Username:

Password:

 
   
   
  







home choirs songs social marketplace search FAQ submit info

 



Participants

We do not have a list of groups that attended this event on this day.
 Show Choir Community > Events > 2009 Season > Omaha Westside Competition Of Excellence 2009


Event Info


January 31st, 2009

Venue Info

Westside High School
8701 Pacific Street
Omaha, NE 68114

Phone: (402) 343-2600

Event Details

No. of Attending Choirs:

  14 Mixed Groups

Judges: Unknown

Ticket Prices: Unknown

Map



Omaha Westside Competition Of Excellence 2009









Awards
Photos
TBA
Live Stream
Event Site


 Finals
 

Groups in order of placement

 14 Karat Gold
 Grand Island Northwest High School
Grand Champion 
Best Choreography 
Best Band 

 The Headliners
 Sioux City East High School
First Runner Up 
Best Vocals 

 Company of Singers
 Totino-Grace High School
Second Runner Up 

 Friend de Coup
 Mitchell High School
3rd Runner Up 

 Free Spirit
 Papillion-La Vista High School
4th Runner Up 

 West in the Groove
 Millard West High School
5th Runner Up 


 Open Division (Prelims)
Click here to expand:  



  Members Who Attended This Event

No members signed up for this event.

179 comments • Sort by

1 2 3 4 5 . . . 9 Next



Zdog37 on Feb 4, 2009, 8:33 PM
Post #179
 
QUOTE(ana @ Feb 2 2009, 09:52 PM) [snapback]451373[/snapback]
This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.

Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.

"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008

The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way:
“Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.

In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.

Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.

It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities



Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.

1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E

7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.



I hope you didn't just type this all out and all you had to do with copy and paste it... wow




juliofrommississippi on Feb 4, 2009, 4:08 AM
Post #178
 
QUOTE(logomaker08 @ Feb 3 2009, 09:56 PM) [snapback]451584[/snapback]
i just died.


hahaha me too.... pinch.gif




logomaker08 on Feb 4, 2009, 3:56 AM
Post #177
 
QUOTE(ana @ Feb 2 2009, 11:52 PM) [snapback]451373[/snapback]
This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.

Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.

"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008

The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way:
“Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.

In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.

Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.

It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities



Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.

1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E

7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.


i just died.


P

pfallon91 on Feb 3, 2009, 6:07 AM
Post #176
 
QUOTE(ana @ Feb 2 2009, 11:52 PM) [snapback]451373[/snapback]
This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.

Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.

"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008

The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way:
“Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.

In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.

Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.

It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities



Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.

1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E

7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.


Well there you go, a perfect simple explanation to it all.




Aboyd on Feb 3, 2009, 6:01 AM
Post #175
 
holy clusterfudge!



thewaterotter9 on Feb 3, 2009, 5:58 AM
Post #174
 
Thanks ana for helping us out

A

ana on Feb 3, 2009, 5:52 AM
Post #173
 
This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.

Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.

"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008

The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way:
“Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.

In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.

Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.

It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities



Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.

1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3

Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E

7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.




ATSChicks on Feb 3, 2009, 5:09 AM
Post #172
 
QUOTE(E @ Feb 2 2009, 11:06 PM) [snapback]451357[/snapback]
I am just confused how the system was applied to give GINW the GC, but then to place Sioux City East ahead of Totino-Grace. The way I thought the Fehr System worked, where the majority of the judges' opinions placed groups, would have had this:

GC: SCE
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino

The system you just described makes sense for why GINW got the GC, but doesn't really explain how SCE finished ahead of Totino. Did Totino get placed as 2RU because four judges had them in third? Or was it because SCE had two 1st place votes and Totino only had one?

Whatever system was applied for use in this competition seems to me, at the moment, to be a little overly complex. But maybe I'm just missing something






thewaterotter9 on Feb 3, 2009, 5:08 AM
Post #171
 
QUOTE(E @ Feb 2 2009, 11:06 PM) [snapback]451357[/snapback]
I am just confused how the system was applied to give GINW the GC, but then to place Sioux City East ahead of Totino-Grace. The way I thought the Fehr System worked, where the majority of the judges' opinions placed groups, would have had this:

GC: SCE
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino

The system you just described makes sense for why GINW got the GC, but doesn't really explain how SCE finished ahead of Totino. Did Totino get placed as 2RU because four judges had them in third? Or was it because SCE had two 1st place votes and Totino only had one?

Whatever system was applied for use in this competition seems to me, at the moment, to be a little overly complex. But maybe I'm just missing something

SC East was given 2nd because they had 2 first place votes. I can't explain the system very well myself. I'm sure there is someone out there that can. If not, I will do my best to find an explanation.




EsAreUnimportant on Feb 3, 2009, 5:06 AM
Post #170
 
I am just confused how the system was applied to give GINW the GC, but then to place Sioux City East ahead of Totino-Grace. The way I thought the Fehr System worked, where the majority of the judges' opinions placed groups, would have had this:

GC: SCE
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino

The system you just described makes sense for why GINW got the GC, but doesn't really explain how SCE finished ahead of Totino. Did Totino get placed as 2RU because four judges had them in third? Or was it because SCE had two 1st place votes and Totino only had one?

Whatever system was applied for use in this competition seems to me, at the moment, to be a little overly complex. But maybe I'm just missing something




ATSChicks on Feb 3, 2009, 5:00 AM
Post #169
 
QUOTE(E @ Feb 2 2009, 10:39 PM) [snapback]451346[/snapback]
I am also not sure if Fehr System was used, which as I understand it puts a group in the position that the majority of the judges' rankings has them at was used, if the results turned out this way.

If that system was used:

GINW is 1RU (3 of 5 judges have them there)
Totino-Grace is 2RU (4 of 5 judges)
Millard West is 5RU (3 of 5 judges)

So shouldn't the results look like this?

GC: Sioux City East
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino-Grace
3RU: Mitchell
4RU: Papillion
5RU: Millard West

Of course I could be way off on how I think the Fehr System is used but that was how I thought I understood it to be.


I am sure we can get a complete explanation soon, but I don't think this is the correct application of the Fehr system. GINW and SCE both recieved 2 1st-place votes, so it makes sense to then go to the other 3 votes. GINW remaining votes were 2nd, 2nd, and 2nd, while SCE's remaining votes were 2nd, 5th, 5th. Those are clearly different and would give GINW the GC from my opinion.

Also, I don't think the panel's voting is too odd. GINW (range of 2), Totino-Grace (range of 3), Millard West (range of 3), and Papillion (range of 3) all had reasonably consistent rankings. Mitchell had one placing that was inconsistent, but not completely outrageous. The weirder one is Sioux City East, but given their type of show this year I am not surprised that certain judges took it certain ways.




EsAreUnimportant on Feb 3, 2009, 4:39 AM (Edited by EsAreUnimportant)
Post #168
 
Baker:
1) GINW
2) Mitchell
3) Totino-Grace
4) Papillion
5) Sioux City East
6) Millard West

Else:
1) Totino-Grace
2) GINW
3) Mitchell
4) Millard West
5) Sioux City East
6) Papillion

Hibbard:
1) Sioux City East
2) GINW
3) Totino-Grace
4) Papillion
5) Millard West
6) Mitchell

Huth:
1) Sioux City East
2) GINW
3) Totino-Grace
4) Mitchell
5) Papillion
6) Millard West

Kimmel:
1) GINW
2) Sioux City East
3) Totino-Grace
4) Mitchell
5) Papillion
6) Millard West

Overall Rankings Points
1) GINW = 8
2) Totino-Grace = 13
3) Sioux City East = 14
4) Mitchell = 19
5) Papillion = 24
6) Millard West = 28

This is really weird. Quite the split panel.

I am also not sure if Fehr System was used, which as I understand it puts a group in the position that the majority of the judges' rankings has them at was used, if the results turned out this way.

If that system was used:

GINW is 1RU (3 of 5 judges have them there)
Totino-Grace is 2RU (4 of 5 judges)
Millard West is 5RU (3 of 5 judges)

So shouldn't the results look like this?

GC: Sioux City East
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino-Grace
3RU: Mitchell
4RU: Papillion
5RU: Millard West

Of course I could be way off on how I think the Fehr System is used but that was how I thought I understood it to be.


P

pfallon91 on Feb 3, 2009, 4:28 AM
Post #167
 
QUOTE(Bone3 @ Feb 2 2009, 09:23 PM) [snapback]451300[/snapback]
That is clearly not the debate at this point in time, it is how Totino got 3rd with better rank points. I am not entirely sure but I think the Fehr system was in use which would put Totino in 3rd because they had 4 3rd place votes and Sioux City had 2 first place and 1 second place that would put them in front. I could be wrong but I think that is how it worked itself out. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that, it has happened before.


John Bone is exactly right... Mr. Johnson explained it to us in class today, and that is how they decided the rankings.




sunglasses_chic08 on Feb 3, 2009, 4:02 AM
Post #166
 
Gosh, ranking can get so confusing at times " border="0" alt="huh.gif" />

B

Bone3 on Feb 3, 2009, 3:23 AM
Post #165
 
QUOTE(marjorini @ Feb 2 2009, 09:05 PM) [snapback]451293[/snapback]
On our ranking system, Grand Island Northwest and Sioux City East tied. Their finals placement was decided by the daytime rankings.


That is clearly not the debate at this point in time, it is how Totino got 3rd with better rank points. I am not entirely sure but I think the Fehr system was in use which would put Totino in 3rd because they had 4 3rd place votes and Sioux City had 2 first place and 1 second place that would put them in front. I could be wrong but I think that is how it worked itself out. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that, it has happened before.




logomaker08 on Feb 3, 2009, 3:17 AM
Post #164
 
QUOTE(marjorini @ Feb 2 2009, 09:05 PM) [snapback]451293[/snapback]
On our ranking system, Grand Island Northwest and Sioux City East tied. Their finals placement was decided by the daytime rankings.


but what about the evening rankings? sioux city had a lower average ranking than totino. how were sioux and island tied?


M

marjorini on Feb 3, 2009, 3:05 AM
Post #163
 
On our ranking system, Grand Island Northwest and Sioux City East tied. Their finals placement was decided by the daytime rankings.



logomaker08 on Feb 3, 2009, 3:02 AM
Post #162
 
ok - let me get this straight:

grand island: 1,2,2,2,1 = 8 / 5 = 1.6
sioux city: 5,5,1,1,2 = 14 / 5 = 2.8
company: 3,1,3,3,3 = 13 / 5 = 2.6



if the math is correct (which it looks like it is) company of singers got a higher average ranking than sioux city. 2.6 < 2.8. so why didn't totino get 2nd place????




QuikDrawMcGraw14 on Feb 3, 2009, 2:27 AM
Post #161
 
Final Rankings:

Papillion LaVista "Free Spirit" Baker - 4, Else - 6, Hibbard - 4, Huth - 5, Kimmel - 5
Millard West "West In The Groove" Baker - 6, Else - 4, Hibbard - 5, Huth - 6, Kimmel - 6
Mitchell "Friend de Coup" Baker - 2, Else - 3, Hibbard - 6, Huth - 4, Kimmel - 4
Sioux City East "The Headliners" Baker - 5, Else - 5, Hibbard - 1, Huth - 1, Kimmel - 2
Grand Island NW "14 Karat Gold" Baker - 1, Else - 2, Hibbard - 2, Huth - 2, Kimmel - 1
Totino Grace "Company of Singers" Baker - 3, Else - 1, Hibbard - 3, Huth - 3, Kimmel - 3

Intresting...huh?!


S

skyline010 on Feb 3, 2009, 1:33 AM
Post #160
 
myself being from GINW (i'm in the JV group bella voce), i also thought that their daytime performance was way better than the final performance. so idk about the rouge judge. i think i overheard shack saying that it was about 2 points between us and 2nd place (sorry whoever i forgot already). i know they modded "my song" for the soloists, but thats all i know they did for the show. the rest of the scedule anyways is... Lincoln southwest, NCDA (which is kinda sad we go there for some reason), and Grand Island Sr. High. for Prep groups i know that we won by (what i've heard not for a fact) 50 points. i could be telling a massive lie but idk for sure. and the dance off which we had our own johnny gonzolez dance for us. it was a great competition over all, but everybody has to remember that people do this for the experience and most people this is their sport. so congratulations to all.


1 2 3 4 5 . . . 9 Next





Sponsored






©2002-2019 Show Choir Community. All Rights Reserved.