but be careful about naming names. That said, I'd have called out    J. Missing, who just combines other people's numbers.

they arent known to hand out 20's to the same corps year after year at finals

[ironlips]

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

they arent known to hand out 20's to the same corps year after year at finals

Is it the placements or the 20's that sparks your reply?

[Jeff Ream]

42 minutes ago, ironlips said:

Is it the placements or the 20's that sparks your reply?

the consistency of the 20 for the same corps every year

[ironlips]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

the consistency of the 20 for the same corps every year

OK, but do you dispute the placement?

I agree that many judges have numbers management issues. I mean, jeez, now they are resorting to HALF tenths! (That's no decision at all.)

So if you give some contender a 19.9 and then (surprise!) along comes a challenger that actually performs better and/or has introduced a superior book element at the last minute (happens all the time - remember the Bridgemen fainting?), you must throw down that 20.

Alternately, if your numbers are running high throughout you may not have left enough room to reflect a justified spread between #2 and #1.

The real problem, in my view, is that "Box 5" is too small to fit in all of the egos who believe they belong there. But that's another discussion entirely.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, ironlips said:

OK, but do you dispute the placement?

I agree that many judges have numbers management issues. I mean, jeez, now they are resorting to HALF tenths! (That's no decision at all.)

So if you give some contender a 19.9 and then (surprise!) along comes a challenger that actually performs better and/or has introduced a superior book element at the last minute (happens all the time - remember the Bridgemen fainting?), you must throw down that 20.

Alternately, if your numbers are running high throughout you may not have left enough room to reflect a justified spread between #2 and #1.

The real problem, in my view, is that "Box 5" is too small to fit in all of the egos who believe they belong there. But that's another discussion entirely.

Twice yes. Plus they’re able to go back adjust numbers later.

 

but with 25 corps or more the .05 comes in handy 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Jeff Ream

[ironlips]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

Twice yes. Plus they’re able to go back adjust numbers later.

 

but with 25 corps or more the .05 comes in handy 

 

Ability to adjust numbers (before they are submitted, using the Competition Suite program) is actually going to result in a more accurate ranking and rating.

Half tenths are absurd, I think. There are only 12 corps in finals and plenty of points to delineate them from one another. It's that "Box 5" squeeze, where every finalist believes they belong there.

If so, the threshold for entry into that "holy of holies" category must be lowered so there are enough tenths to fit in all the super-star designers and techs.

I think you are actually implying that some adjudicators are "homers". In my experience, I have sometimes come across incompetence, but not bias, at least not at the DCI Finals level.