All-Star Suggestions For Improving Scoring

[Deleted member 15]

I am completely fine with 0's AND perfects on execution.

I know you are, but I'd figured you would say they aren't given, making the real range .1-.9 or smaller.

 

[King]

I know you are, but I'd figured you would say they aren't given, making the real range .1-.9 or smaller.

At NCA they were given. And that makes me happy.

 

[socratesofcheer]

Maybe the top range needs to be expanded to have the option to give larger differences in score. So 2 pts for execution and 2 points for difficulty. That gives approx. 21 different numbers to give in each difficulty/execution category.

 

[King]

Maybe the top range needs to be expanded to have the option to give larger differences in score. So 2 pts for execution and 2 points for difficulty. That gives approx. 21 different numbers to give in each difficulty/execution category.

I dont think 2 points, but maybe more iterations. You are allowed to give hundredths in the 1 point range. That gives you 100 different choices and it will make sense to how people work every day. I think everything in cheer needs to be do base ten.

 

[BlueCat]

Execution score was skewed at Worlds. It wasn't execution as much as it didnt fail.

How do you know this? Did they give out the breakdown of execution vs difficulty scores of all the teams?

I watch the routines on video now and some of the divisions that I questioned before make more sense to me know. (don't agree with all of them still, but I THINK I understand it more now - could be wrong) I sure wish that we could actually know the answers to those questions without having to guess and assume. Year after year, people build and change their routines based on their assumptions about the scoring. Wouldn't it be nice to be able base that on actual facts and truth instead?

I know it is beating a dead horse, but I still simply cannot fathom why coaches would be against releasing the scores to pry open the secret box of judging.

 

[BlueCat]

The only part of the 10 points that matter is the range from average to max. If any average team scored 9 points and a great team scored 10 there wasn't much gained by focusing on that part of the score sheet, but if the average team scored 5 and great teams got 10 it would make a real difference. This is a major error people make when trying to read score sheet.

We don't have currently access to enough information to be able to do that. Only the judges at this point are in on that. I agree that that is what really matters to the results and not the "theoretical" ranges - however, coaches can only go off of what they are allowed to see.

 

[BlueCat]

And that's why I think I'm ok with it. I know I'm hitting the scoresheets. The only reason I even qualify it with "I think" is bc I've never experienced it. What I HAVE experienced is coaches from other programs complaining to EPs about how/why we are in first against them and attempting to discredit sections of our routine, etc. I could definitely see how they'd love to be armed with scores to complain even louder. Yes. They try to haggle placements. Yes. It happens a lot.

I hear this a lot, but I have two issues with this line of argument:

1. You'd be surprised at how less angry and frustrated coaches typically are in the rare cases where they are given enough information to know why they scored higher/lower than another team. Rather than guessing and filling in the answer with a conspiracy against their team, they can look to see very specifically where they were outscored. Often their assumptions are wildly inaccurate.

2. The whole argument that some EPs give is VERY scary to me. "If you think coaches are mad now, imagine how mad they would be if they knew the truth." That does not inspire much confidence in the validity of their scoring if they feel that way.

 

[CDRCoach17]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mind expanding?

My view is this.....you can have all the difficulty in the world and I do believe difficulty is important....but if you don't hit..you don't hit...that is were execution comes into play. It just seems that as long as you are attempting the more difficult skills, you will score high no matter what. Where is the penalty if you do not hit? It was told to me that deductions really didn't mean anything at worlds....why?

 

[Deleted member 15]

We don't have currently access to enough information to be able to do that. Only the judges at this point are in on that. I agree that that is what really matters to the results and not the "theoretical" ranges - however, coaches can only go off of what they are allowed to see.

Other than knowing what I score teams I don't have a lot more information than you do. An exception being if I'm head judge and have to review the other scores on the panel.

 

[Deleted member 15]

My view is this.....you can have all the difficulty in the world and I do believe difficulty is important....but if you don't hit..you don't hit...that is were execution comes into play. It just seems that as long as you are attempting the more difficult skills, you will score high no matter what. Where is the penalty if you do not hit? It was told to me that deductions really didn't mean anything at worlds....why?

Deduction amounts at Worlds appeared to be the same amount (numerically) as NCA. The difference was NCA was on a 100 point scale and Worlds was on a 300 point scale, effectively making deductions at Worlds 1/3 of what they were at NCA. I don't know why it was done this way.

I'm not sure what the correct amount for a deduction should be. If I say having 2 people land their running tumbling on their seats will result in 2 points of deductions it doesn't sound too bad, but if I say having 2 people land on their seats for a Level 5 team is the equivalent of changing every full or double in your routine to a layout it sounds a bit harsh. Both are true on the Varsity score sheet.

 

[King]

How do you know this? Did they give out the breakdown of execution vs difficulty scores of all the teams?

I watch the routines on video now and some of the divisions that I questioned before make more sense to me know. (don't agree with all of them still, but I THINK I understand it more now - could be wrong) I sure wish that we could actually know the answers to those questions without having to guess and assume. Year after year, people build and change their routines based on their assumptions about the scoring. Wouldn't it be nice to be able base that on actual facts and truth instead?

I know it is beating a dead horse, but I still simply cannot fathom why coaches would be against releasing the scores to pry open the secret box of judging.

I have been through most of the divisions and I would say I saw in the placements a stronger sense of difficulty than execution. There was not an overall feel of balance to the teams that won, but harder stuff (that sometimes didn't hit) was what decided the victor. There is no particular division I am speaking of, but just an overall and around sense.

I don't believe this was a fault of the judges, I think this was a fault of the scoresheet. You cannot expect correct answers from a judge if you don't ask the right questions. We didn't ask them to rate execution as much as give an arbitrary number to it.

And, with anything, there is always a chance I am completely off. Passing out scoresheets would clear that up. But I can guess a score fairly well on a varsity scoresheet and get close to what the judges give. I couldnt hit the broad side of a barn on a Worlds scoresheet.

 

[KB_Legend]

Maybe the top range needs to be expanded to have the option to give larger differences in score. So 2 pts for execution and 2 points for difficulty. That gives approx. 21 different numbers to give in each difficulty/execution category.

I agree that there needs to be an expanded top range, right now it isn't possible for a truly great team to create a large separation between themselves and a team that just gets into a range. To me that's a huge problem, but maybe I'm the only one

 

[JulieP]

Just saw this! Sorry for the late reply.

Stunts and pyramids have two separate scores for difficulty and load-ins / transitions. Maybe I am confused as to how they arrive to those scores, but to me difficulty in stunting has always come in form the transitions and load-ins?

Difficulty is measuring the stunts themselves and the load-ins/transitions/transitions measures how you get in and out of stunts. I think level 2 is the easiest way to explain it, because they don't have much freedom in the way of stunts. So if my team does showngo, teddy bear (straddle sit at elevator), up to extension, then cradle and barrel roll- pretty much everything falls into the loadin/dismount/transition category except for the extension itself. Likewike, if we did a lib series with stretch, scorp, scale- those elements would fall into the difficulty category and a 1/2 up to the lib and 1/4 turn cradle would fall into the load-in/dismount category. It really ends up weighting stunts/pyramid quite a bit, however I like that they have a very specific grid for quanties.

 

[Doubledown]

That what viedo replay is for and a BIG deduction for smoke n mirroring...lol

do they REALLY do video replay- I always wondered....