All-Star Let's Discuss Worlds Scoring

[Emily]

Out of 300 points a difference of 15 or 20 points for judge bias is worth 5% or 6.7% of the total possible points.

For NCA SSC the judge bias was a difference of about 2.5 points. Those out of 100 points were worth 2.5%.

So even though there was judge bias in the SSC division at NCA it was about half of what it was at worlds.

 

[Emily]

This is the kind of information that EPs are afraid would be available to coaches if they release more data. We may find that there are systemic issues with their judging processes. I would argue that finding that out is better than not knowing it, but hiding it takes less effort on their part.

I would love to go all "Moneyball" on the scoring systems, but the EPs just don't release that much useful information. (NCA/Varsity is coming around, to their credit.)

The thing is: if the EP would release more data it would be easier for those interested to design a new (universal) scoring system that has as few flaws as possible. But we would need to know where the flaws are in order to eliminate them.

 

[King]

This is the kind of information that EPs are afraid would be available to coaches if they release more data. We may find that there are systemic issues with their judging processes. I would argue that finding that out is better than not knowing it, but hiding it takes less effort on their part.

I would love to go all "Moneyball" on the scoring systems, but the EPs just don't release that much useful information. (NCA/Varsity is coming around, to their credit.)

The easiest way to teach people about big data is Moneyball. It is just a hard concept for some people, and I get that. But some of the stuff it teaches is quite amazing if you know what to look for.

 

[bestbackspot]

I love this thread so much. The worlds scoring system right now leaves too much room for other variables as we can see from the statistics.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[mecheermom]

I'm sorry if it was already posted somewhere, but does anyone know the final scores for medium coed, or better yet, scoresheet breakdown?

Let me know if you find it


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[luv2cheer92]

I've begun adding the teams/placings for 2013 to the Big spreadsheet, thank you Ren for filling in some scores. If anybody else has scores feel free to add them.

 

[quitthedrama]

The whole scoring thing just baffles me. I guess I didn't realize the whole comparative thing was part of it. I looked at SSC from Semi-Finals and only 1 team (Prodigy #7) made it to finals before Brandon went in slot #19, only 1 team in the 20's which was Macs at #25, then the rest were 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. I find it REALLY hard to believe that 7 of the top 10 teams just happened to get drawn to go at the end. I just think if you are at this prestigious competition it should be more of a rubric. Because you really didn't have much of a chance if you went early.

Is there ANY hope that this will change in the future??

RulesGuy, can you support the scoring for the semi-finals divisions based on all of the statistical data given in this thread?

 

[BlueCat]

RulesGuy, can you support the scoring for the semi-finals divisions based on all of the statistical data given in this thread?

The example she gave about SSC was flawed because all of the paid bids went last in that order. Those are typically (although not always) stronger teams than the teams that go earlier.

 

[katstat1]

The example she gave about SSC was flawed because all of the paid bids went last in that order. Those are typically (although not always) stronger teams than the teams that go earlier.

This isn't flawed because the paid bid winners started with team #11 so there were still only 2 teams from 11-32 then the rest came after 32. There were 29 paid bid teams so you still can't convince me that 7 of the top 10 in the division were in the last 10 teams to go.

 

[BlueCat]

This isn't flawed because the paid bid winners started with team #11 so there were still only 2 teams from 11-32 then the rest came after 32. There were 29 paid bid teams so you still can't convince me that 7 of the top 10 in the division were in the last 10 teams to go.

I take that back. You have a point. I didn't realize there were that many paid bids.

 

[quitthedrama]

Now the ultimate test for all this would be for someone who we trust with knowledge of judging to rewatch all of small senior and small small coed on day 1 in a different random order and see if the same result happens.

Then a REALLY fun experiment would be to have someone watch day 2 in completely random order with mixing in the paids and at larges and see what happens.

If someone doesn't have time to judge an entire division, would someone be willing to judge team #10 against team #35, 36, 37 or 39 (pick any one - I just didn't want to call out a particular team in the last 5 teams to go in the OOA and #38 is a no-brainer) in Small Coed Semis? I would be curious to see if #10 would have made finals if they went later in the day (I used this team because I was surprised they didn't make it to finals, but someone else may have a better example of a team that didn't advance that performed #1-29 in the OOA.

 

[King]

This isn't flawed because the paid bid winners started with team #11 so there were still only 2 teams from 11-32 then the rest came after 32. There were 29 paid bid teams so you still can't convince me that 7 of the top 10 in the division were in the last 10 teams to go.

I completely agree with you. Now can you find arguable examples that could have been in the top 10 realistically? This will help our discussion.

Cause at the moment if you got a bum pull from the Ping Pong balls it is pre-determining how high you can finish outside of a few peak teams.

 

[King]

Scoring idea for Varsity:

What if for every section on the scoresheet you must attempt level appropriate skills. Instead of being 8-9 for level 5 and 6-7 for level 3... Yadda yadda

It was 0-1 if not level appropriate and then 1-10 for level appropriate?


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[GreatWhite92]

huh...and everyone jumped on me back in 2011 when I was really upset that we picked first in small senior. Many prediction threads had us going all the way to finals (back when they took 25 in small senior)..We didn't even make it past prelims, granted we had one mistake in the pyramid and again they took 25 to semis back then. Oh well I am over it now, but so many people tried to tell me that it was not an advantage whatsoever to go later that you had to just be good. Well i guarantee you going first is a disadvantage at worlds. Many teams we were beating throughout the year scored higher than us later in the day. This thread is finally giving me some closure. :rolleyes:

 

[King]

huh...and everyone jumped on me back in 2011 when I was really upset that we picked first in small senior. Many prediction threads had us going all the way to finals (back when they took 25 in small senior)..We didn't even make it past prelims, granted we had one mistake in the pyramid and again they took 25 to semis back then. Oh well I am over it now, but so many people tried to tell me that it was not an advantage whatsoever to go later that you had to just be good. Well i guarantee you going first is a disadvantage at worlds. Many teams we were beating throughout the year scored higher than us later in the day. This thread is finally giving me some closure. :rolleyes:

It also begs the question: if you are in the first third do you even go?


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!