Measure for Measure: The number of groups at a quarterfinal
By Mike Chin on Apr 11, 2008 in Measure for Measure, News
Each Friday an A Cappella Blog contributor will take a look at both sides of a controversial, interesting, or seemingly random statement related to collegiate a cappella.
We welcome you to weigh in on the topic at hand by posting a comment.
We also welcome readers to offer up their own statements for our writers to consider, Measure for Measure.
This week’s topic: In recent years at ICCAs, some quarterfinals featured as few as five groups competing, while others boasted as many as nine competitors. In the interest of fairness, ICCA competitions should feature equal numbers of groups at each level of the competition.
True: Let’s do some simple math. If there are six groups competing at your average quarterfinal, and two advance to the semifinals, that means that, before assessing the quality of performance, each group has a 33 percent chance of advancing. Head over to the Midwest, and you’re looking at nine groups, competing, but still only two groups moving on. Suddenly, the chances of moving in the tournament are only 22 percent. This simply isn’t fair. Each group should have an equal opportunity to advance. While, percentage-wise, it could be fair to let three groups advance from a 9 group semifinal, this still skews the competition scene, and creates some shades of gray when shows turn out to have 7 or 8 groups. All in all, the simplest answer is for each show to have an equal number of competitors.
False: In an ideal world, each competition could have the same number of competitors. In reality, it can be difficult to organize venues, dates and hosts for a competition, and the number of competitors can’t always break down quite equally. Some regions can’t have as many shows despite a comparable number of groups. Some shows will see groups who were scheduled to compete end up backing out for whatever reason, meaning a competition shrinks to a smaller field of competitors. It may not be entirely fair, but that’s life.
Furthermore, letting two groups advance from the quarterfinals ensures that the best groups are progressing to the semifinal round. If your group couldn’t manage a second place finish in the quarters, I don’t like your chances of making a dent in the semifinals anyway.
RSS
I have very strong opinions about this. A while ago, ICCAs had six groups per quarterfinal, with three quarterfinals per region. This meant an even six groups per show, all the way through Finals. Maybe it was different in other regions, but for awhile this was the norm for both the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic.
Then the Mid-Atlantic region exploded. Groups were being sent to the Northeast to make room, and this year, the Mid-Atlantic had four quarters with eight groups at the semi. After seeing the semi last weekend, I was not impressed with the quality of the groups, and feel that the competition suffered as a result.
I would like to see all regions return to a three-quarterfinal format. I think eight-group semis are far too long and the quality suffers. If this means that only 18 groups make it in to the region, so be it. Then you know you’re really seeing the best 18 groups the region has to offer.
On the other hand, this could eliminate dozens of groups from ever cracking the quarterfinals, if the same 18 groups tend to get in year after year. If ICCA really wants to make it a level playing field, expand even further, to qualifying rounds, then quarters, then semis. Maybe each region can have 6 shows of 6 groups each, then the top two of each can compete in two quarterfinals, then the top three of each can go to semis…without even considering venues, judges, and the producers’ schedules, see how convoluted it gets?
This may be where the ICCAs are headed, but for now, I still think the competition needs to maintain some integrity and stick to the best of the best.
Melissa | Apr 12, 2008 | Reply
1. Melissa? Hi! I tried to track you down at the semis b/c like a dumbbutt I never replied to your post. But one of the Mandarmans (sp?) didn’t know who you were … or thought I was a weirdo, heh. I’d imagine there are quite a few Melissas at ‘cuse.
2. I kinda agree with you. I really like the 18-group format too. And yeah, I think the quality does suffer. The flipside is some groups are going to get screwed year in and year out. And I’d bet we’d see less coed and all-female groups. Also, if I don’t miss my guess, the more groups that get in the easier it is for the ICCAs to keep costs down. But even with that said, I’d rather always see the best of the best too and logistically I can’t imagine the ICCAs adding a round again. But hey ask them
mcbc | Apr 12, 2008 | Reply
As an ICCA Producer, I can tell you that we do absolutely aim for 6 (maybe 7) groups per show. Your thinking is right on track, and the folks in charge of the competition are definitely on board with you.
But as you’ve begun to articulate, the number of factors that determine how many groups, how many shows, where, when, etc, are insanely complicated. Groups can compete this date but not this other date, this group doesn’t want to have Quarterfinals with this other group from their same school, shows are all lined up then fall through, groups drop out, groups are added, producers have their own schedules, venues are only available certain dates, regions grow and shrink depending on the year, it’s all just a huge morass of logistics. The fact that the show runs as smoothly as it does is actually quite surprising, given that this is not a big moneymaker for anyone.
But your points are still valid. We hate seeing the 9-group shows, and we do all we can to make it as fair as possible for everyone. Keep the suggestions coming!
Dave | Apr 17, 2008 | Reply