.85 from perfection

[mnfans1]

Sorry not buying that high of a score.

How can anything be that closee to perfection with all those performers. 128 people performing that close to perfection is impossible folks!!!!

I can see Olympic gold medalists scoring perfect 10's in events because it is one person, but not 128 people.

Something tells me the score was this high to WOW future ESPN broadcasts and such

ps just a thought

[Tony Flores]

Agreed, I was there...that show did not deserve a 99.15, in my opinon The Cavies and PR had better shows.

[Blue Devil Legend]

It's really quite simple.

If the "high" score given out before the Cadets took the field in each caption was a 9.8 or 9.9, and each judge felt the Cadets had the best performance of the night, they have no other choice but to give out a 9.9 or 10.0, which is exactly what they did tonight.

It's all relative, if the judging community had a meeting before finals and decided that an 8.5 would be the best number they could give out all night, than the corps overall score would obviously be lower.

99.15 tied for the highest score in DCI history, that's a fact.

Was it the best performance in drum corps history?

Maybe, maybe not.

Scores can be deceiving, but they do ultimately decide who wins.

[Jeff Ream]

remember it's build up, not tear down. not that i agree, nor did i agree w/cavies 99 in 02, but now days what you do is weighted as heavily as how you do it.

[bmvztx]

I'm still not sold on how that show scored so high, but it only TIED the Cavies record from 2002. The show will definately grow on me as it already has, the first time I HATED it, the second time I could see that it would win, and now when I get the DVD and I see it for the third time, I might be able to see that high of a score.

Congrats to BLOOO and SCV, way to climb a few notches.

[Matt_S]

*Sigh* this all over again? I thought this was answered in 2002. A score of 100 is not a "perfect" score, rather it is a "maximum" score. A score of 99.15 is not meant to be measured against perfection. Rather, it is only meant to be measured against the judging sheets. To illustrate this point: In 2002, Magic also broke the 99 point barrier. Now, they did this in Division II. During finals week that year, against Div I corps, Magic only scored something like an 86. How silly would it be to claim that in one contest they were less than a point from perfection, yet at another they were a full fourteen points away. That would be quite an off night. Their 99, like the Cavaliers 99 that year and the Cadets 99 this year, only means that when judged against the competition, they earned a 99. In both the Cavaliers and Cadets cases, it was because they took nearly every caption over very strong corps below them. When that happens, and the corps below earns a very high score, the top corps' score must be that much better.

In the end, the number is just that: a number, and we see this whenever corps jumps from division II to division I. Ranks and spreads are all that really matter. But if that 99 is bothering you, just pretend that the scale goes all the way to 1000, and you'll be fine. :)

[MusicEdNC]

I'm amazed at how many people think scores are % points away from perfection.

levi

[Hawkwings]

is a 100 defined as a perfect performance, with absolutely nothing at all wrong? I find that rather hard to believe. I don't believe a corps has to be perfect to get a 100, they just have to do that much better than the second place corps.

Like Blue Devil Legend said, if the judges think that this performance was better than the last one, and they gave the last one a 9.9, they have no choice but to give this one a 10.0

[Tez]

I've tried to explain this before:

The Cadets may have deserved a 99.15 in the judges opinion. When the few judges handed out 10.0's in their subcaptions, it really didn't mean that the judges thought the Cadets were perfect... it meant that they were the best they had ever seen at that particular caption.

Of course, this only is a rough guideline to score placement. If this doesn't explain their lofty score, you could always just blame it on the judges scoring the Cavaliers and everyone else too high. It is the spread that really counts. You can be sure that the judges collectively thought that the Cadets were 1.525 better than the Cavaliers. These DCI judges would not give out scores that are not deserving, in comparison with the other groups.

[fifer]

Agreed, I was there...that show did not deserve a 99.15, in my opinon The Cavies and PR had better shows.

And I'll choose to disagree and say that this performance by The cadets DID deserve a 99.15!!! You can tell by how hard it is to think of something in the performance that would have even called for a single tic in the old days. About the only thing I can think of that would have resulted in a tic was one rifle drop in the entire show.

A superlative performance of a show worthy the distinction.

Edit to add quote this was in response to.

Edited August 14, 2005 by fifer