All-Star Design the perfect scoring system

[rvnblue]

to be my own devil's advocate:
"The solution wasn't changing the rules. The solution was getting the judges to apply the rules," Olympic gold medalist Bart Conner said. "This seems like stirring up the soup, but it's not making it taste any better."

 

[King]

I was just thinking about the new tumbling synch. Why can't that be applied to baskets, stunts, and pyramids? Because its already baked in?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[BlueCat]

It does, and the thing is your way of increasing deductions if you have less people completely negates the lower to 30. If I have a small team and I can take 2 girls and go large, but I drop one stunt and it kills my score why don't I just stay small where I have a numerical advantage to try harder stuff?

The carrot for people to have large teams is they make the gym more money. Yes it is more risk, but your gym is more profitable.

It is counter-balanced by the fact that each skill gives you more points on a smaller team. The score goes up for each stunt, standing back, and tumbling pass in the exact same ratio that your penalty does. There is as much incentive for roster size to go up (slightly lower deduction per mistake) as there is to go down (slightly more reward for each skill.)

Besides, the lower-to-30 concept is to decrease the gap between having 22 on your team and whatever the max on a team would be. Regardless of whatever your carrots and sticks are, the purpose is to make that a shorter gap to bridge and make it easier to make the jump.

My overall point is that if you want it to be "fair" on one side of the equation (score going up), it isn't unreasonable for people to want it to be "fair" on the other side as well. (score going down) The exact same logic and arguments apply to both.

If there is another purpose to a scoring system besides fairly comparing the teams and their performances then I would rather that was just stated up front. For the record, any system that purposely gives either benefits or penalties to athletes based on what gym they are with, how many athletes they have, or what kind of car the coaches drive I am going to be opposed to.

 

[rvnblue]

synchronization of baskets is more of a choreography choice...if synched they can help you or hurt you...but also can add to the overall effect of the routine

 

[CGAcheer]

Jumps and baskets are completely seperate skillsets from stunts and tumbling. I don't think any skill in cheerleading is worth more than another. My only thing is standing and running are different versions of the same skillset. Maybe have two types of stunts. Elites and team stunts.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I would think that Pyramids and stunts are different versions of the same skill set as well

 

[King]

My overall point is that if you want it to be "fair" on one side of the equation (score going up), it isn't unreasonable for people to want it to be "fair" on the other side as well. (score going down) The exact same logic and arguments apply to both.

The issue is that there is no equitable way to compare two separate sized groups of people. You said there is an advantage in a smaller group because they get more points per group, but small and large groups are capped at the same amount. So no matter what, 3 groups or 9, if the ratios are correct then in no way can either group outscore the other. Your argument is that because you are putting up 9 you increase the chance of risk of falling, so reduce the of the fall because you took on that risk. This is no counterpoint for going with less people in your scenario. The smaller group cannot score the points faster or more. The thing is either way one group is going to be hurt. Either small gets hurt with a single fall is worth a ton, or the larger group is hurt with the higher risk. And both scenarios have rewards. I prefer the current one because overall the subjective part of a scoresheet does get a boost from a larger team. A larger team brings in more money for a gym. Larger teams tend to make a gym look stronger, and henceforth attract other kids to larger teams.

Is it a perfect solution? No. but your argument of weighted deductions isnt any more balanced. There just hasnt been a perfect way to compete different sizes of teams yet, and no one has come up with a better solution.

 

[King]

I would think that Pyramids and stunts are different versions of the same skill set as well

more different than standing and running tumbling. the different there? the skill doesnt start with a RO (though some standing passes have them in the middle).

pyramids are more a hybrid of baskets and stunts while connected.

 

[BlueCat]

The issue is that there is no equitable way to compare two separate sized groups of people. You said there is an advantage in a smaller group because they get more points per group, but small and large groups are capped at the same amount. So no matter what, 3 groups or 9, if the ratios are correct then in no way can either group outscore the other. Your argument is that because you are putting up 9 you increase the chance of risk of falling, so reduce the of the fall because you took on that risk. This is no counterpoint for going with less people in your scenario. The smaller group cannot score the points faster or more. The thing is either way one group is going to be hurt. Either small gets hurt with a single fall is worth a ton, or the larger group is hurt with the higher risk. And both scenarios have rewards. I prefer the current one because overall the subjective part of a scoresheet does get a boost from a larger team. A larger team brings in more money for a gym. Larger teams tend to make a gym look stronger, and henceforth attract other kids to larger teams.

Is it a perfect solution? No. but your argument of weighted deductions isnt any more balanced. There just hasnt been a perfect way to compete different sizes of teams yet, and no one has come up with a better solution.

Well, I wasn't talking about making a small group get 20 times as much penalty. I was talking maybe a 50% increase. This balances out in the long run. If each team has stunts that individually hit 95% of the time, under a weighted system both teams, over time, would eventually end up with about the same total deductions. Under the proposed system, the large team would get half again as many points taken away from them despite the fact that their individual athletes and stunts groups are just as strong as the small team.

I do know that conventional wisdom has large teams getting a magic boost on the scoresheet because they "look better" on the floor. I personally do not believe this to be true. Neither of us really have any way to prove that, as we do not have access to enough information to be able to determine that. (refer to my many posts about judging transparency) I think that people have always just assumed that since they personally like the look of bigger teams more that the judges must be giving them extra points.

I do know that it is easier to find 20 girls that can do 5 stunts and 20 triple toe backs than it is to find 36 girls that can do 36 triple toe backs and 9 stunts. That is the massive advantage already built into the system for the small teams. I think that is more than enough to counter-balance any perceived "big team look" bonus. If you also build in that the smaller teams' athletes and stunt groups don't have to be as consistent to expect the same score, then that is taking it too far, IMO.

I am all for providing ways for gyms of all sizes to increase their business. We do need for all gyms to have a great chance of success in order for our industry to thrive. I do NOT feel that economics should play a part in determining the winner once teams are on the mat. The teams with the strongest, most consistent athletes (and best routine, etc.) should win because of their abilities - not because of which team "needs" it the most financially.

(This is sounding increasingly libertarian vs. Democrat.)

 

[King]

Well, I wasn't talking about making a small group get 20 times as much penalty. I was talking maybe a 50% increase. This balances out in the long run. If each team has stunts that individually hit 95% of the time, under a weighted system both teams, over time, would eventually end up with about the same total deductions. Under the proposed system, the large team would get half again as many points taken away from them despite the fact that their individual athletes and stunts groups are just as strong as the small team.

I do know that conventional wisdom has large teams getting a magic boost on the scoresheet because they "look better" on the floor. I personally do not believe this to be true. Neither of us really have any way to prove that, as we do not have access to enough information to be able to determine that. (refer to my many posts about judging transparency) I think that people have always just assumed that since they personally like the look of bigger teams more that the judges must be giving them extra points.

I do know that it is easier to find 20 girls that can do 5 stunts and 20 triple toe backs than it is to find 36 girls that can do 36 triple toe backs and 9 stunts. That is the massive advantage already built into the system for the small teams. I think that is more than enough to counter-balance any perceived "big team look" bonus. If you also build in that the smaller teams' athletes and stunt groups don't have to be as consistent to expect the same score, then that is taking it too far, IMO.

I am all for providing ways for gyms of all sizes to increase their business. We do need for all gyms to have a great chance of success in order for our industry to thrive. I do NOT feel that economics should play a part in determining the winner once teams are on the mat. The teams with the strongest, most consistent athletes (and best routine, etc.) should win because of their abilities - not because of which team "needs" it the most financially.

(This is sounding increasingly libertarian vs. Democrat.)

If you know the current numbers favor fewer people hitting the scoresheet correctly with the right ratios, why have you never take the strongest 28 in a large division of 36 and competed that way? Say in a Worlds division?

 

[King]

Ok, 3 categories of cheer skills. Acrobatic (that is tumbling), Building (stunts), and Cheerleading (the motions ish stuff). This is all out of a 10 point scale. Difficult wise every single category is capped by whatever level you are on, and execution is 1 point. Though a Level 1 team can technically have a dance that is Level 5 or 6 safety wise, a dance score needs to be on the same level as a skill so that you cant out dance the competition with no stunt skill. To help the lay person understand cheer better I am limiting the whole skill to 10 points. This does make level 5 with a maximum of 9 points, BUT understand that does not limit level 5 scoring. The beauty is all in the range of the actual score itself.


Level 1 - 4 points (maximum score with execution is 5)
Level 2 - 5 points (maximum score with execution is 6)
Level 3 - 6 points (maximum score with execution is 7)
Level 4 - 7 points (maximum score with execution is 8)
Level 5 - 8 points (maximum score with execution is 9)
Level 6 - 9 points (maximum score with execution is 10)

Acrobatic Skills
Running tumbling
Standing Tumbling
Jumps
Synch

Building
Baskets
Stunts
Pyramids
Synch (I have been working on this one. the synch is over all for stunts, baskets, and pyramid. having one that is a ripple for choreography is ok, but in general lots of skill should go together, maybe in two ripples. Level 5 sync design should mean lots of elements go at once and be hard to execute well)

Cheer
Dance
Motions
Formations
Transitions

 

[rvnblue]

With the maximum execution score being only 1 point higher, you are weighting difficulty much more than execution rather than the FIG code of points which weights both equally.

 

[King]

Now, on to weighting things.

Building is 37.5% Tumbling is 37.5% Cheerleading is 25%

You take your scores from each skill set, average them within their categories, then times by their percentage.

With these averages every part of cheer is important. The skills you have to practice for years to get are weighted heavily, but a team cannot go out there and ignore basic cheerleading. Walking clean, good transitions, solid motions.

Thoughts?

 

[King]

With the maximum execution score being only 1 point higher, you are weighting difficulty much more than execution rather than the FIG code of points which weights both equally.

You arent reading the scoresheets. Mathematically execution and difficulty are worth the same. Ignore the points that GET you into a category.

 

[King]

Also, certain skills need to be compulsory for each level. Let us take stunts:

You must do a double down from an extended one leg extended body position. That is worth .1 on your difficulty score. Those exist in all skill set categories.

 

[fabulousity]

Also, certain skills need to be compulsory for each level. Let us take stunts:

You must do a double down from an extended one leg extended body position. That is worth .1 on your difficulty score. Those exist in all skill set categories.

I think this is a great idea. They do this in gymnastics and it seems to work well.

Also in level 5, they should require at least 1 release move and creative entry. Perhaps making a minimum of body positions...?