Jump to content

TxDragonDad

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

TxDragonDad last won the day on January 16 2020

TxDragonDad had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

417 profile views

TxDragonDad's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

28

Reputation

  1. Yes, multiple shows each season for most college bands. All fun but still challenging. The difference is that all of the college band kids marching want to be in the band. Unfortunately, there are always some HS kids who are their partially because of parent requirements upon them. Maturity level (yes, college kids are more mature) is higher in college which means more efficient and productive rehearsal which are required to learn so many shows in such short time frames.
  2. I wonder if it is too late for directors, drill leaders, uniform designers, etc. to take heed of what was said above for the 2019 season. Hopefully, they read this. Parents should speak with band leadership now if you have a strong concern. Make sure they know that some outfits are simply unacceptable.
  3. I guess no one was able to answer this question. I was hoping for @Danpod to clarify. I still believe that an outlier judge control is needed in UIL scoring. Maybe the first vote to band directors should be simply: "Do we agree what happened to RRHS at 6A State is a problem?" Agreeing on the problem is always a prerequisite before attempting to define a solution. If that vote results in a sufficient agreement that it is a problem, then the UIL organization has been given the green light for pursuing change. The next step would be to establish several solutions and provide, details of the math, retroactive application, etc. for each solution. Then, let there be a 5- or 10-point rating on each solution. The solution with the best score is pursued for implementation. The above process is much better than UIL doing all this behind the scenes work to come up with one proposal in the hopes that it will pass. The above process saves UIL time as they shouldn't be working on something that isn't sufficiently agreed upon as a problem needing a solution. At the same time, if there is that agreement, then change is imminent. It is no longer if, but rather to what and when. Lastly, by having everyone vote on the merit of each of several solutions (as opposed to sorting/ranking the options within the list, etc.) is the best way to determine a winner among all the choices.
  4. Oh, tell me about that! RR has 5 bands plus 2 Jazz ensembles, and sometime section choirs. 4 hours is not an exaggeration. We smuggle in snacks because the concert starts too early for dinner before and too late for dinner afterward.
  5. Just imagine how difficult all this gets when the "band" doesn't even have the same class together in the fall. They are all spread out. Not even the competitive group has the same "band" class period.
  6. This has been an interesting discussion topic. My $0.02 from reviewing the comments is this. Having two bands requires two band programs. That means two band support structures in place. If the support infrastructure is insufficient to maintain two separate bands, then one or both bands could suffer due to the split. The missions of each marching ensemble may be different (competitive vs entertainment/development); however, the pursuit of excellence should be no less for one ensemble than the other. If the competitive ensemble draws resources away from entertainment/development ensemble then it will suffer and not achieve its vision fully. At worst case, it could be minimally sustained and fail to grow and develop the participants. To put it bluntly - if the split is solely to allow for more focus on the competitive team, then by definition the result is less focus on the rest of the individuals. Ultimately, those individuals' development is delayed and the whole program may suffer in the long term. Rather, if the split is to place equal focus on two different purposes and has sufficient resources allocated to each, then both can thrive.
  7. @Danpod just posted his "I Fix UIL" video. Can someone explain how captions work and how that could address the concerns above? That hadn't been suggested as a solution by anyone, so I am intrigued how this would help. I truly do not understand and have no sarcasm intended in my question.
  8. For clarity, in the RR program any student can try out for and make Varsity band. No one is excluded. However, certain sections for more popular instruments may result in a small er percentage of those instruments making Varsity. The varsity band composition is determined for proper size and balance of instruments.
  9. Another solution to selecting bands to move on to the next level is to have a "wildcard" solution. For Areas, the top # bands qualify from each Area per current rules. Then, there is some method where the next # bands from all areas are placed into a single group from which some addition # of bands are chosen to move on via some criteria. This would allow for fair representation of all areas along with appropriate representation of top bands just outside the mark in a "stacked" Area. I don't think Area currently has adjudicators assess scores (only ranks). If there were scores, those could be used to determine worthy wildcard candidates for consideration. I wonder if a similar approach would work for state finals... Top 11 bands advance to finals using the current process, then all of the judges vote on the next 4 bands to pick 2 more to advance. It puts the group of judges together as a team to ensure the line is drawn with the proper top bands advancing. The guidelines could be that 12 advance if there are no outlier issues within the next four in standard order. 13 advance if there are outliers and the team determines those last 2 spots. This is still just a brainstorm idea, so please beat it up or polish it from a turd into a diamond.
  10. I guess the first step in any new solution is an empirical determination of a "possible" outlier. Once an outlier has been flagged, then maybe the next step is that any single judge with an outlier must justify his or her score to the other four. If the other four find the justification has merit, then the score stands. If not, then this triggers the adjustment phase (TBD).
  11. I have a longer list of question, too. Most importantly, are the judges required to score of a 0-1000 point scale? and how are ties in score resolved for each judge's ranking? I can nearly automate all of this for UIL but I need to know and understand the rules. I have been researching statistical methods of identifying outlier data (standard deviation, Tukey approach, interquartile approach) and methods of dealing with them (removal, modification, etc.). I do not believe exclusion (which is by far the most common statistical method) makes sense give the small number of judges. Rather, I am researching common methods of "normalizing" outliers. In my opinion, they should not be fully neutralized, but rather be moved closer to the norm. How far and how much is what I am trying to determine based upon other's research and accepted statistical methods. Also, I think that all of this needs to be applied to the raw scored prior to applying individual judge ranks. Despite the clear emotional aspect of this issue, I want to present a logical and non-biased solution option which prevents future issues for all bands.
  12. So, I'll come back to some key points I made earlier. 1) Outliers - do we think that they are a problem? 2) Outlier needs to be statistically defined, not emotionally. 3) Outlier corrective/prevention should not fully negate the judge's input, but it should also not over-correct their score, either. Key points from others: 1) Directors vote, so this is on their shoulders 2) Directors of top winners and bottom losers don't care 3) Too many directors have never had it happen to them, so they don't comprehend the problem. To me, the next steps are: 1) Gather real examples from history of these issues. 2) Document several solution ideas 3) Educate all TX directors on the issue, examples, and proposed solutions. 4) Use Survey Monkey to ask the director to rank the proposed solutions. 5) UIL to tell directors that a solution will be implemented, but they get to pick the which one. Of course, any outlier survey responses will be hotly debated here. LOL.
  13. So, you are saying the problem is bigger than I realize and is more frequent? Wow. That must mean we need to drive this forward with more support. OK, that was a little passive aggressive by me. I'll own that. But, honestly, that was my first reaction to your response. So, in your opinion, outlier rankings are just part of the game and not a problem? Kind of like playing craps in Vegas, there's always risk? Please understand, I know what competition means, and I know that champions persevere while losers blame others. However, somewhere in the middle there are competitors who want to be fairly judged. I'm quite certain that RR's prelim performance was worthy of a placement in the teens. I knew they were not likely to beat the amazing shows and performances I saw of the bands which ended up in the top 8. I think the task of ranking the bands from 9 to 19 is always daunting. I even think that outliers on the order of a 10 rank delta (less than 25% of the competing bands) happen in EVERY event on every level. However, I doubt that more than twice that % (66%) doesn't. If I am wrong and you are right that it does, then I believe UIL is sorely overdue in providing a solution to address adjudication.
  14. Their musical judge's scores average to 9.66 rank. The other marching judge's score was a 14. The average of the other 4 judges (including the J4's 14) was 10.75 pushing past 2 bands. This was a grotesquely significant outlier event that caused a band to cross over the finals cut-off threshold. How far does an outlier need to be to be deemed significant? How about when the outlier delta when compared to average of the other 4 judges greater than 66% the number of bands competing? Is that significant enough? 27 rank places of delta in a competition of 41 bands is 66%.
  15. The reason why the event with RR band is still a topic is that there is too much opportunity for something like this to continue to occur. There is now enough evidence to demonstrate that the risk is no longer anecdotal and has recurred in various forms. My involvement in the topic this year was initially welcomed with "here we go again" reactions. That's very telling that some band feels unfairly judged too often. The UIL Marching Band Adjudication director and leadership needs to put into place protections so as to address this problem in a fair and appropriate way. There are many viable suggestions offered. Doing something may be only be 80% of a solution is still better than doing absolutely nothing perfectly. The kids have somewhat moved on, but will never forget the time when their senior run at state prelims was so wrongfully scored by 1 judge, keeping them out of finals. Would you? These band kids are more equipped for success than the majority of high school students, and they will surely persevere and achieve success in their future endeavors. However, they mostly also don't want any other kids to have to experience this issue ever again. That's the talk I'm hearing from kids.
×
×
  • Create New...