Bruckner8 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 How about ordinals then? I've seen it work at competitions of 25+ groups in a broad range of different genres. Let's get the spread out of the equation all together, and let the judges concentrate on educational feedback instead of how many arbitrary tenths of a point are deserved.Mike This is basically what they do now anyway, which causes all of the grief, b/c caption people keep harping on the number (when it suits them), and then complain when there's a tie (Couldn't you make a decision?) Caption people have a deep-seeded need to know "how close" they are to other corps, so the ordinal idea won't fly. (even though that's what the judges are doing...ranking by using numbers instead of ordinals) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 How about ordinals then? I've seen it work at competitions of 25+ groups in a broad range of different genres. Let's get the spread out of the equation all together, and let the judges concentrate on educational feedback instead of how many arbitrary tenths of a point are deserved.Mike What do the judges do after the first unit goes on? Do they give an ordinal 1 to 25? Do they start at 1? And then if the next unit is better, the 2nd unit gets 1, and the first unit drops to 2? How do they compare the 19th unit to perform to the 1st unit just using ordinals? How do they decided whether the 21st unit to perform is better than ordinal 19, but not better than ordinal 17, without having scores for those ordinals? I can see how this would work for a few units, but once you get a bunch of them, it would seem to be way too complex to compare just based on ordinals. Unless you are saying that they do give scores for their personal use, but then only the ordinals are published? That could work, but then i'm sure the question will be "why don't you release the point spreads, since you obviously have them?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Sure, get rid of scores and go pure ordinals. Do something like GE1+GE2+Marching+CG+Brass+Perc. So 6 ordinals, GE gets to be two, so 1/3 of total score. As a curiosity, I just ran the 2009 Finals in that format (thanks to From the Pressbox for recaps) to see - there'd be a tie for like 8th, but otherwise it's consistent with the actual results that night. Honestly, the only time it gets to be a huge pain tracking groups would be for the dome shows and for Quarters; otherwise the shows just don't have that many groups. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Sure, get rid of scores and go pure ordinals. Do something like GE1+GE2+Marching+CG+Brass+Perc. So 6 ordinals, GE gets to be two, so 1/3 of total score. As a curiosity, I just ran the 2009 Finals in that format (thanks to From the Pressbox for recaps) to see - there'd be a tie for like 8th, but otherwise it's consistent with the actual results that night. Honestly, the only time it gets to be a huge pain tracking groups would be for the dome shows and for Quarters; otherwise the shows just don't have that many groups. Mike getting rid of scores will, IMO, be a disaster. People will want to know what defines the difference between ordinal #1 to ordinal #2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 getting rid of scores will, IMO, be a disaster. People will want to know what defines the difference between ordinal #1 to ordinal #2. Maybe at first, but honestly - in the other places I've seen them used, it's not that big of a deal. <shrug> I think the major resistance would just be the "oh, it's different, so it's witchcraft!" reaction. It's an intellectual exercise anyways, 'cause ordinals got soundly shot down a few years ago at the Rules Congress. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 getting rid of scores will, IMO, be a disaster. People will want to know what defines the difference between ordinal #1 to ordinal #2. How is that different from now? Two-tenths or a half, what does it mean? You can't quantify articulation or tone. Scores to me are a holdover from the tic era. We got rid of tics because they were arbitrary. Get rid of scores because they ultimately are arbitrary too. Ranking might not be scientific, but it need not be arbitrary. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps-mudgeon Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 getting rid of scores will, IMO, be a disaster. People will want to know what defines the difference between ordinal #1 to ordinal #2. I think Blue Devils should have won in 2009, but not by as much as they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 How is that different from now? Two-tenths or a half, what does it mean? You can't quantify articulation or tone. Scores to me are a holdover from the tic era. We got rid of tics because they were arbitrary. Get rid of scores because they ultimately are arbitrary too. Ranking might not be scientific, but it need not be arbitrary. HH you do know the sheets right? There's a reason they have 5 boxes with certain numbers assigned in each box. people complain scores leave too much gray area. you go to just an ordinal, and you've opened up a whole new level of gray area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 you do know the sheets right? There's a reason they have 5 boxes with certain numbers assigned in each box. people complain scores leave too much gray area. you go to just an ordinal, and you've opened up a whole new level of gray area. The boxes make the process orderly and organized but not scientific. As for grey area, I think rankings would create less not more. Saying BD's visuals were better than Crowns is far more defensible than saying BD's visuals were one point better than Crown's. That's all the more true when you apply it over a dozen corps. Is the half point between Madison and Academy the same as the half point between SCV and Cavies? This isn't science and shouldn't be. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 OK, somebody help. When this discussion introduced ordinals I thought, mistakenly: "Oh, I'll just go look up ordinal and then I'll get it." Wrong. I need a Phd to understand what Wiki says. So, admitting my thick skull, will someone define "ordinal" as used in this thread? Thanks 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.