All-Star Competition Order Affecting Scores?

[coachbd]

Event producers are highly reluctant to give enough information about scores to even begin to judge the judging this way.

My gut feeling is that SCORES are highly affected by this, but I think that RANKINGS are affected less. I think if a very strong team goes early, that essentially forces ALL of that divisions' scores lower. (The judges have to "leave room" in the scores for better teams and not give an early team too high a score.) This is part of the reason that reading too much into scores between divisions is difficult.

Nothing would thrill me more than being able to do some actual math on scoring data. Being a part of a large program gives us much more information than any normal program could ever hope to have, but we still crave more. I would be happy to lose a massive competitive advantage that we have for the benefits that open scoring would give to the industry as a whole.

The easiest conclusion to draw from EP's reluctance to give useful information away is that it would expose the flaws in their system. (Math errors, blatant judging mistakes, bias, etc.) If they sit on all of that information, then people can assume all of those things happen, but they can't really prove it. If an EP is confident in their judging and scoring, then they would want all of that public. If they are not, then I can understand their desire to keep everything secretive and hidden.

Again, for the record, I want every number written down by every judge to be available to every coach in every division. Comments could be made private, but everything else should be open to observation by the competitors. It still amazes me that other coaches don't want to see this. As it is, you rarely know why you won or lost. How can we improve our routines without this? Being left in the dark forces teams to simply copy all of the elements of winning routines, without really knowing what it was about that routine that scored high.

This is already done, to some extent, in Australia, at competitions run by the Australian All-Star Cheerleading Federation (AASCF - the Australian "version" of USASF), which is our biggest EP. A week or so after a competition, all the scores for each team in each division are posted on their website. You can see the scores for "Building", "Tumbling", "Choreography" as well as the deductions, the raw mark and its conversion and rankings etc. for each team. The only thing that is not provided is the complete break down of the scores within each of those categories (eg. the exact scores for running tumbling, standing tumbling etc. within "Tumbling"), which only the programs themselves receive for their own teams.

I am not sure if what I have just described is already standard practice in the States or not, or if even having the above implemented would serve as a step in the direction that you are searching for. I personally, as a coach, have found it very useful having this information published, even if it is not a 100% detailed breakdown. I feel there is definitely less confusion from programs about the scoring process. At least this shows that if our biggest EP can do it successfully, then it can definitely be done in the States, it's just a matter of the EPs getting on board :P

 

[BlueCat]

This is already done, to some extent, in Australia, at competitions run by the Australian All-Star Cheerleading Federation (AASCF - the Australian "version" of USASF), which is our biggest EP. A week or so after a competition, all the scores for each team in each division are posted on their website. You can see the scores for "Building", "Tumbling", "Choreography" as well as the deductions, the raw mark and its conversion and rankings etc. for each team. The only thing that is not provided is the complete break down of the scores within each of those categories (eg. the exact scores for running tumbling, standing tumbling etc. within "Tumbling"), which only the programs themselves receive for their own teams.

I am not sure if what I have just described is already standard practice in the States or not, or if even having the above implemented would serve as a step in the direction that you are searching for. I personally, as a coach, have found it very useful having this information published, even if it is not a 100% detailed breakdown. I feel there is definitely less confusion from programs about the scoring process. At least this shows that if our biggest EP can do it successfully, then it can definitely be done in the States, it's just a matter of the EPs getting on board :p

This is better than most, but I want EVERY score posted. (technique/difficulty, running/tumbling, etc.) To be more specific, we really only need the average of those scores. (The average score of all of the judges' running tumbling difficulty score, for example.)

 

[flipmac]

This is already done, to some extent, in Australia, at competitions run by the Australian All-Star Cheerleading Federation (AASCF - the Australian "version" of USASF), which is our biggest EP. A week or so after a competition, all the scores for each team in each division are posted on their website. You can see the scores for "Building", "Tumbling", "Choreography" as well as the deductions, the raw mark and its conversion and rankings etc. for each team. The only thing that is not provided is the complete break down of the scores within each of those categories (eg. the exact scores for running tumbling, standing tumbling etc. within "Tumbling"), which only the programs themselves receive for their own teams.

I am not sure if what I have just described is already standard practice in the States or not, or if even having the above implemented would serve as a step in the direction that you are searching for. I personally, as a coach, have found it very useful having this information published, even if it is not a 100% detailed breakdown. I feel there is definitely less confusion from programs about the scoring process. At least this shows that if our biggest EP can do it successfully, then it can definitely be done in the States, it's just a matter of the EPs getting on board :P

AASCF is most definitely not our version of USASF, they are an event provider and that is it... They do not govern Australian cheer, they may throw their weight around is all.

And the scores for AASCF differ per division, even within the same level. So the highest point award is not accurate either.

The conversion is also misguided because two different score sheets are used, level 1-4 and than. A level 5 score sheet.

 

[flipmac]

This is better than most, but I want EVERY score posted. (technique/difficulty, running/tumbling, etc.) To be more specific, we really only need the average of those scores. (The average score of all of the judges' running tumbling difficulty score, for example.)

Unfortunety Australia does not get more information, what we see from AASCF is no different than what you would get from NCA, the only difference is NCA divisions will be much larger and you see with greater clarity where you rank against the other 30-40 teams in the divisions. I'm lucky to get 4 in a division here.

 

[John Butler]

As long as cheer is a sport judged by human beings, this will play some part in scoring. It is humanly impossible for the human spirit not to be swayed to some extent by these extenuating situations. Judges are human. They have human emotions just like you and me. If you want absolutes, then you should be playing football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, or any other sport that involves scoring a point for completing a task.

Make no mistake, the human emotion is a powerful thing. Even when we attempt to be impartial, experience says things within our minds will sway us one way or the other. It's the wonder of the human psyche. Even the very songs you select in your music can sway a judge subconsciously to score a routine differently than the person sitting next to him. Sure, they can tell you they don't allow this to happen, but it does... it's human nature. It's why you find yourself tapping your feet to that song that you just really love. Do you think about it when you tap your foot? No, it happens subconsciously. Why, because your subconscious mind is put into a certain "emotional state" by the music. Same happens when that song you hate comes on... you immediately change the station.

This is the double edged sword of the sport. IMHO, it's actually one of the positive things that I love about this sport. The fact that any team can step on the floor at any time and with the right combination of music, choreo, crowd support and execution can win. This is what makes it so special.

If you were to lay out the top teams side by side and compare skills, almost every one has athletes who can perform the skills necessary to win. In the end, when talented teams execute at the same level, it comes down to who moves the judges more.

This is the reason every time I meet a judge from one of these competitions, I shake their hand and thank them for their service and commitment. Playing judge and deciding between some of the most amazing teams to take the floor is a rough job.

So assuming it does play a factor , let's talk about the REAL question. What position is it best to go in, and on what day?? Day 1, is it best to go first, last, or be in the middle? We know at Worlds the highest scoring team from Day 1 goes last on Day 2. Is this truly a benefit? I enjoy these type of psychological debates!!

 

[DaniV]

I would think that the most affected place on the scoresheet would be execution because they have all the other teams to compare it too. Difficulty is difficulty and has a rubric for scoring. Execution and impression scores are all subjective to the individual judge though. The first couple teams competing would be a starting block for everyone else - either they did better or worse and are scored according to that. We typically compete at local comps that have rarely have more than 5 or so teams in a division until we get to our Nationals so the placement usually makes pretty good sense as there aren't too many teams to judge and judges can make accurate placements.
I can't imagine how a big competition (such as NCA nat'ls) would play out...

 

[Cheer Dad]

As long as cheer is a sport judged by human beings, this will play some part in scoring. It is humanly impossible for the human spirit not to be swayed to some extent by these extenuating situations. Judges are human. They have human emotions just like you and me. If you want absolutes, then you should be playing football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, or any other sport that involves scoring a point for completing a task.

Make no mistake, the human emotion is a powerful thing. Even when we attempt to be impartial, experience says things within our minds will sway us one way or the other. It's the wonder of the human psyche. Even the very songs you select in your music can sway a judge subconsciously to score a routine differently than the person sitting next to him. Sure, they can tell you they don't allow this to happen, but it does... it's human nature. It's why you find yourself tapping your feet to that song that you just really love. Do you think about it when you tap your foot? No, it happens subconsciously. Why, because your subconscious mind is put into a certain "emotional state" by the music. Same happens when that song you hate comes on... you immediately change the station.

This is the double edged sword of the sport. IMHO, it's actually one of the positive things that I love about this sport. The fact that any team can step on the floor at any time and with the right combination of music, choreo, crowd support and execution can win. This is what makes it so special.

If you were to lay out the top teams side by side and compare skills, almost every one has athletes who can perform the skills necessary to win. In the end, when talented teams execute at the same level, it comes down to who moves the judges more.

This is the reason every time I meet a judge from one of these competitions, I shake their hand and thank them for their service and commitment. Playing judge and deciding between some of the most amazing teams to take the floor is a rough job.

So assuming it does play a factor , let's talk about the REAL question. What position is it best to go in, and on what day?? Day 1, is it best to go first, last, or be in the middle? We know at Worlds the highest scoring team from Day 1 goes last on Day 2. Is this truly a benefit? I enjoy these type of psychological debates!!

This is my line of thought on this issue. Time of day has a huge impact on scoring. From memory there was some talk of this even occurring during prelims at Worlds this past year. Earlier teams being judged harder than the later teams.

 

[Mclovin]

Total honesty here, and I have no proof that there's any truth to it, but I have always believed your best chance for success is to compete right after a team that isn't as good as your team is. Basically because that's the last team the judges saw before giving your team scores. So if everything we do is superior to them, the judges will be more impressed by our routine. On the contrary, if we compete immediately after an equally skilled team our scores are more likely to end up right where their's are. Bottom line for me as a coach, I NEVER want to go first and I NEVER want to go right after a really good team. Other than that, I don't care where we are in the lineup.

 

[John Butler]

This is my line of thought on this issue. Time of day has a huge impact on scoring. From memory there was some talk of this even occurring during prelims at Worlds this past year. Earlier teams being judged harder than the later teams.

Great point. I would imagine the longer a judge sits, the more scores will be affected. In addition, if the judge isn't a morning person, they might be a bit more grumpy in the morning. This wouldn't seem to be an issue if there were only a small amount of teams performing in a specific division. However, at a competition like Worlds, where you have 50+ teams going all day long in a specific division, I could see where morning teams might get scored differently than afternoon teams. Very interesting question!

 

[John Butler]

Total honesty here, and I have no proof that there's any truth to it, but I have always believed your best chance for success is to compete right after a team that isn't as good as your team is. Basically because that's the last team the judges saw before giving your team scores. So if everything we do is superior to them, the judges will be more impressed by our routine. On the contrary, if we compete immediately after an equally skilled team our scores are more likely to end up right where their's are. Bottom line for me as a coach, I NEVER want to go first and I NEVER want to go right after a really good team. Other than that, I don't care where we are in the lineup.

Interesting!! OK, so let me pose this possibility...

In an effort to make sure this didn't happen, since your scenario makes complete psychological sense, does it make sense to have two sets of judges, or even three, that judge each routine in rotation? I believe some competitions do this, but does this provide an unfair advantage for some teams since judges might be scoring on different "internal scales"?

 

[David]

Opinions on whether competing first or last affects scores? How about going before/after a much better team? I know technically each team should be judged on their own merits, but do you think that judges hold off on high scores .. reserving them for a team that might be great??

They do hold backs scores, but if you have the best routine, you should still win whether you went first or last. The idea behind holding back scores in a big division, is, for example, if a team comes out and executes what appears to be a perfect section of said routine (stunts, jumps, pyramid etc...) Giving them a perfect score creates room for error if another team executes better. If team A comes out and you give them a 10/10 on jumps and then team B comes about and does it even better, how can you give them the same score as the team who did it worse? That is why you see so many scores like 29.334 and all that. It's merely a strategy to create head room if other teams perform better. I still believe that if you go first and you have the best routine in your division, you will win.

 

[Mclovin]

Interesting!! OK, so let me pose this possibility...

In an effort to make sure this didn't happen, since your scenario makes complete psychological sense, does it make sense to have two sets of judges, or even three, that judge each routine in rotation? I believe some competitions do this, but does this provide an unfair advantage for some teams since judges might be scoring on different "internal scales"?

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I follow you? How would 2 or 3 sets of judges judge each routine "in rotation"?

 

[Cheer Dad]

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I follow you? How would 2 or 3 sets of judges judge each routine "in rotation"?

They would not all judge the same routine. If two groups of judges the groups would alternate judging teams in succession. ie. Group A would judge teams 1, 3, 5, 7... and Group B would judge teams 2, 4, 6, 8...

 

[Mclovin]

The problem I have with judges holding off on higher scores early in a division is when it comes down to giving worlds bids or grand champion banners to teams. If Division A starts off with a weak team, all scores will tend to be lower, whereas Division B starts off with an amazing team and all the scores in that division end up on the higher end. Then bids go to highest scoring teams usually...

I'm not a fan of subjective scoring, but I understand it's the nature of the beast in our sport. But the more we can get to objective scoring and giving specific scores for specific skill sets, the happier I'll be as a coach. So far it seems to be working in the difficulty section of a scoresheet, but execution scores are super subjective. I can't tell you how many times I've scratched my head when looking at execution scores between teams even from our own program...

 

[John Butler]

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I follow you? How would 2 or 3 sets of judges judge each routine "in rotation"?

Large Senior division...
Team A takes the floor. Judge Panel A (x # of judges) scores the routine.
Team B (same division) takes the floor. Judge Panel B scores the routine.
Team C takes the floor. Judge Panel A scores the routine.
Team D takes the floor. Judge Panel B scores the routine.
etc.

If there were 3 sets of judges, you would add one rotation.

As a side note, I have always felt like there should be a separate panel of judges that judge from outside the competition. When I say "outside", I mean truly outside. As in they are not in the arena so they cannot hear the crown noise at all. They judge the routine from large video monitor. In addition, NO MUSIC is played, so they are judging a totally silent performance based strictly on execution of skills. This way no subconscious emotion from crown noise or music choice can play a part in their evaluation.

Their score gets averaged/combined with the judges who scored the routine live. This would establish a good baseline evaluation of the routine without the emotional factors that I believe do play a part in scoring a live routine.