Seeding and slotting....same deal.........

[MikeN]

you will get the same feedback giving a number or not. judges dont talk numbers on the tape.

and given the examples I used above, and showing several sub box ties on last years recap....you won't see anything any clearer.

and..say someone is 10.25 and someone is 10.75....is that how you announce them, or do you say 10th place and 11th place? if i get a 10.75, ( ok not me but you know how people can be) they'll want it known they got a 10.75 and be called 11th place

Well, in my proposed ordinal system there's fewer subcaptions and not averaged equally across the board, but yes, you announce 10th and 11th place. Doesn't matter what they want known - that's how they finished.

Mike

[jplattSCV]

As an idea I have, even though I don't know how "easy" it would be, but if, during a corps performance, the judges basically do what they normally do (leaving comments on a tape recording, write comments down on a sheet at the end of a performance), but instead of giving a definent score at the end of their performance, don't give a score just yet. Or, give a rough score range (17.5-18.0) that the judge feels the corps would be in. Then, at the end of the entire show, the judge will go back, look through all of his sheets, and the score range he put for each corps, and decide/give each corps a definent score. What someone can do is make up some sort of blank chart for each judge where he/she can write their comment and score range, and then look at at the end, so he/she doesn't have to keep flipping through the sheets that get handed to the corps staff.

This makes sense in my head, hopefully it makes sense to everyone else.

Yes!! I totally agree with this. Save the numbers until everything is out there.

[Jeff Ream]

Well, in my proposed ordinal system there's fewer subcaptions and not averaged equally across the board, but yes, you announce 10th and 11th place. Doesn't matter what they want known - that's how they finished.

Mike

so you think dropping the ensemble captions for visual and music is a good thing?? I can understand the averaged GE

[MikeN]

Honestly, I'd have no problem dropping ensemble visual in favor of a "marching" caption and ensemble music in favor of just brass / percussion captions. I kind of feel we're double dipping on those, especially the music captions.

But then again, I'm no expert - I just think for competition purposes simpler captions = better. Even if the performers receive more detailed feedback in specific areas. (Such as still evaluating brass technique and performance, but only offering one ordinal for "brass".)

Mike

[glory]

.5 is .5 is it not?

the value of a tenth doesnt change just because you're top 5 or fighting to make semis.

You're right, but that's not the issue. What does it mean to say Academy is 0.5 better in brass than Madison? What part of the 0.5 is intonation or articulation? And if SCV scored the same 0.5 over Cavies in brass, does that consistent interval indicate the same incrementally better achievement (Academy/Madison vs SCV/Cavies) at both points on the ordinal scale? I doubt it.

HH

[MikeN]

I guess my overall point on this is that I think in some ways we've gotten *too* specific in scoring, almost to the point of absurdity, and it's taken on a life of its own. The current number system is no better / worse than ordinals - what's the point of a 100-point scoring system that is subject to judge "numbers management"? Every year on DCP someone asks if Frameworks and The Zone are the best ever, because of their 99.15's, but we then tell them that you can't compare year to year, so why have a number-based evaluation system?

I say just rank 'em and be done with it - make it easier on everyone involved. And again, this is purely a thought exercise.

Mike

[Jeff Ream]

Honestly, I'd have no problem dropping ensemble visual in favor of a "marching" caption and ensemble music in favor of just brass / percussion captions. I kind of feel we're double dipping on those, especially the music captions.

But then again, I'm no expert - I just think for competition purposes simpler captions = better. Even if the performers receive more detailed feedback in specific areas. (Such as still evaluating brass technique and performance, but only offering one ordinal for "brass".)

Mike

see if you eliminate...you take away the amount of feedback as all 3 are different from each other

[Jeff Ream]

You're right, but that's not the issue. What does it mean to say Academy is 0.5 better in brass than Madison? What part of the 0.5 is intonation or articulation? And if SCV scored the same 0.5 over Cavies in brass, does that consistent interval indicate the same incrementally better achievement (Academy/Madison vs SCV/Cavies) at both points on the ordinal scale? I doubt it.

HH

if the judges are trained properly on the criteria of the sheet and are taught to understand and apply the value of a tenth correctly across all spectrums, then yes, .5 is .5 regardless of the name on the field.

the question is, and this is a great suggestion to send to Mr. Jacobs for DCI direct is to find out if this is what is really done.

[Jeff Ream]

I guess my overall point on this is that I think in some ways we've gotten *too* specific in scoring, almost to the point of absurdity, and it's taken on a life of its own. The current number system is no better / worse than ordinals - what's the point of a 100-point scoring system that is subject to judge "numbers management"? Every year on DCP someone asks if Frameworks and The Zone are the best ever, because of their 99.15's, but we then tell them that you can't compare year to year, so why have a number-based evaluation system?

I say just rank 'em and be done with it - make it easier on everyone involved. And again, this is purely a thought exercise.

Mike

you'd still have the same discussion with ordinals...just like you still have in football...who's better? 75 Steelers or 85 Bears? or any sport

[Slides of Mass Destruction]

As for grey area, I think [ordinals] would create less not more.

HH

Wait, what? this almost doesn't make sense.

Imagine if I said that you lost. You placed second. The first question that would ask me is "how come". And the second question would be "by how much". The system we have is a result of the second question. Yes, it sucks to lose by a tenth of a point, but a loss is a loss. I believe the current system is fine.

If a corps loses by .2 of a point, that is a numerical representation of what took place on that field. Just by looking at a sheet of scores, I can expect that those two corps were very identical in their skill, yet maybe one extra breath in the closer led to a broken chord that the other corps didn't have, thus placing them below. Or even maybe a missed horns up. The point is, the current system eliminates unnecessary questions and overall, saves time for both the judges and the corps staff. For instance, if my corps places below your corps by .2, I will know what section i noticed was weakest and get on it the next morning. If my corps places behind ur corps by about a full point, then I will work on many weak spots and try to create a more stable base for my performers. However, if all I was told was that I placed 2nd, then I will probably go with yet another option and have the corps spend time on one or two weak areas.

So, in essence, the ordinal system would completely change game plans and provide many unnecessary answers