All-Star Comparative Scoring

[Ashley]

Comparative Scoring will be interesting for EPs that give out bids based on score. You can't compare a score in one division against the score in another. Grand Champions doesn't make sense.

 

[Keep_Believing]

Comparative Scoring will be interesting for EPs that give out bids based on score. You can't compare a score in one division against the score in another. Grand Champions doesn't make sense.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! I couldn't agree with you more!!!!!!

 

[SparkleSpankies]

I am super curious to see how this pans out also and I am a judge. At MOST competitions, you know who should be in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. It honestly intimidates me if I have a really large division, but that is why I take notes, keep grids of scores given by team and can accurately score appropriately. I know I don't just put numbers on paper without having at least an idea of what I am looking at and what I saw and what could be to come.

 

[f5forever]

I hate comparative scoring. I feel like I should like it, but I just can't. I feel like unless you have an amazing routine that outclasses everyone (which RARELY happens), if you go in the first half of a division there's no way you'll win. I understand ranges and all, but say an amazing team goes out and hits a solid routine and should have "10's across the board", but the judges reserve those 10s for another amazing team they know is coming later, it just doesn't seem fair to me. The difference in a 9.8 (should be 10) and an actual 10 can determine a placement or win.

 

[TheVipersMom]

I hate comparative scoring. I feel like I should like it, but I just can't. I feel like unless you have an amazing routine that outclasses everyone (which RARELY happens), if you go in the first half of a division there's no way you'll win. I understand ranges and all, but say an amazing team goes out and hits a solid routine and should have "10's across the board", but the judges reserve those 10s for another amazing team they know is coming later, it just doesn't seem fair to me. The difference in a 9.8 (should be 10) and an actual 10 can determine a placement or win.

I see what you are saying but I think long as it is not a large division like others said could be challenging.

So what you go first and have a bada$$ routine and only give you an 8.8 or 8.7 in difficulty versus the 9 allowed because they think well if someone is better than them we need to be able to score them higher ..

Then everyone goes and well they aren't better well they can say hello to the 8.6 and 8.5 club.




Honestly I might be defending this because 6 of our 8 teams go first this weekend and 2 go 2nd against some very tough gyms so I don't want to believe it is true! Lol


Then again we went first last time and when they give you the score list for the division we killed the other teams and we were given a lot of 9s they weren't holding out on us.

 

[King]

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

How will it work? You want to compete as late as possible in the division. And if you go first you should fake an injury to go later.

 

[Keep_Believing]

I have a question, when you go to a comp. and it is scheduled level 3 team, then level 4 team, level 3 team, then level 4 team, repeat. Are the same judges scoring all the teams or are a set of judges assigned to judge each specific level?

 

[King]

They alternate panels per level.

 

[quitthedrama]

I have a question, when you go to a comp. and it is scheduled level 3 team, then level 4 team, level 3 team, then level 4 team, repeat. Are the same judges scoring all the teams or are a set of judges assigned to judge each specific level?

most likely there are 2 different judging panels. One is judging the level 3 teams and the other judging level 4 teams. It helps the competition itself move along quicker as well.

 

[quitthedrama]

How will it work? You want to compete as late as possible in the division. And if you go first you should fake an injury to go later.

No joke....sad isn't it?

 

[SarahS]

So I understand the points about why comparative scoring isn't awesome, but what is the alternative? There isn't currently a code of points that lists a point value of every skill that could be performed. How else would scoring be done, in the current system, other than comparatively? There are minimum numbers of skills required to get into a range but beyond that, there isn't really guidance as to how certain skills will score in the current system.

 

[cheer25mom]

I see what you are saying but I think long as it is not a large division like others said could be challenging.

So what you go first and have a bada$$ routine and only give you an 8.8 or 8.7 in difficulty versus the 9 allowed because they think well if someone is better than them we need to be able to score them higher ..

Then everyone goes and well they aren't better well they can say hello to the 8.6 and 8.5 club.




Honestly I might be defending this because 6 of our 8 teams go first this weekend and 2 go 2nd against some very tough gyms so I don't want to believe it is true! Lol


Then again we went first last time and when they give you the score list for the division we killed the other teams and we were given a lot of 9s they weren't holding out on us.

My problem with this would be comps that give out level champs across all age divisions and comps that award bids. If this happens in say, Y3, and the amazing team goes first and gets the 8.7 but in J3, that amazing team is last and gets the 8.9, it is going to effect who gets level champ, and who gets bids.

 

[King]

So I understand the points about why comparative scoring isn't awesome, but what is the alternative? There isn't currently a code of points that lists a point value of every skill that could be performed. How else would scoring be done, in the current system, other than comparatively? There are minimum numbers of skills required to get into a range but beyond that, there isn't really guidance as to how certain skills will score in the current system.

They tried being TOO objective and they pigeonholed everyone.

In reality the amount of points you can get when you get into a rubric category should scale up exponentially. If you are level 5 and doing just enough to be in the category you can get 9-9.1. Middle level 9.1-9.3. Top level 9.3-10. And then allow judges to award tenths of a point. Also combo stunts should count more. A combo is something that never stops moving for more than 2 counts. If you hold for 4 counts it isnt a combo.

 

[SarahS]

They tried being TOO objective and they pigeonholed everyone.

In reality the amount of points you can get when you get into a rubric category should scale up exponentially. If you are level 5 and doing just enough to be in the category you can get 9-9.1. Middle level 9.1-9.3. Top level 9.3-10. And then allow judges to award tenths of a point. Also combo stunts should count more. A combo is something that never stops moving for more than 2 counts. If you hold for 4 counts it isnt a combo.

I'm down with that. It gives coaches a target while keeping the ability to be creative. You would still have to have a definition of low level, mid level, top level, which might feel restrictive again. It's all about balancing objectivity and creativity, and clearly we haven't figured out that perfect balance yet.

 

[King]

I'm down with that. It gives coaches a target while keeping the ability to be creative. You would still have to have a definition of low level, mid level, top level, which might feel restrictive again. It's all about balancing objectivity and creativity, and clearly we haven't figured out that perfect balance yet.

The complaint was everyone was doing what was needed to be in the high category so there wasnt enough room to score. So they ditched it and went to comparative. What you should do is iterate and improve. I would actually say last years scoresheet was a success. It got everyone to compartmentalize and do what was needed. They just needed an adjustment to make it fit better.