Show Order

[Aditya]

As far as mixer games go, they should have absolutely nothing to do with show order. I understand that competitions do this sometimes to get the teams to actually get involved in the games and not just ignore the process but there are better ways of doing this. Boston does a great job of getting the teams involved by offering 5 minutes of extra tech time for the team that wins the mixer games.

Also not a fan of random show order just because getting an undesirable spot in the show can make an entire semester/season's worth of work and preparation feel like it was in vain. Swi, I see what you're trying to accomplish with your idea but I do remember a specific instance (Boston 2011) when all three placing teams were in the latter half of the show (AEG, Empire, FAUJ) and it would have been an absolute shame if one of them had fallen out of the top three based on a rule that said they couldn't have all the winners perform next to one another.

I personally like being able to pick show order based on when we turn in materials and being able to determine my fate that way. I understand the frustration with turning in a mix or lighting cues at an earlier date but in my experience competitions have been pretty understanding of you submitting an updated mix or lighting cues after the deadline as long as you submitted something initially. I've also noticed that when competitions decide their order based on this criteria, the better teams do tend to end up performing at the end of the show and that's usually a function of them being more experienced and prepared than their counterparts and it translates on stage [SIZE=small](I'm aware this isn't always the case but I think it is more often than not)[/SIZE][SIZE=small]. Why not reward a team that has prepared more and demonstrates that by being more proactive and timely with their post-registration materials? In my opinion, they've earned the right to pick their spot in the show and control as many variables as they can.[/SIZE]

 

[Bhangraholic1]

should be alphabetic order (according to the name name) or whoever applies first gets to choice when they want to go up.

 

[Saleem]

should be alphabetic order (according to the name name) or whoever applies first gets to choice when they want to go up.

Now announcing my new team, "Zany Bhangra"

 

[siddyp]

Another note about judging: judges usually have to score a team that goes first a bit lower. Once again, speaking from experience, when you're judging the first team that goes up and you have a rubric in front of you that allots maybe 15 points for creativity (just an example), how can you give that first team a 15/15? Unless they're bringing the most mindblasting shit you've ever seen, you can't give full marks for anything (except maybe outfits or something) without seeing other teams as well. I think the natural thing to do is to unfortunately score that team a bit lower, whether a judge means to or not. Plus factor in the amount of time that they have to process the routine between acts, deciding what the difference between a 6 and a 7 out of 10 really is, etc etc, there's a lot that can influence a judge's score.

I disagree. The judge (if qualified) should have enough experience and have watched enough bhangra to be able to score every team to some "gold standard". If the first team brings the most "mind blowing stuff" and you give them close to if not full marks for creativity, and another team comes with something even MORE mind blowing, give them full marks but when it comes to deliberation, it's without question who comes out on top in that category. <-- whats the likeliness of this happening? Has it happened before??

My reasoning is this: judging to a gold standard for every aspect of the rubric levels the playing field for the team going first and last. If you're basing the first teams scores off of nothing, (giving them lower scores) then the last team off of everyone else, it is a lot easier for the last team to get high marks. I understand the notion that you should judge the teams that night to each other, but it seems unfair to me because of what happens to the first and sometimes second team.

In terms of adjusting marks, I've been told in the past that judges will go back and re score the first couple teams after having given them lesser marks. I find it hard to believe, that any judge, would give a team a 6 on creativity when they perform, then later change it to a 10/10. (even if it was deserved) Because that is a rather large jump.

Overall, it has been a while since I've been to a show where the top few teams were NOT very close, so I don't see scoring to a gold standard being an issue.

Looking at an example such as Elite 8 III, (apologies to bring up a sour subject for my JJ friends) if all the teams were judged to a gold standard, maybe JJ's scores would have been higher? I find it hard to believe that if they gave the EXACT same performance later in the show, the scores would have been the same.... and that's what I think is very easily avoidable.

Thoughts?

 

[Shahrukh]

I disagree. The judge (if qualified) should have enough experience and have watched enough bhangra to be able to score every team to some "gold standard".

should

 

[siddyp]

I disagree. The judge (if qualified) should have enough experience and have watched enough bhangra to be able to score every team to some "gold standard".

should

who has judged a comp recently that doesn't?

 

[Ajay.H]

I personally like being able to pick show order based on when we turn in materials and being able to determine my fate that way. I understand the frustration with turning in a mix or lighting cues at an earlier date but in my experience competitions have been pretty understanding of you submitting an updated mix or lighting cues after the deadline as long as you submitted something initially. I've also noticed that when competitions decide their order based on this criteria, the better teams do tend to end up performing at the end of the show and that's usually a function of them being more experienced and prepared than their counterparts and it translates on stage [SIZE=small](I'm aware this isn't always the case but I think it is more often than not)[/SIZE][SIZE=small]. Why not reward a team that has prepared more and demonstrates that by being more proactive and timely with their post-registration materials? In my opinion, they've earned the right to pick their spot in the show and control as many variables as they can.[/SIZE]

Seems clear that show order can affect a performance in at least two ways:

1. By affecting the dancers mindset enough to actually affect their own performance/placings
2. By affecting the judging of the performance and therefore affecting the placings.

These two things are so strongly held in so many dancers minds that they needed to be treated as a truth or the majority of the circuits mindsets need to change (the latter probably wont happen).

Maybe if a team is really shitty about turning in certain things, but I even don't like that much unless its really that bad. You're essentially saying that its okay for placings to be affected by something that has nothing to do with their dancing on stage (turning in reg. materials, etc).

Other variables - Yes. Winning a mixer game or turning in your reg materials on time maybe gets you five extra mins for tech or free after party tickets or whatever you want.

 

[Aditya]

I personally like being able to pick show order based on when we turn in materials and being able to determine my fate that way. I understand the frustration with turning in a mix or lighting cues at an earlier date but in my experience competitions have been pretty understanding of you submitting an updated mix or lighting cues after the deadline as long as you submitted something initially. I've also noticed that when competitions decide their order based on this criteria, the better teams do tend to end up performing at the end of the show and that's usually a function of them being more experienced and prepared than their counterparts and it translates on stage [SIZE=small](I'm aware this isn't always the case but I think it is more often than not)[/SIZE][SIZE=small]. Why not reward a team that has prepared more and demonstrates that by being more proactive and timely with their post-registration materials? In my opinion, they've earned the right to pick their spot in the show and control as many variables as they can.[/SIZE]

Maybe if a team is really shitty about turning in certain things, but I even don't like that much unless its really that bad. You're essentially saying that its okay for placings to be affected by something that has nothing to do with their dancing on stage (turning in reg. materials, etc).

I'm actually saying the opposite. I'm saying that stronger teams dance better and have better routines as a function of them being more organized ahead of time and better prepared than their opponents. Consequently, these teams are better about turning their materials, lighting cues, mix, etc. in earlier on. It's representative of the time that's going into their set and their focus on being ready for the competition and I think those teams should be rewarded and allowed to a) Pick a spot that's best for the team's mindset and b) position themselves in the show as they choose to minimize any adverse affects on judging and placings.


I've been on both sides, going early on or first in the show because we didn't turn in materials on time as well as being able to pick our spot when we had been proactive. When we got a crappy spot in the lineup, I can honestly say we deserved it because we had been way too last minute with things and it showed in our performance (not as clean, not as creative, lower stamina, etc.). When we got to pick our spot, it was nice to be rewarded for being on top of things and it showed in terms of us putting on the best possible performance we could. I prefer this process a lot more than being subjected to random order selection which gives me no control over where I go and gives me no incentive to start planning early.


That being said, I think teams should have flexibility between these deadlines and the actual competition, which most competitions are willing to give without penalizing you as long as you submitted something initially. We (UVA) definitely made changes this year to our routine, mix, and lighting cues the week before Blowout that we thought would help our routine and we weren't penalized in terms of picking our spot in the show because we had followed their initial deadlines. Competitions generally aren't going to punish you for spending every last minute trying to make the best performance possible because they know its better for them if they let you bring your best and brightest ideas. The key is to keep the committee posted about new developments and circumstances and making sure not to leave them in the dark.

 

[yraparla]

Aditya that still makes no sense. Why should your pre-comp preparation affect your status. What if a team drops and a new team comes in last minute but doesn't ahve opportunity to submit first? What about teams in the middle who are submitting as soon as they're ready, weeks ahead of time but sorry you're still picking 6th out of 8. It's not a system that is efficient from a team standpoint.

Want an extra 5 min of tech time, want the best practice spot, want afterparty tickets? Well it goes to whoever gave us least headache pre-competition. That's makes sense, because preparation affects preparation. But using it to select show order is not a good system imo (note that there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I think better systems exist)

 

[SoMoney]

The thing I liked about blowout was that they asked us to rank where we want to go in the show as part of the registration packet. By doing that they could pick a line up where every team could go where they wanted to in the show. The order in which you turned in your application was the tiebreaker if two teams had the same preference. Maybe theres a better way to decide the tie breaker but im sure a lot of teams got their first preference which is more than you could say about having it random. Everyone knocks on having to go first in the show, but what if a team actually wants to go first? It probably doesn't happen that often but I think some teams appreciate being able to get their performance over with so they can go watch the show.

Sure people get screwed over this way too, but I personally liked it better than drawing out of a hat. Picking a number out of a hat at burgh was probably the most stressful moment I've had at a competition. Theres probably a better way to determine the tiebreaker besides turning in your application the fastest but I cant think of one... It's still more fair than having it determined by stupid mixer games. If you dont get you want, then you're partially accountable (which I'm more okay with than not getting what I want based on basic probability...)

 

[Aditya]

Based off my experiences, I just like having more control over a situation and I feel like this system at least gives me the opportunity to do so. I personally think that hard work and preparation should allow you the opportunity to defend yourself from the potentially adverse judging effects that have already been discussed in this thread. Afzal hit it on the head, it offers you the chance to be held accountable rather than subjected to completely random selection (and yeah, watching him pick out of a hat at Burgh was horrifying lol).

But here's a new idea for determining show order that combines the two ideas. Why not do a weighted odds system like the NBA Draft Lottery? Turning in materials earlier gets more pieces of paper with your team's name on them in the hat and increases your probability of being able to pick your spot in the show first. For example, being the first team to submit gives you a 25% chance of winning the "first pick," being the second team to submit gives you a 20% chance of winning the "first pick" and so on down the line (Idk what the actual numbers would be, but you get the idea). This way you can try to increase your chances and have some control over your odds of "winning" but other teams aren't guaranteed getting screwed over just because they were accepted late or needed more time to finalize things. And even though it's not a guarantee for the team that's fastest at submitting its application to pick first, the odds are good that they'll get a high pick and have some control over at least what half of the show they're going in.

I would love to hear what you guys think about this and whether or not you think its a fair compromise.

 

[Basim]

Enjoy!


~ Basim

 

[richardsonjames1983]

Having a dance off to determine show order is too subjective in my opinion. You're also kind of suggesting that the team with the best dancers will win the game and have the upper hand.

Random show order also allows someone else to choose for that team in the case of a problem arising and them being late/not making the mixer. Shit happens. Games should only be related to show order if they are double blind and are essentially random, anyway.

Random show order also allows someone else to choose for that team in the case of a problem arising and them being late/not making the mixer. Shit happens. Games should only be related to show order if they are double blind and are essentially random, anyway.


Not always do the "best" dancers win. Though I don't think that their is a "right" way to determine show order. Again imo I like the stress..it adds to the feel of the competition and presents incentive to outdo your opponent etc etc. About the subjectivity....I mean when your getting judged the next day it's pretty subjective as well. There are some creative ways around though, but it's besides the point. It's just my preference and opinion.