QUOTE(juliofrommississippi @ Feb 29 2008, 09:47 PM) 423901
I like this system, but I think it also has flaws (as does any system). For example, what if 2 groups both get first place from 2 judges, second place from 2 judges and then have one judge tie them? Or like at Great River 2007 in day round there was no consensus from the judges. Or what if 3 judges have group A winning, but have group B VERY close behind, but 2 judges have group B farther ahead than group A, so group B would end up winning points wise. I think that under the "Fair Fehr" system, judges opinions can be discounted, which I think is completely unfair. It basically is discouraging judges from having different opinions than other judges (and then how can music be considered a subjective art). Of course, in a situation like the one that happened here at SE Polk, I think the Fair Fehr system would be of use.
But reiterating my original point. How can a competition allow judges to pick a new winner if the group that won using the original scoring system was not the group they wanted to win? Scoring methods should not be changed a) after the competition is completed and without directors knowing. I think this is something that definitely needs to be changed in coming years or it could potentially lead to a drop in attendance if things like this occur again.
I agree, Jay. I think there are flaws with every system, including the consensus ordinal system. What draws me to it is the basic philosophy that we hire panels to decide competition results, not individuals. The consensus focus may discount a single judges opinion on occasion, but it does reflect the view of the panel. Most other systems have the potential to discount all judges opinions but one...as happened at SE Polk. I don't know that I would say it discourages different opinions among judges any more than do systems who throw out the high and low judges score, for example.
Tie breaker procedures for any system should be decided on in advance. For us, If a consensus isn't clear, or if analysis results in a tie, then we look at ordinal rank sums. If they are tied, then we go to total points.
I totally agree that the rules shouldn't be changed midstream.
QUOTE(juliofrommississippi @ Feb 29 2008, 11:47 PM) 423901
I like this system, but I think it also has flaws (as does any system). For example, what if 2 groups both get first place from 2 judges, second place from 2 judges and then have one judge tie them? Or like at Great River 2007 in day round there was no consensus from the judges. Or what if 3 judges have group A winning, but have group B VERY close behind, but 2 judges have group B farther ahead than group A, so group B would end up winning points wise. I think that under the "Fair Fehr" system, judges opinions can be discounted, which I think is completely unfair. It basically is discouraging judges from having different opinions than other judges (and then how can music be considered a subjective art). Of course, in a situation like the one that happened here at SE Polk, I think the Fair Fehr system would be of use.
But reiterating my original point. How can a competition allow judges to pick a new winner if the group that won using the original scoring system was not the group they wanted to win? Scoring methods should not be changed a) after the competition is completed and without directors knowing. I think this is something that definitely needs to be changed in coming years or it could potentially lead to a drop in attendance if things like this occur again.
The consensus ordinal system tiebreakers generally then revert back to the points and then the winner or higher ranked choir is decided.
This is a great example of where the consensus ordinal system, championed by David Fehr, would have eliminated the controversy. Under that system, which we used at Kennedy this year, Davenport would have been declared the winner, as the judge's consensus was that they should win. While the result probably follows the rules that SE Polk set-up for their contest, it is odd that 4 of the 5 judges thought that Davenport was the best group, but they didn't win.
Think of the consensus ordinal system as counting judges rather than counting points. In order to eliminate wild point spreads, or one outlying judge, the points are converted to ranks, and then you count the ranks. Whoever has the most first place votes, wins.
Just my $.02
I like this system, but I think it also has flaws (as does any system). For example, what if 2 groups both get first place from 2 judges, second place from 2 judges and then have one judge tie them? Or like at Great River 2007 in day round there was no consensus from the judges. Or what if 3 judges have group A winning, but have group B VERY close behind, but 2 judges have group B farther ahead than group A, so group B would end up winning points wise. I think that under the "Fair Fehr" system, judges opinions can be discounted, which I think is completely unfair. It basically is discouraging judges from having different opinions than other judges (and then how can music be considered a subjective art). Of course, in a situation like the one that happened here at SE Polk, I think the Fair Fehr system would be of use.
But reiterating my original point. How can a competition allow judges to pick a new winner if the group that won using the original scoring system was not the group they wanted to win? Scoring methods should not be changed a) after the competition is completed and without directors knowing. I think this is something that definitely needs to be changed in coming years or it could potentially lead to a drop in attendance if things like this occur again.
This is a great example of where the consensus ordinal system, championed by David Fehr, would have eliminated the controversy. Under that system, which we used at Kennedy this year, Davenport would have been declared the winner, as the judge's consensus was that they should win. While the result probably follows the rules that SE Polk set-up for their contest, it is odd that 4 of the 5 judges thought that Davenport was the best group, but they didn't win.
Think of the consensus ordinal system as counting judges rather than counting points. In order to eliminate wild point spreads, or one outlying judge, the points are converted to ranks, and then you count the ranks. Whoever has the most first place votes, wins.
Just my $.02
I agree, I think Kennedy's competition (and anyone else who uses that system) is the best way to score a show choir competition.
This is a great example of where the consensus ordinal system, championed by David Fehr, would have eliminated the controversy. Under that system, which we used at Kennedy this year, Davenport would have been declared the winner, as the judge's consensus was that they should win. While the result probably follows the rules that SE Polk set-up for their contest, it is odd that 4 of the 5 judges thought that Davenport was the best group, but they didn't win.
Think of the consensus ordinal system as counting judges rather than counting points. In order to eliminate wild point spreads, or one outlying judge, the points are converted to ranks, and then you count the ranks. Whoever has the most first place votes, wins.
This is a great example of where the consensus ordinal system, championed by David Fehr, would have eliminated the controversy. Under that system, which we used at Kennedy this year, Davenport would have been declared the winner, as the judge's consensus was that they should win. While the result probably follows the rules that SE Polk set-up for their contest, it is odd that 4 of the 5 judges thought that Davenport was the best group, but they didn't win.
Think of the consensus ordinal system as counting judges rather than counting points. In order to eliminate wild point spreads, or one outlying judge, the points are converted to ranks, and then you count the ranks. Whoever has the most first place votes, wins.
Scoring controverseys like this is why I like the hi-low system so well. It drops the highest score, and the lowest score for each group. Brings out more consistency in my opinion
QUOTE(juliofrommississippi @ Feb 29 2008, 03:55 PM) 423749
Well it's common in Iowa to have finals placements be decided by judges rankings. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the original scoring method should be used, not replaced after the groups have already competed. I don't care that the SE Polk rules say it's ok. I am saying that there should not be a rule that allows the judges/directors of the competition to change the method of scoring after the competition has finished, especially if the directors were uninformed of this decision.
And if it was a unanimous decision to change the scoring method because one judges scoring was completely off-key then why still use his/her rankings in the new method? That does not take care of the problem at all.
I guess what I meant was is it common to have a rule that can change the system?
I'm going to have to agree. Some directors try to avoid scoring systems with the placement system. I personally don't like it (that's another topic). It is odd they do have the rule. Is this a common thing among competitions? I know in Ohio it's not.
Well it's common in Iowa to have finals placements be decided by judges rankings. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the original scoring method should be used, not replaced after the groups have already competed. I don't care that the SE Polk rules say it's ok. I am saying that there should not be a rule that allows the judges/directors of the competition to change the method of scoring after the competition has finished, especially if the directors were uninformed of this decision.
And if it was a unanimous decision to change the scoring method because one judges scoring was completely off-key then why still use his/her rankings in the new method? That does not take care of the problem at all.
I'm going to have to agree. Some directors try to avoid scoring systems with the placement system. I personally don't like it (that's another topic). It is odd they do have the rule. Is this a common thing among competitions? I know in Ohio it's not.
In regards to the results at our show choir invitational, yes, unfortunately, the results were incorrect and trophies went out before it was realized. Although slightly disappointing to us that this small mistake escaped us, even more disappointing is that there was inaccurate information assumed, discussed and posted on this forum.
So to dispel the rumors, here is what happened:
Due to one judges inconsistent scores, the group of judges decided to override the finals ballots with ordinal scoring, which according to the rules, is perfectly ok. Ordinal scoring is a process where each judge places each school – first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth. Those results are then added up and placed, lowest to highest score. In the rush of not only changing the scoring system (again, appropriate in regards to rules) but adding up the new scores last minute, mathematical errors were made. As said by a Totino-Grace student and Johnston parent, this happens more than you think. This is no one’s fault, it was simply a mistake. Unfortunately, it was a mistake that affected more than one person. Fortunately, it was a mistake that is easily fixable and forgettable. We hope you will all do just that.
After several conversations with participating directors, it has been decided Dowling Catholic will share Grand Champion with Davenport Central. Muscatine and Pella will also be sharing 3rd place. 5th and 6th place remain the same.
We praise the humble nature of the Dowling Catholic students and the understanding of all directors involved.
Many thanks -
The Directors at SE Polk
I'm still confused... What error occurred? That is what we have all been wondering and speculating about.
Also, why would there be a rule that the judges can change the scoring rules and how choirs are ranked? It basically sounds like some of the judges didn't like how results turned out so they changed the way the competition ranks choirs so they could get the order they wanted.... That certainly does not sound fair to me at all. I understand that this is allowed in the rules of Southeast Polk's competition, but why would that rule even exist? This only allows for there to be greater controversy. I believe there should only be one scoring method used. To me it is unethical to change the scoring method after the groups have already performed and been told a different scoring method would be used. Does anyone else feel the same way?
In regards to the results at our show choir invitational, yes, unfortunately, the results were incorrect and trophies went out before it was realized. Although slightly disappointing to us that this small mistake escaped us, even more disappointing is that there was inaccurate information assumed, discussed and posted on this forum.
I don't mean to be rude... but what do you expect? When students involved in the mix-up found out about this FROM a director on a show choir website, before their own directors' had even had a chance to tell them and talk to them about it, of course there are going to be people talking about what happened. The "inaccurate information", "assumptions", and "discussion" was all a general search for the truth of what happened. You shouldn't be disappointed in this or scold us for being curious, because everyone handled themselves in an appropriate manor (as you can see by the posts). So the information given wasn't all correct, it was just discussion and was never deemed as "THE TRUTH"... we now have the truth, so it doesn't matter.
In regards to the results at our show choir invitational, yes, unfortunately, the results were incorrect and trophies went out before it was realized. Although slightly disappointing to us that this small mistake escaped us, even more disappointing is that there was inaccurate information assumed, discussed and posted on this forum.
So to dispel the rumors, here is what happened:
Due to one judges inconsistent scores, the group of judges decided to override the finals ballots with ordinal scoring, which according to the rules, is perfectly ok. Ordinal scoring is a process where each judge places each school – first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth. Those results are then added up and placed, lowest to highest score. In the rush of not only changing the scoring system (again, appropriate in regards to rules) but adding up the new scores last minute, mathematical errors were made. As said by a Totino-Grace student and Johnston parent, this happens more than you think. This is no one’s fault, it was simply a mistake. Unfortunately, it was a mistake that affected more than one person. Fortunately, it was a mistake that is easily fixable and forgettable. We hope you will all do just that.
After several conversations with participating directors, it has been decided Dowling Catholic will share Grand Champion with Davenport Central. Muscatine and Pella will also be sharing 3rd place. 5th and 6th place remain the same.
We praise the humble nature of the Dowling Catholic students and the understanding of all directors involved.
The rules may state in case of a tie the Grand Championship will be awarded to the school with the highest vocal score. I know that happend to us in 2006. We tied with Franklin Central Overall and in Vocals and we won by a half point in choreography. It depends on the competition though.
Most competitions do that. And I agree with it.
I'm really glad a Dowling student has posted in this topic! Welcome to SCC and congrats on your first win (even if it came a bit late)!
3. Dowling winning BV doesen't mean that they should be GC's. If anything (and I'll try not to sound as biased as I can) Central winning BC and BB should give us right.
The rules may state in case of a tie the Grand Championship will be awarded to the school with the highest vocal score. I know that happend to us in 2006. We tied with Franklin Central Overall and in Vocals and we won by a half point in choreography. It depends on the competition though.
To the Dowling students who have posted: I admire your gracious and humble responses. As a Dowling alum, you make me proud! Best wishes for a Grand Champion trophy in Emmetsburg! You certainly deserve it.
Hello, so I think I'm the first Dowling student to reply to this. There's so much discussion about it! Dimensions just found out about the mix up with scores at our practice tonight, and there's mixed emotions for everyone.
We're obviously VERY happy to have the honor of GC. Our last couple of years have been aweful, the group's one goal for this season was to make finals once; we've worked really hard to exceed even our own expectations. Thank God for our new director, Ms. White, we couldn't have done it without her!!!
We feel AWEFUL about the mix up, it's got to be terrible for the Davenport kids (who had an AMAZING show!!!) The plan so far is that they will mail us the GC trophy and will order another GC trophy for themselves. (details are blurry on this) No one, NO ONE, deserves to have first place taken away from them and especially with as good of a performance as Davenport had. Congrats!
We're kind of sad about not having the "moment of glory" at the competition, but honestly, it's not that big of a deal in the overall picture. Anyone who's in show choir for "glory" is in it for the wrong reasons.
The ranks from the judges for Davenport were 1 1 1 1 5. The ranks for Dowling were 2 2 2 2 1. This resulted in a (9 points each) tie for GC. Dowling should've won since we recieved Best Vocals. I don't know what happened but in the end Davenport was announced for GC. (There was a moment when the Dowling kids misheard and thought we won and started cheering. wow that was EMBARRASSING. I was hoping people didn't think of us as egotistical because of that.) SE Polk is trying to make us GC but I believe Ms. White is trying to work it out to where it'll go down in history as a tie.
Again, congratulations to all! Dowling's next/last competition is this Sat. at Emmetsburg. Good luck to all show choirs for any competition this weekend! Choir kids really are the coolest!!! =)
1. I am glad that someone from Dowling replied to this
2. It is rather sad that you guys didn't get your time to shine. Just experiencing the first GC in school history last year, you guys must be extatic.
3. Dowling winning BV doesen't mean that they should be GC's. If anything (and I'll try not to sound as biased as I can) Central winning BC and BB should give us right.
4. When Dowling was cheering after the BB thing, we all thought it was hilarious! We're like "Yeah we love our band too!" lol
5. I think that a tie would be the best thing to do. It wouldn't be fair to take away our GC because we earned that. It also wouldn't be fair to not reward Dowling because they as well earned that.
By the way, we already have a GC trophy. So I don't think that they'd have to mail another one.
Hello, so I think I'm the first Dowling student to reply to this. There's so much discussion about it! Dimensions just found out about the mix up with scores at our practice tonight, and there's mixed emotions for everyone.
We're obviously VERY happy to have the honor of GC. The group's one goal for this season was to make finals once; we've worked really hard to exceed our own expectations. Thank God for our new director, Ms. White, we couldn't have done it without her!
We feel AWEFUL about the mix up, it's got to be terrible for the Davenport kids (who had an AMAZING show!!! Davenport had a fabulous performance. Congrats!
Some kids are kind of sad about not having the "moment of glory" at the competition, but honestly, it's not that big of a deal in the overall picture. Anyone who's in show choir for just "glory" is in it for the wrong reasons.
(I edited the scores out, I don't want any misinformation! Thank you to the SE Polk directors for clearing things up) (There was a moment when the Dowling kids misheard and thought we won and started cheering. wow that was EMBARRASSING. I was hoping people didn't think of us as egotistical because of that.) It'll go down in history as a tie. =)
Again, congratulations to all! Dowling's next/last competition is this Sat. at Emmetsburg. Good luck to all show choirs for any competition this weekend! Choir kids really are the coolest!!! =)
Southeast Polk RAM Showcase 2008
without directors knowing. I think this is something that definitely needs to be changed in coming years or it could potentially lead to a drop in attendance if things like this occur again.
