All-Star Design the perfect scoring system

[BlueCat]

Any relation to time and this actual season is not needed. I get it would be from the beginning.

What about the large division? Just take 21?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

If the max were 30, I would be fine with taking 21 in a large division. The athletes and the parents would probably be freaked out about it, though.

A difference of 21 and 36, however, is probably past the point where you could expect a fair contest. You might be at a significant advantage, or you may suffer from the wrong side of an apples/oranges comparison. Worlds isn't really the place to take that kind of gamble.

At some point, you have to make sure that you have enough roster spots to hold all your athletes. You also have to consider the costs in time/energy/ideas in having more teams for the same number of athletes. You would start to be hurting yourself in other ways more than you are helping by decreasing risk.

I would agree that there are economic pressures pushing teams towards maximizing their teams. I don't agree that this should be factored into the scoring system. Again, I think that all of the teams should be on equal footing, regardless of roster size. This, to me, means applying roster-size ratios to all parts of the scoring system, not just select parts that benefit one type of team.

All of that being said - I do like where you are going with the rest of it.

 

[King]

If the max were 30, I would be fine with taking 21 in a large division. The athletes and the parents would probably be freaked out about it, though.

A difference of 21 and 36, however, is probably past the point where you could expect a fair contest. You might be at a significant advantage, or you may suffer from the wrong side of an apples/oranges comparison. Worlds isn't really the place to take that kind of gamble.

At some point, you have to make sure that you have enough roster spots to hold all your athletes. You also have to consider the costs in time/energy/ideas in having more teams for the same number of athletes. You would start to be hurting yourself in other ways more than you are helping by decreasing risk.

I would agree that there are economic pressures pushing teams towards maximizing their teams. I don't agree that this should be factored into the scoring system. Again, I think that all of the teams should be on equal footing, regardless of roster size. This, to me, means applying roster-size ratios to all parts of the scoring system, not just select parts that benefit one type of team.

All of that being said - I do like where you are going with the rest of it.

Moving ratios and weighted deductions for a later discussion, any adjustments to what I have proposed so far?

And as far as non weighted on ratio deductions, here is what I think:

Stunt timing error: .01
Stunt bobble: .025
Stunt drop: .05 off the stunt score
Pyramid timing error: .05
Pyramid drop: .1 off the pyramid score
Pyramid Explosion: .2 off the pyramid score

deciding on tumbling, bakets, jumps... that kind of thing.

 

[BlueCat]

I would go with:
pyramid timing error: .025
pyramid bobble: .05

basically making pyramid mistakes twice as costly as the corresponding stunt mistake.

By pyramid "explosion" are you talking about a single mistake that causes multiple falls or a complete meltdown of the entire sequence?

 

[King]

I would go with:
pyramid timing error: .025
pyramid bobble: .05

basically making pyramid mistakes twice as costly as the corresponding stunt mistake.

By pyramid "explosion" are you talking about a single mistake that causes multiple falls or a complete meltdown of the entire sequence?

I have yet to see an elite pyramid that is as hard as an elite stunt sequence. So that is the reason for the increase.

Not sure about the exact meaning of pyramid explosion. Whats a smarter way to word it? Those two different types?

 

[BlueCat]

No, I was agreeing with you on the increase, I was just adjusting it so that it was 2x across the board.

 

[King]

No, I was agreeing with you on the increase, I was just adjusting it so that it was 2x across the board.

good call.

baskets:
synch error - .025 (because a large portion of baskets is synch)
form deduction - .025
i dont know the word for it but the basket version of a bust - .05

standing or running tumbling
timing error - .025
hands down - .05
bust - .1 (high tumbling bust penalties ensure you only throw skills you have)

jumps
bust - .1
timing error per jump .025

 

[rvnblue]

are your deductions coming off of the execution point possible?

 

[King]

execution. for execution should everyone start with a 1 and deductions are just taken off from that?

 

[CGAcheer]

good call.

baskets:
synch error - .025 (because a large portion of baskets is synch)
form deduction - .025
i dont know the word for it but the basket version of a bust - .05

standing or running tumbling
timing error - .025
hands down - .05
bust - .1 (high tumbling bust penalties ensure you only throw skills you have)

jumps
bust - .1
timing error per jump .025

execution. for execution should everyone start with a 1 and deductions are just taken off from that?

How would you distinguish between a really good clean inverted toe touch and a good clean below level toe touch? Its the same skill, so the difficulty should be the same, neither made an error so the execution should be the same, yet one is clearly better than the other.

 

[King]

How would you distinguish between a really good clean inverted toe touch and a good clean below level toe touch? Its the same skill, so the difficulty should be the same, neither made an error so the execution should be the same, yet one is clearly better than the other.

Maybe diffclty is measured in flexibilty. And I would like to include body positions in stunt scoring

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Num1Stunta]

If you are on a level 4 team and perform a level 4 skill, how many points do you get for it?

Well, I think that highlights the problem right there. For instance, my level 4 team of 20 last year was 2nd to a larger team of 36 at a local. Both routines hit cleanly, and we had more in terms of majority tumbling. We showed 12 level 4 skills in our routine, all done by the majority and we only counted about 6 from the other team. It came down to a performance score. They outscored us on overall impression, and our stunt and tumble scores were similar.

This is the problem. Our difficulty was much higher, and these scoresheets didnt account for that. I do think there should be a point value for skills, maybe even give stunting a start value. Example:

Level 4- if max point on stunts is 8, then an 8 start value would be a routine showing the most difficult of all possibilities- fullup to one leg, double from extension, full downs from front and side positions, etc... if you only double from prep, subtract .1 from your start value. If you fullup to 2 legs, subtract .1 from start value, etc. You could also add .1 to additional skills to get you to that 8 points.... like, say you wanted to keep your doubles at prep, but make up for it by adding an extra tick tock. Then, you could add .1 for an extra ticktock and be back at 8 point value.

 

[BlueCat]

Part of the issue is the how scores distribute through the ranges. Most of the time, there is little score difference between the whole squad doing something really difficult and something REALLY REALLY difficult. When something is a double-word all-caps skill, you are rarely given much credit.

Example: If an L5 team can score a .9 on the difficulty range for 60% squad RO FF doubles, that only leaves a .1 difference between them and a team that does full squad RO whip full doubles. The skill difference there is not fairly represented on the scoresheet. There are diminishing returns at the top of the range, which does NOT line up with what the crowd wants to see.

The downside to allowing "room at the top" for super-elite skills is that you just push those middle skills all together in the range leaving little room to differentiate between 2 typical squads.

 

[King]

Part of the issue is the how scores distribute through the ranges. Most of the time, there is little score difference between the whole squad doing something really difficult and something REALLY REALLY difficult. When something is a double-word all-caps skill, you are rarely given much credit.

Example: If an L5 team can score a .9 on the difficulty range for 60% squad RO FF doubles, that only leaves a .1 difference between them and a team that does full squad RO whip full doubles. The skill difference there is not fairly represented on the scoresheet. There are diminishing returns at the top of the range, which does NOT line up with what the crowd wants to see.

The downside to allowing "room at the top" for super-elite skills is that you just push those middle skills all together in the range leaving little room to differentiate between 2 typical squads.

So how many iterations and needed to score correctly do you think? Between 10 - 20? And what about a bonus point system?

And overall impression is the WORST category on a scoresheet. It pretty much gives the judge free range to boost or not boost if they just plain out like the routine over another.

 

[King]

I like the idea of .1 bonus for certain skills. But the have to be risky and generic. Elite entry combos in stunts or multiple tumble combos without HS.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[BlueCat]

So how many iterations and needed to score correctly do you think? Between 10 - 20? And what about a bonus point system?

And overall impression is the WORST category on a scoresheet. It pretty much gives the judge free range to boost or not boost if they just plain out like the routine over another.

They should just let the judges put whatever numbers within the range they want. (There aren't 10 quantum gaps in difficulty - why force the scores into that?) If they want to put .731, they should be able to. Forcing judges to round their scores serves no purpose other than making the arithmetic easier. Surely by now someone just keys those into a computer anyway.

(Don't get me started on degrees of significance in scoring. Math geek in me gets annoyed when they tout "separated by 2 thousandths of a point . . ." when the judges are only allowed to score on tenths.)

Agreed that "overall impression" is awful. Yes, this is a partially subjective sport, but this category allows judges to swing the "weight" of the various categories to whatever ratio they prefer.