TxDragonDad

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

Thanks for all the sharing of different programs' approaches. There are always trade-offs and pros/cons to each method, and 1 size may not fit all. Thank you. I think you are quite insightful and mature to make such a crisp and powerful comment. When considering any change, one has to ask why? What's wrong? What's the root cause of that "wrong"? Then, ask will this change address the true root cause? Will it create a new problem? If so, which problem is worse - the original one or the new one? IMHO - PROS of JV: 1) opportunity to perform music that could have popular appeal 2) opportunity to perform shows that are challenging but within reach for new/struggling marchers 3) opportunity to focus on fundamental skills so as to accelerate improvement CONS: 1) Treated like left overs, with assistant director support, no techs, etc. etc. 2) Delays fundamental skill growth 3) results in upper class students with fewer years of competitive environment exposure You'll notice that my "pros" are all listed as "opportunities". That's because I am not convinced that RR's JV program has developed sufficiently to achieve those opportunities. It could have been all of that, but I fear it has resulted in causing the risks noted as "cons".

Regarding the leg "skirts" of RR Dragon Band - they are more like large sashes. For those who would like to study them take a look at this picture. Personally, I do not see how they could possibly obscure judging of marching. RR band does not do any high knee moves. The sash is a fixed size/length and can vary slightly in appearance on different sized kids. It covers less than 1/3 the waistline circumference on most students, but it varies by waist size. (Larger kids are less covered, super thin kids are more covered.) The sash is roughly knee length, again appearing less on some and slightly more on others. When moving in a large stride, the sash is pulled away from the torso and the legs easily appear separate and moving independently. When hitting "place" or forms, the sash is irrelevant as the feet, torso and Shako plumes can easily be used to judge spacing and formation.

There was but not to the extent of the detrimental impact to RR. J5's rating of John Horn was overly inflated when compared to the average of all the other 4 judges. If you look back to my original post this year, I provide a write up of the significance of the outlier impact and J5's impact.

BTW - if you hadn't yet, read through the last few pages on this State 6a thread where we discuss the Judge 5 and Round Rock scores. It all starts this year around page 38 I posted an mathematical analysis later in the thread showing that one judge was way out of line and unfortunately cost a band a ticket to finals.

Form what I can tell - Most people who like UIL like de-emphasis on General Effect (GE), like local (Texas) named champion People who want to change UIL fall into two categories: 1) Those who want simple outlier scoring reform 2) Those who want to add GE-elements to the scoring rubrics for UIL So, really there are two UNRELATED topics: 1) Improvements to deal with outlier scoring problems 2) Add GE vs Music/Marching (pure execution) rubric Changing a rubric is a major task and creates issues when comparing results pre and post change. Fixing a scoring risk/inequity/issue within the current paradigm is a minor task and should be considered separately and own its own need/merit.

I just stumbled upon this Thread. I was a student in the Georgetown Eagle Band during its domination of 4A state in the mid-80s. All of the shows were written in house. (on paper, without computers)

Prosper = finalists!

I probably will get beat up for opening this Pandora's box. First - I know this thread is for show/drill and composers, so, this may appear slightly off topic. However, shows are complete packages and very often include integrated costume designs. I think the decision makers and designers are likely involved in color guard costume design in conjunction with drill design/selection. Each year, I see a wide variety of color guard costumes/uniforms. Each year, I think, "why oh why did someone think that was a good choice?" I know most every parent has seen and thought the same thing. We may whisper it to our friend or spouse, but I bet we are afraid to speak in a larger forum about this topic out of fear of criticism. I guess I have no fear or possibly no filter. So here it is. Folks, this is high school band. Kids come in all shapes and sizes. Color guard is inclusive of boys and girls. Why on earth are costume designers failing to consider these facts when designing uniforms and costumes? If I were a band director, I would never approve/buy anything for my band without investigating how it would look on all students. It seems that designers create and represent their concepts only as they would appear on an athletic physique and for guard only the female physique. Come on designers! Can you start with designing a costume that looks great on a plus sized student, a stick figure, and boys? Yes boys are in color guards. More each year. Designers consider starting your first concept for a boy, and then adapt it for a girl, not the other way around as an afterthought. Your uniform should look great on all students. You can do better. While I'm already talking about this topic, I might as well ask for some dignity, too. Skin tight, extremely thin body suits requiring inadequate support undergarments? Really? I am grateful that my child chose a marching instrument. I would refuse to allow my student to wear some of these inappropriately fitting uniforms. Do any of the parents every complain or ask for better costumes for your kids? I get that the guard has morphed into dance, but skin tight is not the only type of garment which allows for dance moves. Let's demand more dignity for the students. I'll probably get called a prude, and I'm OK with that. Still, I think too many uniforms/costumes go too far past the "dignity" line. Band Directors - I think you have the most power in correcting this concern. You should set expectations when contacting designers. You should give them clear "requirements" as to what is acceptable. You can reject designs and don't purchase from designers who fail to offer comprehensive, dignified costumes. You can drive demand for a better product. They design what they think will sell. Give them new thoughts. So there it is. Out in the public space for discussion. Am I off the mark here or am I putting into words what you all have thought at least once each season?

So, about 4 years ago, Dragon band adopted a JV and Varsity marching band structure. The varsity band is the competitive band and prepares the competitive show throughout the season. The JV band is open to all marching students who did not make a varsity show spot. The JV band marches a simpler show of more familiar music at football half time. The varsity band stands in blocks at the back of the field for musical support. JV band members can also volunteer for "crew" roles in the competitive show. What other bands split themselves in a similar fashion? Do you think it has helped or hurt the organization and how? I'll hold my observations for a while so as to not bias the thread from the start.

That... was... awesome!!! It was so special to be in the stands with the VR parents and fans. The show just seemed even more beautiful with the emotion in the air. I am proud that VR represents our state 6A marching community as 2018 Champions!