king_leonides

So, if 8 bands advance to state, and there are 10 bands in finals, then each band has an 80% chance of advancing, correct? Or did I miss something?

Do we have region 23 results yet?

HISD has that many high school, but they are not all 6A. I believe they have 7 6A schools; the rest are 5A and 4A. But I agree with your point. HISD - the state's largest school district - should produce more than 1 band at the 6A area competition. That is a testament to exactly how badly music education has deteriorated in that school district. It is shameful and embarrassing.

They scored a 90.46, according to your system. The highest ranking outfit in area G was O'Connor , with an 84.42. I know that there were different panels in the two areas - you don't have to tell me that. Regardless, LD Bell scored significantly higher than any outfit in area G - so if Bell competed in G, they would be headed to the Alamodome. Your analysis shows that, and I think we all knew that. I wish I could put LD Bell in my Wonkavator and magically fly them to the Alamodome....sadly, it will not fly that far.

So essentially what you are telling us is that LD Bell should have advanced to state, if UIL used raw scores, instead of ordinals? I am not surprised. Nor am I surprised by this: LD Bell's raw scores are higher than those of any band in area G. Hence, if LD Bell competed there, not only would they have advanced to state, they would have won Area G. I am not surprised. Nothing about UIL surprises me. Nothing at all.

Yes, find them here: http://www.uilforms.com/regions/19/AreaMarching/RESULTS/2014-2015/2014%20Area%20F%20Finals.pdf

Find them here: http://uilforms.com/regions/13/AREA%20MARCHING/2014-2015/2014%20RESULTS%20-%20Area%20E%206A.pdf If you look closely, on the row above the ordinal score, you will see a number from 1 to 999. That is the raw score that the judge gave to the band, in that category, for that performance. The raw score is then ranked from 1 to 20, with the highest raw score getting a 1, and the lowest score getting a 20.

Moving regions between different areas. Or creating entirely new areas, by taking regions out of an existing area, and moving it to a new one. That is badly overdue in UIL. Only the RMS Titanic is move overdue......

It is unlikely that more bands from area E will be appearing in area anytime soon. This will only happen if: 1) HISD and Alief get their acts together, and start producing 1s. or 2) Area E is redistricted to include more regions from other areas. Marching music programs in HISD and AISD have completely tanked. Sorry, that is the case. Here are the scores, if you have doubts: http://www.uilforms.com/regions/23/RESULTS/MARCHING/2014-2015/Reg%2023%20Marching%20Results%20-%20Oct%2021%202014.htm Nine bands from region 23 failed to advance. Maybe that is a fair assessment, but the obvious question is "Why?" HISD is the state's largest school district, and only one band from its high schools advanced to area. That was Westside, who finished dead last at area. HISD hangs like a millstone around the necks of the band in this region, and it is the fundamental reason why only 3-4 bands advance from this area. (Area G, by contrast, routinely advances 7-8 bands.) Honestly, the music program in HISD is a train wreck, so the only via option above is #2. Area alignment is badly needed, and this is just another reason why.

But they do not post the names of the judges next to the scores. On the score sheet, they only list J1, J2, J3, J4, and J5. Here is the specific example from Area E this year: http://uilforms.com/regions/13/AREA%20MARCHING/2014-2015/2014%20RESULTS%20-%20Area%20E%206A.pdf So who was the individual that was J2, and was responsible for these scores? We will never know that detail. That is the specific information I am looking for. That is what DCI publishes - but UIL chooses not to.

Consider this: Should UIL make the names of their judges public? DCI does: http://www.dci.org/scores/recap/recap_window.cfm?event=e05ad798-9c73-4884-9955-58b9a5ffdfc0 If you get a really bad score - or a really good score - you know exactly who to thank. Or who not to thank. I am 100% for transparency and accountability, for anyone in professional positions. You want to know the name of your child's teacher, your child's daughter, and god forbid, your child's criminal lawyer (or judge.) Why can't we know the names of of the persons who adjudicate our children's marching bands?

An interesting analysis.....And it clearly gives evidence that UIL needs region re-alignment.

Honestly, I am not surprised, and not even mad. I am disappointed, but honestly, nothing that transpires in the judge's box surprises me anymore. I have come to accept that there is inherent unfairness in this activity. So I am not shocked whenever anything extremely bad - or good - occurs to an organization I support. I just greet decisions with blithe cynicism, and simply move on with my life. There are significant discrepancies between music judge 2, and judges 1 and 3, particularly in the middle of the table. Judge 2 rated Cy Woods as a top-ten band, but Judge 1 rated them as next to last. Conversely, judge 2 rated Jersey Village as 16, whereas judge 1 rates then as top 7. We see this type of inconsistencies year after year. Honestly, I have come to expect it. I sometimes wonder how judges at the same show, watching the same bands, with the same scoring sheets and rubrics, can come up with such divergent evaluations. Perhaps there are significant differences in the background, expectations, and level of experience of the judges. I personally do not believe that judges are inept or biased; most are more than competent to do their jobs. But competency and consistency are two different things. I strongly believe that UIL should make judging panels public, instead of just assigning them numbers. At a minimum, that would allow us to call their decision-making into question.