|
Post by banddad on Oct 25, 2023 12:28:19 GMT -6
Not calling sower grapes but I have to agree with you.
Is what it is I guess.
|
|
|
Post by yayband914 on Oct 25, 2023 12:32:22 GMT -6
Except for maybe Centerville, it really seems like in prelims everyone in panel 1 got the short end of the scores. 9-14 were all panel 2. I think this is what’s going to happen to Panel 2 at St. Louis. Because Panel 1 is not as competitive, average bands will receive inflated scores to open up the gap for numbers management, and bubble bands in Panel 2 will receive lower scores on average because of tighter numbers management. Prime example: Grand Nationals 2022. Catawba Ridge in 48th, Green Level in 62nd, etc. Both on the panel with a deeper talent pool.
|
|
|
Post by marimba11 on Oct 25, 2023 20:31:18 GMT -6
Except for maybe Centerville, it really seems like in prelims everyone in panel 1 got the short end of the scores. 9-14 were all panel 2. I think this is what’s going to happen to Panel 2 at St. Louis. Because Panel 1 is not as competitive, average bands will receive inflated scores to open up the gap for numbers management, and bubble bands in Panel 2 will receive lower scores on average because of tighter numbers management. Prime example: Grand Nationals 2022. Catawba Ridge in 48th, Green Level in 62nd, etc. Both on the panel with a deeper talent pool. Exactly. I wish there was a perfect system but sadly there is not
|
|
bandisjoy
Senior Member
Update Status loading...
Posts: 67
|
Post by bandisjoy on Oct 26, 2023 6:21:14 GMT -6
I think this is what’s going to happen to Panel 2 at St. Louis. Because Panel 1 is not as competitive, average bands will receive inflated scores to open up the gap for numbers management, and bubble bands in Panel 2 will receive lower scores on average because of tighter numbers management. Prime example: Grand Nationals 2022. Catawba Ridge in 48th, Green Level in 62nd, etc. Both on the panel with a deeper talent pool. Exactly. I wish there was a perfect system but sadly there is not I'm sitting here wondering what if, for the first two blocks, BOTH panels judged. Then the total results are tabulated by a third party and the average scores for those bands are released to the judges only. These scores created a "calibrated" baseline that both panels can refer to when comparing future bands' performance. Would having twice as many judges provide an advantage or disadvantage to those two blocks? Would having the judges know average scores be a conflict? Not sure about all that, but at least the panels have something in common to work from.
|
|
|
Post by cheesemcdiddlesworth on Oct 26, 2023 14:33:41 GMT -6
Exactly. I wish there was a perfect system but sadly there is not I'm sitting here wondering what if, for the first two blocks, BOTH panels judged. Then the total results are tabulated by a third party and the average scores for those bands are released to the judges only. These scores created a "calibrated" baseline that both panels can refer to when comparing future bands' performance. Would having twice as many judges provide an advantage or disadvantage to those two blocks? Would having the judges know average scores be a conflict? Not sure about all that, but at least the panels have something in common to work from. Doubling the effort of the judges would reduce overall quality. Imagine being turned on max focus all day long with very few breaks. That's a no for me dawg. Edit: I see you said the first two blocks. That brings issues of who is in that first block. I would still argue the chief judge exists to make sure scores are fair.
|
|