All-Star Comparative Scoring

[Keep_Believing]

"Scores are based on performances at that day’s event compared to other teams in your division and/or level.
Teams will notice a variance in scores from event to event."

How much of an impact will comparative scoring have on comp. this year?

Thanks!

 

[TheVipersMom]

The part where it says team will notice a variance in scoring from event to event is probably true more than people think.


All our teams with deductions scored in the 96/97 range at our first competition.

I noticed the comp for NCA last week had much lower scores. The highest scoring team didn't out score our lowest scoring team.

And the highest scoring teams were pretty amazing. So it just has to do with how they score they obviously judged them on a harsher overall scale than we were judged a few weeks ago.

Comparing scores across competitions means very little.

Comparing scores among competitors at the same competition will likely indicate the strong ones.. Especially if you can look at raw scores in relation to their final scores.

 

[catlady]

Comparing scores across competitions means very little

The analytical geek in me is crying just a little.

 

[Cheer Dad]

The analytical geek in me is crying just a little.

I believe she is correct. How can you compare something with different perspective from the judges?. Maybe a stretch but it could be compared to what is art? To some a Picasso means something to others it doesn't.


*Mentally conditioned and convinced I could do a back tuck. The paramedics disagreed*

 

[catlady]

@Cheer Dad, @Kris10boo, or anyone, please help clarify. I wasn't seeing the artistic issue except possibly in the creativity category. The way I'm understanding this is Jank and Jankier go up against each other and Jank's jumps barely get off the ground. In the past they would have gotten a "6", but since they were better than Jankier, they get a "10" and Jankier gets a "9". Across town you have Awesome go up against More Awesome, both have hyper extended jumps and More Awesome gets a "10" and "Awesome" gets a "9", where in the past they would have both scored "10". In other words, I'm understanding this as All Star is now being graded on the curve by competition. Is this correct or am I way off the mark?

 

[Ashley]

@Cheer Dad, @Kris10boo, or anyone, please help clarify. I wasn't seeing the artistic issue except possibly in the creativity category. The way I'm understanding this is Jank and Jankier go up against each other and Jank's jumps barely get off the ground. In the past they would have gotten a "6", but since they were better than Jankier, they get a "10" and Jankier gets a "9". Across town you have Awesome go up against More Awesome, both have hyper extended jumps and More Awesome gets a "10" and "Awesome" gets a "9", where in the past they would have both scored "10". In other words, I'm understanding this as All Star is now being graded on the curve by competition. Is this correct or am I way off the mark?

You're right. It's a curve. There's a range you can fall in, but your score will be determined by your competition. If you're first, they'll stick you somewhere in the middle and then score those after you either above or below you. Which is completely ridiculous if a division has a ton of people competing in it, a la NCA, Cheersport, or Worlds.

 

[FlexyTumblerMom]

Comparative scoring sounds really lame - I don't see how anyone could think that is a good idea? Who wants to look at a score and have to think about who else was there at that particular competition to figure out what it means?

Do they at least list the "top score" on the score sheet that comes back? Classes that grade on a curve at least announce what the curve setting score was, right?

 

[Keep_Believing]

I think a lot of people are not aware of the new "comparative scoring" aspect.

 

[Ashley]

I think a lot of people are not aware of the new "comparative scoring" aspect.

To be fair, there are still scoring ranges. The old worlds scoresheet was way more subjective. There was basically no rubric at all.

 

[Cheer Dad]

You're right. It's a curve. There's a range you can fall in, but your score will be determined by your competition. If you're first, they'll stick you somewhere in the middle and then score those after you either above or below you. Which is completely ridiculous if a division has a ton of people competing in it, a la NCA, Cheersport, or Worlds.

I wonder how they would 'place' a team like cheetahs or TGLC if they went first. In my mind that would ruin the comparative scoring since it would be hard to place them in the middle, so to say.


*Mentally conditioned and convinced I could do a back tuck. The paramedics disagreed*

 

[Ashley]

I wonder how they would 'place' a team like cheetahs or TGLC if they went first. In my mind that would ruin the comparative scoring since it would be hard to place them in the middle, so to say.


*Mentally conditioned and convinced I could do a back tuck. The paramedics disagreed*

Well judges don't live in a vaccuum. They know that a performance from Cheetahs or TGLC is going to be near the top of the scoresheet. And they know what a team that should probably be R5 looks like and can score appropriately.

 

[TheVipersMom]

here is just a made up one.
(

You have to hit a range for difficulty so if they truly are jank and don't even have the elements they are not going to get a 9 in difficulty (the highest score)

However we may get a 9 in difficulty at one comp in tumbling/ or jumps because that may be the most difficult or hardest thing they seen for that level.

We may have all the elements that are required to get in the high range for stunts or pyramids but the person before us may have had all the elements too and be just a little more difficult and they gave them a 8.9 or 9 so they only want to give us an 8.8.


So you still have ranges..

Technique on the other hand I think judges know bad technique when they see it and they don't need to say well you were just a little worse than the other person hell they will just give you a .3 or .4 instead of .8 .9 if you have really bad technique. However every single judge everywhere may be different on what they think is bad here or there. You may get a .3 here then go to another comp same technique and get a .5

Well that means you still have technique to work on!

 

[Keep_Believing]

To be fair, there are still scoring ranges. The old worlds scoresheet was way more subjective. There was basically no rubric at all.

Worlds is a whole different world!

 

[King]

Comparative scoring works as long as it isn't a large group of teams. More than 10 and the scoring breaks down.

 

[Keep_Believing]

Comparative scoring works as long as it isn't a large group of teams. More than 10 and the scoring breaks down.

How do you think it will work at NCA Nationals, where you could easily be in a big category?