Scores: Disturbing Consistency this year

[ScribeToo]

:ramd:

Seems it was just a couple of weeks ago, we had a string of threads complaining that scores weren't consistent enough.. that judges were "dumping" corps in certain captions and that meant those particular judges were doing something fishy or judging on a clear bias.. I guess those are the people who think slotting is good.

Now, a mere week or two later, the first of the yearly "slotting" threads has appeared.

Honestly, what do you people want? I mean, it could never be that corps are judged on what they put on the field on any given night.. that would mean our activity is performance driven...

Seriously.. the judging community can do no right in some people's eyes:

If scores or placements are consistent, it's slotting.

If scores or placements aren't consistent, something is fishy with the judges..

It doesn't matter what the judging is actually based on.. it's all a conspiracy in one direction or another.

Edited July 21, 2006 by ScribeToo

[Stream of Consciousness]

:ramd:

It doesn't matter what the judging is actually based on.. it's all a conspiracy in one direction or another.

I hear Oliver Stone is in the early process of making a movie about just this matter. :P

[X DM]

Dan, I can't agree with you, at lot not this far into the season. Within the 6-11 group, I've seen a fair amount of movement. Madison's leap over Boston earlier this week is a good example.

One caption that's been particularly interesting has been color guard. Lots of flux from night to night. It appears to me that caption is made up of some folks who aren't afraid to call 'em as they see 'em.

Jim you used Madison's jump over Boston last week to demonstrate that their have been significant movements by corps up and down. But the next show, Boston and Madison were within tenths of one another once again. If we look at the competitive pairings from last year, except with a few cases, the Corps groupings or tiers look almost identical. At least to some of us.

Edited July 21, 2006 by X DM

[ScribeToo]

I hear Oliver Stone is in the early process of making a movie about just this matter. :P

For the record, Coke Zero hurts when passed through the nasal cavity at velocity.

:spit:

[Orpheus]

Jonathan, that was a fantastic post. And it's sort of what I've tried to say myself from time-to-time, although I don't have the knowledge to articulate it quite so well. Finalist-caliber DCI corps are so talented, so well-trained, and so consistent from night to night that any kind of jump in relative placement is bound to be rare. It's not really "slotting," if by that you mean some sort of nefarious plot on the part of the judging community, it's just an artifact created by everyone being so good. When you think about it, among the top 15 to 20 corps, even when a corps has an "off" night, they're really not that much worse than when they're "on fire," are they? And even a fairly major glitch will only cost them several tenths of a point, at most.

One argument that could be made, however -- Are we giving too much credit to the show design and not enough to the actual quality of the performance?

edit: minor typo

Edited July 21, 2006 by Orpheus

[ScribeToo]

One argument that could be made, however -- Are we giving too much credit to the show design and not enough to the actual quality of the performance?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the most valid argument on this point. Ever.

I would sooner see a movement for a change in the judging criteria to skew towards execution (i.e., performance) than to eliminate one thing or another from being used.

[LaSqueegee]

I have yet to see a corps not in finals last year that deserves to be in this year. Colts are close, but not quite yet. Do we want corps like Crossmen, CR, or Colts in finals just because they were not last year? Or do we want them to earn their way in? IMO, they should earn it!!! :)

[dgilday]

People make this argument quite a bit, and I can understand your viewpoint, but I am not buying it, and never have.

Here's why:

1) Today's drum corps are using the latest in rehearsal techniques, they have amazing instruction, the kids are well taught, and their performances show this from a consistency standpoint. The judging community also sees this. People say "well, what if a corps has a bad night, then so and so should have passed them." But this does not hold any weight in its argument, mainly because a bad night does not mean what it used to, and it is never as bad as many seem to indicate. People sometimes want to see more exageration of the score primarily because that indicates to them that the score is reflective of a bad night. In reality, if some corps has a bad night in guard (lots of drops, lack of energy, out of sync, what have you) this may account for a score that is .5 to 1 point lower than normal, and perhaps it hurts the visual GE by .5 as well, then you are looking at a score that is 1.5 lower than normal or lower from where they had been. But if that corps was running 1.75 to 2 points above one of their closest competitors, then their competitor would still be behind, and who is to say that the competitor didn't have their own issues. And this brings me to no. 2.

2) Even when you think your corps had a super performance and the other corps did not, trust me that the judges still find faults with both programs. So in addition to what I mentioned above, now factor in the other corps' weaknesses vs what they did well (that made you feel they were so hot) and perhaps you see the gap close, but you will rarely see a situation where a corps that was 3 or 4 points down jump the higher scoring corps on that rare off night.

3) More importantly, we must recognize that every corps has faults with their show EVERY NIGHT, even when you think they were hot. But the likelyhood of any of this being to the extreme, that I think some people would like to see, is really remote. Mainly because, as mentioned in no. 1, rehearsal techniques and the quality of teaching is just too good in this activity today. It is very RARE when a corps really breaks down to, shall we say, horrible levels of performance compared to what they have typically been achieving. It just doesn't happen much, therefore I don't expect the judging sheets to show something that is NOT there in the first place.

4) You have to be in a position to strike when the opportunity is right. This is perhaps the most misunderstood principle of this whole debate. When Phantom beat Cadets in Rockford a while back they did so because they were in a position to strike. They had been narrowing the gap with Cadets for some time, and the judges were continually getting better reads for both shows. Now if the Cadets have an off performance Phantom is there to take advantage of this, and they did. But it wasn't just because of the Cadets having a bad performance, because if you look at the Cadets score that night, it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. They still scored well. The judges saw both the good and the bad. They are not going to only look for the bad as some fans would like them to. This scoring system is a build up system, and that means looking for the good as well. What was good about both shows obviously played into Phantom's hands, but it wasn't as if they had to slam the Cadets with a 3 point deduction or something like that. The Cadets simply did not get as much credit because of problems with their program, and, more importantly, Phantom outperformed them...period. In order to pull and upset or win, you must be within striking distance and then you must earn it. Don't expect the judges to give it to you just because so and so had a bad day, because in the mind of the judges your corps may have had a bad day too. In fact, I know they will find both good and bad with your corps as much as they will with the other.

This is why fans should not judge this activity (aside from the occasional fan poll or something). But fans are fans, and, this being the case, they have their own method of judging, and those methods may be excellent, but they are only one person judging the whole. The judges are many people assessing the whole, and that dissects things a bit more than any one person can.

I believe DCI judging is very, very good for the most part, and that the judges have no reason to show favor on any one corps over another. They call it as they see it. If the Cavaliers have an off performance, it doesn't mean Cadets or Phantom will beat them. Both of those corps are roughly 2+ point off at the moment, and it would take a LOT for that to happen because it is doubtful that both corps would not have issues of their own. They can close the spread, which I suspect you will start to see (maybe), but the consistency of all these corps makes such scenarios very unlikely.

I disagree. Look at the Cadets show back in June (I think Huntington or Columbia, SC). Hopkins said it was one of the worst ensemble tears he has ever seen on a Drum Corps field. Apparantly from the stands it wasn't all that bad, but I'm sure the judges had to notice. Now they did not only beat Phantom again on that night, they kept the same margin of victory as well.

It just seems as if the judges have a "range" of scoring for each corps before the show begins. If Corps A has the worst show of the year, their caption score can only go as low as the judge has predetermined. Likewise for Corps B that has an amazing performance.

I've noticed, however, that the judges have become less partial to the corps ranked 6th and under. It seems as if they are getting honest feedback on performance each night. For example, Glassmen dropped 1 point last night, Colts dropped 2 points, while Madison and BK rose up in the rankings. The top 5, now with Bluecoats in the mix, will probably have a few mix ups by Finals night. But the "any given night" theory is a load if you ask me.

[Stream of Consciousness]

For the record, Coke Zero hurts when passed through the nasal cavity at velocity.

:spit:

Sorry Stef! :D

It could have been worse, it could have been Dr. Pepper. Now that hurts! :P

[jmc5682]

Get over the fact that certain corps are not moving up. That just means they are not good enough. People who complain of slotting tend to be upset that their particular favorite corps is not in the top 3 or 5 or 7 or whatever. Face it, if your corps is not scoring as high as you would like, it is because they have some work to do!