NCAA Can someone please help me understand what Jay Clark means?

[ugadawgkat]

After the LSU / Missouri meet Clark said,

“The issue is not that I think scores should remain unduly high. The issue is that this thing that we’ve put in place either intentionally or unintentionally only attacked one part of scoring. We haven’t created a more consistent situation this year. We’ve created a more erratic situation here."

Then he went on to say that Helen Hu deserved a 10 for her beam set.

What is he saying? Is he insinuating that Hu got a deduction that she didn't deserve from 1 judge because of the new scoring? Please help... I'm confused.

 

[blueghost]

Adding the video...

 

[rlayt]

He’s trying to talk around Dunne’s statement, not irritate the people who disagreed with her but not disparage Helen Hu’s score.

For it to be clear he would have to explain “this thing we put in place”. I think he means the intention of replacing the tradition of unrealistically high scores with realistic ones and that he thinks it didn’t address other aspects of the way thrr we y are scored and it hasn’t been done by all the judges at every meet.

 

[MaryClare]

I kind of see Jay Clark’s point. I do feel that scoring is a lot more ambiguous this year. I can no longer watch a routine and confidently estimate what it will score.

College gymnastics needed tighter scoring to come in to allow for greater differentiation but there is definitely a lack of consistency with scoring.

I wonder if the reason is down to judges education. What was the process of rolling out these changes actually like?

 

[cuuf]

Difficult to interpret, the context is definitely the Dunne statement. I feel reasonably confident "the thing we put is place" is in reference to the new score board oversight on judging. I am unsure what "one part of scoring" means. And why the score board oversight is making things more erratic? Maybe he means NCAA should re-evaluate SVs like they have done with vaults? Idk, I am more inclined to believe it is coach talk running cover for Livvy and nothing of any particular merit.

 

[Kara]

I think he's right that whatever the oversight board is doing hasn't fixed any problems. Scoring this year is even more wacky than ever. I'll watch some meets that seem to be actually judged fairly and then turn on a different meet and it's insane high scores with a ton of missed deductions. My non gymnast parents who watch with me are totally lost. Not sure how to fix it, but the solution definitely isn't Dunne's just give everyone a ten nonsense.

 

[irichluck21]

Its also a pilot year for the oversight system.
Anytime you pilot something, there are some tweaks and issues along the way.

It is interesting that the GEC (Gymnastics East Conference) has opted out of not reporting judges scores.

There definitely is a lacking of consistent scoring across the country.

I also wonder how the judges viewing angle effects the score. We aren't seeing the routine from the POV of the judges as well.

 

[RedBirdie]

The whole thing is just ridiculous. The moment judges get told "we're piloting an evaluation system" they all panic and show they can indeed not hand out tens like candy.

It almost feels like to start of a new elite quad and a new code. How strictly will deductions be applied? Will different competitions use different "pens"? What exactly is the code asking judges to do in such-and-such scenario? What will this all shake out to be at the end of the day? We're not used to this in NCAA.

 

[cuuf]

I do think its awfully hypocritical to not even let a full season be complete with the new oversight board and be trashing it. People for at least the last 10 years have been bemoaning scoring and doing something about judging. I dont think there is any solution that would provide an immediate fix. But at least it is an effort. I think it is too early in what has to be a long process to make things better. People need to be a little patient and see how things end up and what evaluation happens at the end of the season (hopefully there will be some transparency on that).

 

[Sasha]

I believe that part of what he said was "they lowered the ceiling", so I took his comment to mean that scores were lower but the separation hadn't improved.

 

[ucrgirl]

The interesting thing to me is that, for the "product as a whole" (competitive, accurately scored NCAA tournaments, strict scoring that you can understand seems ideal.

If the "product" is a TikTok or a reel, maybe a 10 is better.

What do you think?

 

[KristyJ]

I think treating sport as a "product" in an academic environment is problematic in itself to start with

But if you have to "sell" it to fund it, only accurate scoring avoids losing people to the "it's just a pageant" vibes

Given the choice of a target audience of horny salivating teenage boys or girls who want to grow up to be strong and accomplished women, I'd choose the latter every day every time.

 

[cuuf]

I get the sentiment and I side with that. But I also know this is a site dedicated to gymnastics. So all of us posting here are more than casual followers. I would caution in projecting our viewpoints to the general population. We have seen this starting at college football and trickle down to all the other sports that might touch the TV $. ADs and conference commissioners view these sports as products to sell to TV. So TV execs are going to have a lot of influence in dictating how the sport is packaged and sometimes those do not align with the desires of the dedicated fan (SEC championship for example).

 

[Regionals]

The thing I find kind of gross about Clark trying to dismantle SCOREboard publicly is that it’s now on uneven terms. Bev Plocki can’t just publicly go back and forth with him to defend the reform. I wish she would though.

 

[KristyJ]

I get the sentiment and I side with that. But I also know this is a site dedicated to gymnastics. So all of us posting here are more than casual followers. I would caution in projecting our viewpoints to the general population. We have seen this starting at college football and trickle down to all the other sports that might touch the TV $. ADs and conference commissioners view these sports as products to sell to TV. So TV execs are going to have a lot of influence in dictating how the sport is packaged and sometimes those do not align with the desires of the dedicated fan (SEC championship for example).

I can tell you that those casual viewers who've watched with me have been confused by the high scoring as well. Per one of them-- "What is the point of having 10 points if you only ever use one tenth of a point?"

 

[cuuf]

I can tell you that those casual viewers who've watched with me have been confused by the high scoring as well. Per one of them-- "What is the point of having 10 points if you only ever use one tenth of a point?"

Was one of them a TV executive for ESPN or ABC? I have been to enough meets with casual viewers that just love the excitement at the end of the meet when scores start going up and it gets tighter between the teams. And if it comes down to the last floor routine needing a big score to win?! Well then.... Point being, thinking like a TV exec, I dont care about consistent or "right" scoring. I want drama, I want a story, I want to be able to package that in a concise timeframe that keeps peoples attention, I want to be able to pull in the random channel surfer that tunes in as someone gets a 10. I want to be able to have enough breaks to sell add spots.

 

[flappergirl]

thinking like a TV exec, I dont care about consistent or "right" scoring. I want drama, I want a story, I want to be able to package that in a concise timeframe that keeps peoples attention,

Imo, ^^ type of thinking hurts gymnastics; we need to build a real fan base. In the past, when I attended gymnastics meets, I was amazed by the understanding of the audience. But the tv announcers and the packaging is such a turnoff (occasional exceptions), how can we possibly build an audience. If you compare the marketing for men’s sports, it becomes obvious. Just another example of women’s place in the hierarchy of our society

 

[cuuf]

Imo, ^^ type of thinking hurts gymnastics; we need to build a real fan base. In the past, when I attended gymnastics meets, I was amazed by the understanding of the audience. But the tv announcers and the packaging is such a turnoff (occasional exceptions), how can we possibly build an audience. If you compare the marketing for men’s sports, it becomes obvious. Just another example of women’s place in the hierarchy of our society

So you are saying that gymnastics is a "only women can be involved" sport? Only to be enjoyed by women, only women should have a say in the sport? You don't see the sexism of that? Should all male coaches be eliminated?

Regardless, it has nothing to do with the marketing of men's sports and trying to make women "conform" to men's views. It has to do with the macro trends of college sports, of which men's college football and basketball are at the forefront. Scan any college football message board and you will find plenty of fans bemoaning changes, complaining of how these changes are turning away the fans, and making the sport unwatchable. Yet these sports continue to do better from a TV revenue standpoint than they have ever done before. The SEC this week just announced that the TV revenue checks to EACH school was around $53 million (the Big10 was comparable, all the other conferences were in the $10-15 range for context). You would be naive to believe that that type of money does not get a seat at the table when it comes time to planning what the "product" is going to look like on TV. That's all I am saying, we can complain all we want about the purity of the sport, but its not going to move the needle until TV believes it will.

 

[ucrgirl]

I think treating sport as a "product" in an academic environment is problematic in itself to start with

But if you have to "sell" it to fund it, only accurate scoring avoids losing people to the "it's just a pageant" vibes

Given the choice of a target audience of horny salivating teenage boys or girls who want to grow up to be strong and accomplished women, I'd choose the latter every day every time.

I agree with you but I have started to hear other NCAA sports—not gymnastics—talked about in this fashion in recent years on sports talk radio. "Business" may have been a more savory /better fitting term (rather than "product") for my post.

Again, I kind of hate this, but it seems that NCAA sports/sports broadcasting/sports funding/even professional sports are changing. @cuuf said everything a lot more eloquently than I could attempt and I think they may be correct.

 

[dweiss324]

The point that needs to be made to appeal to producers is that separating scores would not hurt a viewing experience. Quite the contrary! It would help build drama, not hurt it. If a rotation gets hot, or if good gymnasts with hit routines start getting 9.9s when the line up was stuck in the 9.5s (or 9.0s, or even 5.0s, whatever), it would be an even clearer "product narrative". It would help the audience figure out how to differentiate good from great from stellar. It's the high lower ceiling for average routines that poorly affect a casual fan's ability to discern narrative and talent. The ultimate score is inconsequential to casual fans. But they can sense momentum, and can discern moments of brilliance or mundanity.