I really enjoyed Totino-Grace's choreography at the end of their closer!! It was as if you were looking at a gold jewel sparking in the sunlight. I keep coming back to it as I gear up my excitement for the upcoming season.
#teamApril.Lexi
Placements are based on ordinal ranking consensus. Totino is 1st because they had the most 1's. Subtract 1 from all the remaining values
Craig= 1, 1, 1, 1, 2
Decatur= 1, 1, 1, 2, 2
Neenah= 3, 3, 4, 5, 5
Monona= 3, 4, 4, 4, 5
Milton= 3, 3, 4, 5, 5
Craig has the most 1's now so they are second. Subtract 1 again
You have a tie for most 1's between Neenah and Milton. The two actually tied in numerous categories so it went to raw vocals score which Neenah was ahead, so Neenah is fourth. Subtract 1 again
Monona = 1, 1, 1, 1, 2
Milton= 1, 1, 1, 2, 2
Monona now has the most 1's so they are fifth. Meaning Milton is sixth even though they tied with Neenah based on ordinal consensus ranking. I hope that helps clear up some questions!
How is it logical that one of the 2 schools that tied for 4th in the first tiebreaker finishes below the school that they both beat in that tiebreaker?
Thats not how tiebreakers work in any other area of sport or otherwise. Run this by any math or stats teacher and see what they think.
If school A and B beat school C for 4th place and go to a tiebreaker, then the loser of the tiebreaker would automatically get 5th place since school C already lost the first tiebreaker to the other 2 schools.
Keep in mind that Neenah would have also placed 6th if they lost the tiebreaker with Milton for 4th.
A group ties for 4th but gets 6th? Can anyone defend this?
Nothing against any of the schools they are all awesome and their shows are great but they all deserve a scoring system that is logical.
In my opinion either the tiebreaker criteria is flawed or the interpretation of it is flawed.
I completely understand where you’re coming from, the groups were extremely close as can be seen in the ranks given above. I think it’s important to be transparent with how results come about. Maybe tweaks can be made to the scoring criteria but it couldn’t have been changed the day of the contest. Frankly, I don’t think someone thought of the scenario that happened above especially with an odd number of judges.
I know it’s hard not to see placements as value but it should be noted that at least one judge saw monona, Milton, and Neenah as deserving of fourth place. The real value is that each group put on phenomenal performances and have more opportunities to do so. I know I’m looking forward to seeing everyone’s show again!
Personally I've never been a fan of determining placements based on judge's ranks. I'd rather they base it off of raw scores, because situations like this can happen. Do you know the prelim ranks by chance?
Raw scores can be just as problematic because it allows for a single judge to drastically sway results. Going off of ranks at least equalizes judge input. The consensus method works to further eliminate bias by taking the "will of the majority," but I do find a few things about this odd.
Let's go with the results above and use these rankings (pretend Neenah doesn't exist for the purpose of this example):
Monona = 4, 5, 5, 5, 6
Milton = 4, 4, 5, 6, 6
If we added up both groups' ranking totals, we get 25 - a tie. As I understand it, going by consensus strictly looks at the amount of the lowest numbers to determine a winner (is this Fehr Fair? I never remember what that means). In this case, Milton would be awarded the winner, as they have two '4' ranks and Monona only has one. That's fine and dandy, but you could easily look at it the other way around and say they have the most 6s as well. If two judges thought you were the best but two others thought you were the worst, how does that end up in a "win?"
It seems to me that because of cases like these, I would personally use the totals from ranks to eliminate individual judge sway - and then use the raw scores in the case of a tie. Individual bias can still come into play in that situation, but it's only for tie-breaking purposes and seems more objective than simply looking at low rank numbers and ignoring every other judge's input. Then again, I'm just another dude with an opinion.
I also agree with Dan that a system which says two groups are tied for 4th but then awards 5th place to a group that was previously below the two who tied seems logically broken.
That is not how Fehr Fair works. Under Fehr Fair, if it has boiled down to two groups to determine a placement, whichever group was placed higher by the larger number of judges would win. If three out of five judges had Monona above Milton, Monona would win. It doesn't matter if Milton had two '4's. If Abe's description is how the ranking was actually determined, than that is unfortunate, as it is an apparent attempt to use Fehr Fair by persons who don't understand it. Music Majors trying to do math. I believe that this is what happened at Wheaton Warrenville 2013 and cost Urbandale a spot in finals.
The problem seems to be lack of knowledge about how tiebreakers work. There have been 3 competitions in Wisconsin that had trouble with ties this year.
The scoring system ideally would not result in so many ties and the volunteers who tally the scores should have clear procedures to follow in dealing with them.
I know the volunteers put in a lot of time to make their competition work, maybe they should be provided with a clear system to work with. Also having 2 people independently tallying scores would probably reduce errors.
I'm still not sure if Fort ever officially changed the placements or not.
Fort Atkinson Showcase 2018
In this case, Milton would be awarded the winner, as they have two '4' ranks and Monona only has one. That's fine and dandy, but you could easily look at it the other way around and say they have the most 6s as well. If two judges thought you were the best but two others thought you were the worst, how does that end up in a "win?"
