QUOTE (juliofrommississippi @ Mar 16 2014, 02:59 AM)
If you like this high-low system, you should come to Mo-Show here in Cedar Rapids. We have been doing that since the beginning, or at LEAST since 2003 (when I started high school). Unlike here at Westwood, we always have a large panel for finals. Usually ten, but tonight Ben Eklund didn't judge due to him choreographing Benton (his choice), so we only had 9. I believe we've had as many as 12 before. Always drop the highest and lowest scores, and then average the rest.
So pretend I am a judge and I have to rank the choirs. I watch FDC and East and overall I think East is 1st and Mitchell is 2nd (with the way captions went)
And also lets assume there is a larger emphasis on choero and vocals over "everything else"
Here would be the breakdown of my thinking:
Mitchell-
Choreo: 90 points out of 100
Vocals: 95 Points out of 100
"Everything Else": 20 out of 25
East-
Choreo: 88 out of 100
Vocals: 94 out of 100
"Everything Else": 24 out of 25
So while there is still a larger point emphasis on choreo and vocals, the "everything else" is going to impact this because of how close the scores are.
My only question is: How can categories like show and band completely overcome categories, such as vocals and choreography, when there is so much emphasis placed on these larger categories?
So pretend I am a judge and I have to rank the choirs. I watch FDC and East and overall I think East is 1st and Mitchell is 2nd (with the way captions went)
And also lets assume there is a larger emphasis on choero and vocals over "everything else"
Here would be the breakdown of my thinking:
Mitchell-
Choreo: 90 points out of 100
Vocals: 95 Points out of 100
"Everything Else": 20 out of 25
East-
Choreo: 88 out of 100
Vocals: 94 out of 100
"Everything Else": 24 out of 25
So while there is still a larger point emphasis on choreo and vocals, the "everything else" is going to impact this because of how close the scores are.
Haha, gotcha. So, in the ordinals system where points are converted to rankings, are we supposed to just ignore the vocals/choreography points and determine the captions some other way- by letting each judge just choose who they think deserves it, for example? How are captions decided in the "Fair Fehr" method, where points are converted to rankings as well?
Also, although rare, it's possible to be better than another choir w/o best vocals & choreography. There are other things like band, costuming, show design, etc. My mind takes me back to Lewis Central 2009 when West Des Moines Valley's prelim scoring had them 1st in vocals and choreography, but still 2nd overall to Omaha Westside because of band, show design, etc.
Perhaps they could give a "best show design" caption here to show where East excelled. Just some thoughts.
My only question is: How can categories like show and band completely overcome categories, such as vocals and choreography, when there is so much emphasis placed on these larger categories?
Yes, if you're using rankings. The controversy stems from the fact that they didn't use rankings to determine the captions, so one group is awarded best vocals and best choreography and then receives 2nd place overall. I think most people feel that the group who sang and danced the best (in the judge's eyes) should be the winner of a competition about singing and dancing.
Haha, gotcha. So, in the ordinals system where points are converted to rankings, are we supposed to just ignore the vocals/choreography points and determine the captions some other way- by letting each judge just choose who they think deserves it, for example? How are captions decided in the "Fair Fehr" method, where points are converted to rankings as well?
Also, although rare, it's possible to be better than another choir w/o best vocals & choreography. There are other things like band, costuming, show design, etc. My mind takes me back to Lewis Central 2009 when West Des Moines Valley's prelim scoring had them 1st in vocals and choreography, but still 2nd overall to Omaha Westside because of band, show design, etc.
Perhaps they could give a "best show design" caption here to show where East excelled. Just some thoughts.
East must have REALLY improved from what I saw at Urbandale.
We, sadly, didn't get to see them, but both of my parents and other parents of Titanium saw East and said that they were spectacular and definitely deserved to have a good chance at being Grand Champions. So......
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
QUOTE (JaredO @ Mar 16 2014, 06:14 PM)
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
I'm not really getting what you're saying, could you maybe repeat yourself?
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
I'm not really getting what you're saying, could you maybe repeat yourself?
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
Also, another question. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, it's happened before
but (at least using the ordinal system), wouldn't SC East have won even if they eliminated the highest/lowest scores?
East: 1, 1, 1, 3 = 6
Mitchell: 1, 2, 2, 2 = 7
Unless you are averaging the points & not the rankings. But we don't have those provided yet, so we don't know how this method of scoring would affect the outcome...
Yes, but the intention is points system. By placement, it looks as if
East points should be higher than Mitchell's just because 4 first place out of 6 is substantial. While all the talk is on these two groups here, it's interesting to see how third group (Papio or Kennedy) didn't get put first by any of the Judges, yet had major effects on the outcome because both groups were once scored below that third group by a judge.
Westwood Jubilation 2014
