How this works:

The composite number is entered, and then the judge's individual rating is entered.  If a judge rates a band lower than the composite, then the judge would get a -1 for that band.  If a judge rates band HIGHER than the composite, then the judge would get a +1 for that band.

​

Example:      Judge 1         Judge 2        Judge 3           Composite

                            3                    1                    2                          2

​

Judge 1 would have a score of -1.  Judge 2 would be +1, and Judge 3 would score 0. We believe this is the fairest way to evaluate the ratings of judges.

​

Why was this done?  We've all heard band directors in the halls saying "Oh, this judge rates 3A harder, or that judge is easier on 2Cs" or something like that.  Is this true?  For the most part, no.

​

Below, where you see a difference of less than 10% either way, we believe this to not be statistically significant.  Have we run the math to prove it is?  No.  You can be your own arbiter.  Also, we believe that if a judge has evaluated less than 10 bands in a conference, then their sample size is too small to be statistically significant.

​

There are several instances where a split panel is used.  That has not been factored into an individual judge's score, as we cannot determine which judge of the two it was.  A few contests list the judges as "x" or "not given".  Those are listed under "x" and "not given".

​

If you believe there is an error, please contact me at tim@brynnpark.com, and if you think this stuff is awesome and want to help keep it going, click on the PayPal link below the "Home" button above and donate what you want.   Anything helps keep this information free and up to date.  Enough of the talk, let's get to it!