BB26 Results/Feedback

Saab

Today is a gift
Messages
991
And just as we all suspected, the panel-leading DRP alum stole the win for DRP. Collusion!

View attachment 17130



I really dislike language like this. Calling placings wrong means that there are objectively correct placings clear for us all to see. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need judges. Getting robbed is a matter of perspective. If one of these "robbed" teams swapped places with DRP, then maybe DRP would feel robbed.



Except for all of them agreeing on DRP as being 1st.

I wasn't there to watch the sets live, and I'm not qualified enough to say what I think the placings should be based on the videos I've seen. However, the outrage over this seems rather excessive and premature. I think in the future it would be reasonable to ask for rubrics before people start making aggressive claims about the panel and their scorings. If the scores seem outlandish, maybe then we can open a dialogue about whether or not it was appropriate for teams to be scored the way they were.

All the judges had DRP first, so I think it's pretty clear that's a unanimous win. CMU, MBT, and UNC were between 2nd and 4th for all the judges as well, so there's some consistency there. I can understand there being some confusion and frustration as to why UNC didn't place, but the points themselves just weren't there for them, even if a few judges had them placing.

I think the point is less about the points and more about the feedback and how the vision of the competition aligns to the judging, aligning to the scores, and aligning to the feedback. There are a host of judges who have been great dancers and captains and cannot stay on script or on brand when it comes to judging and the actual feedback a team needs.

Personally, the issues here are less to do with the actual judging of the teams and the points allocated but more to do with the reasoning and thoughts behind why things happened. Using points to justify and ultimately protect criticism from judges, especially in relation to first, is totally valid. However, it seems that whatever was communicated about placings ultimately did nothing to dispel concerns as to why the points were what they were and how the teams were placed in a CONSISTENT and DIRECT manner (i.e. no going back and forth on feedback, etc)

Recommendation moving forward is judges gear feedback on:

1. Why did we not win (if we did not win)
2. What did the first place team have that we didn't (its a subjective dance comp people)
3. What could we do better?
4. What went well/didn't go well?

Pretty much in this order ^. If only one team wins, the majority of the feedback will be geared towards constructive criticism as why the team's got what they did in relation to the rubric AND vision of the competition (which a lot of times gets lost).

Open to thoughts.

P.S. Agree with jordans point about language. Its less about robbed and placings being wrong, but lack of clarity as to why the placings went the way they went. Ultimately that's what we are all seeking.
 

mrchicity

Active Member
Messages
329
Recommendation moving forward is judges gear feedback on:

1. Why did we not win (if we did not win)
2. What did the first place team have that we didn't (its a subjective dance comp people)
3. What could we do better?
4. What went well/didn't go well?
This is definitely something that judges, especially newer ones, need to do. Going through each little part of a routine that was liked or not liked takes a ton of time, and potentially opens judges up for possible criticism if they remember something wrong. It’s also impossible to do so in the confines of a 5 minute meeting with each team, so the focus needs to be on the most general reasons for why a team placed where they did, and judges should be available for more detailed review with teams in the days following the competition via email or whatever.
 

siddyp

Tough times never last, but tough people do.
Messages
1,270
I may be painting a pretty wide brush here, but the mindset and attitude of the competition doesn't seem to be consistent among board/teams/judges given the apparent disconnect. Unlike say, a Motor City or a Bruin.

I have not watched any of the videos properly to be critical of this years outcome, but something I feel in regards to the rubric:

I judged in 2016/2017 and the rubric this year is similar to what is what we had back then, but it has flipped from a set creation heavier weighted rubric, to a synch/dancing weighted rubric. Here’s why I think that is hurting blowout:

You have the 8 best collegiate teams in a “championship” Are we really testing them to see which one is the best at “cleaning?” To start, the 8 best should already be really good and really close to each other in terms of cleanliness and strength in dancing. The promotion of synch/dancing elements promotes safer routines with less risk/less ideas/less entertainment value. It’s been tried and tested for years: The cleaner team is almost never the riskiest team/most entertaining team. If you want “championship caliber” performances, cleanliness/energy needs to be brought down to 10 each, and bring creativity and wow factors up to 15.

The deliberation for judges should have everything to do with the highest weighted sections of a rubric. The base of the discussion should be around that. For a “championship” it shouldn’t be about cleanliness. It should be about set creation and wow factors.

One thing to note, I'm not downplaying the role dancing elements play in how well a performance is recieved. It goes back to the attitude I believe the competition should have: if you aren't clean, don't bounce your shoulders, lift your legs, etc... you aren't getting into the comp in the first place. If you do those things well, and you get into this comp, come to DC and swing for the fences.
 
Top