Contact us

Is Next Year The Right Time To Retire the Top 10 Scoring System? (WARNING LONG POST!)

Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
147
Hello Everyone, I wasn't sure where to put this thread. However, I think this is the best spot to put discussion. If you would like to move this into another section moderators, be my guest.

So, I've been thinking about the results this year and saw how lopsided it was compared to years past. Well, some years can be more lopsided than others but this year was pretty bad.

Of the 27 countries participating in this year's final:
  • 16/27 countries scored less than 50 points (The highest number of countries ever to score that low.)
  • 8/27 countries scored less than 20 points. (Worst ever since 2013 as 7/26 countries scored lower than 20 points.)
  • 4 countries scored less than 10 points, Highest since 2004.
  • 2 countries scored 0 points. First time since 1997!
  • First time the host country placed last since 1958 and the first time the host country scored 0 points (Although, The Makemakes are taking this score fairly well. "WE ARE THE ZEROS OF OUR TIME! ZEEEERRRROOOSSS!")


While personally I thought this was a strong year song wise (with a few misses), the scoring made me realize something:

The ranking system does not match the current scoring at all!

While the ranking system does bring a new twist to the distribution of points, the statistics above in this year's scores shows one major problem that arose in 2013:

This is the single worst year of point cancelling in the history of Eurovision! Even worse than the top 5 system in 1963.

Let me explain. In the old 50/50 system from 2009-2012, if the televoters voted for a country 1st but the jury did not (11th or below), there is still a chance that a country could get point (at least a point). However, if the vote went the same way under the ranked system, then there is a high chance that the country would get no points at all. Hence, either the televoters or the jury can nullify a country's chances of getting points especially if they got ranked 11th, where in the old system they could have received points.

With the rising number of countries participating in the final (26 in 2014, 27 in 2015, and possibly 28-30 should any more non-European countries join at this rate) and with the current system in use since 1975...

I think now is the time to retire the top 10 scoring system.

Yes I know this means the end of "douze points," but before you get your pitchforks, torches and anthrax mailers ready, let me prove my case.

Since the introduction of the top 10 system in 1975, the number of participants have increased in the final from 18-20 from 1975 to 1986, 22-25 (1987-2002, 2004-2011), 26 (2003, 2012-2014), to 27 in 2015. This increase in participating countries in the final lowers the chances of a country receiving points and making the results lopsided. In 1975, 10/18 countries had a chance of receiving points or close to 55.6% chance. In 2015, this percentage goes down to 10/27 or a 37% chance which is slightly higher than the chances in 1963 where it was 31.5% for a country to score a point, and 4 countries ended up getting 0 points. Also, in terms of the rising number of total participants, it's technically less possible for countries to not score points. This year, with 40 countries participating, having 2 countries getting nul points and 8 countries getting less than 20 points looked really off. The same thing happened (although not as severe) last year where the distribution of points was lopsided. Also, I didn't understand how could some countries (Spain, Germany & Austria) could score so low with fairly good songs, especially where Spain was a fan favorite. Did the results reflect what people generally though about the song (in terms of ranking).

So I had a couple of questions: Does the current scoring system reflect the average rankings for each country and if so, do what were happen if the scoring was expanded?

Instead of a top 10 scoring system, how about a top 25?

I decided that we should revamped the scoring system from the usual top 10 (:1: to :8:, :10:, :12:) to the top 25.

Ok, so I don't know how to make table so it's going to be in images.

With 26 participants looking like it's going to be the minimum, those in the final can only rank from 1-25 and non-qualifiers can rank from 1-26. Therefore, the scoring changes that every country participating in the final get at least 1 point. However, non-qualifiers can vote the country who places 26th to receive no points. Here is the new point distribution:

fFVj6AP.jpg


So with this year being having 27 contestants, those participating in the final can rank 26 countries and non-qualifiers can vote for all 27. Therefore, up to 2 countries can receive no points at all. While this does not totally rule out a country getting nul points as a result, every televote and jury must rank the song either 26th or 27th from every country...which odds are very, VERY low. Also if there are 26 participants in the Final, the lowest score a country could get is 26 (1 point from every country).

The next table shows the combined ranking from every country to the grand final participants:

FFTt1gw.jpg


If you look at the countries that were ranked from 11th to 27th, especially at (Spain, Cyprus, Germany and Austria in particular) you'll notice that their ranking wasn't didn't reflect their final scores. The average rank for these four countries are 13.54 (Spain), 16.08 (Cyprus), 17.54 (Germany) and 19.18 (Austria) while their final ranks are 21st, 22nd, and joint 26th.

Lets change the scores to the new scoring system:

kpzCh4z.jpg


While the top 25 point system substantially changes the absolute number of points: like Sweden winning with 1,050 points instead of 365. It actually better reflects the average ranking of all the countries and prevents point cancelling as seen on these tables:

pRq8VIA.jpg
lpfsyc3.jpg


As you can see, the biggest victim of point cancelling is Spain, Germany and Cyprus. Cyprus goes up 7 ranks from 22nd to 15th, Germany gains 8 ranks from 27th to 19th, and Spain skyrockets from 21st to 11th! While it would not change the ranking of the top 7 countries this year, it would shift points around and that would reward countries that remain constant rank through the voting. However, it would hinder those who get a lot of their points from neighboring countries as under the current system can make them jump ranks as seen with Armenia, Albania, Azerbaijan and Montenegro, who saw the biggest drops in rank.

This new voting system doesn't change the number of top marks a country gets. Under the new system, Sweden still got 12 top marks, Italy still got 9, and Russia still got 5.

Is this system perfect? Heck no! One side of the voting can totally screw over a country's point allocation should they the televoters and jury vote on opposite ends. Fortunately, this will remove the chances of point cancelling and better reflects what Europe thinks of a country's entry. Making a much more balanced voting system.

So in terms of what changes EBU should do, I think they should completely overhaul the jury system. The Jury should be expanded from just 5 to at least 10 or 20, and be expanded from just "musical professionals" to Eurovision fans from fan clubs like the OGAE. As I have seen, one jury member could completely mess up a jury's ranking by ranking a song very low while other jurors rank the same song high. Having more jury members from both sides of the Eurovision spectrum, musical professionals AND Eurovision fans alike. This change, as well as this overhaul would (hopefully) make the contest a little fairer for everyone.

Let me know if this is a good idea. Should we bark at the EBU to retire? Thanks for reading all of this! :D
 

ElRuso

Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Posts
567
It seems you have tons of free time:rolleyes: But I guess it will be a disaster. Just imagine the scoreboard.
 
Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
147
My summer vacation just started and this has irked me since last year. This system is like a hybrid of both the ranking system and the voting system that was used from 1971-1973. Yeah the scoreboard would be a mess, but I think with all the technology in Eurovision now. I think the EBU can handle it.
 

GermanBango

Well-known member
Joined
April 13, 2012
Posts
3,859
Location
Hannover
I have to agree. It is indeed highly unfair to give points to only ~38% of the participants (Top 10), especially in a final with 27 or more countries. I think therefore it's needed to expand the number of points given per country but I would rather say that the Top 12 (44%) or the Top 15 (55%) of each country should get some points - almost all countries would be a bit too much imho.
 

Pawhlen

Active member
Joined
June 9, 2013
Posts
2,980
Location
Eksjö
This is the result with the "old" 50/50 system for this years ESC:

1. :se: 368
2. :it: 319
3. :ru: 293
4. :be: 221
5. :au: 160
6. :lv: 155
7. :ee: 104
8. :il: 89
9. :no: 86
10. :al: 65
11. :rs: 58
12. :am: 57
13. :ge: 53
14. :ro: 46
15. :az: 45
16. :me: 37
17. :sl: 36
18. :lt: 29
19. :gr: 23
20. :cy: 18
21. :hu: 16
22. :pl: 15
23. :es: 12
24. :uk: 5
25. :at: 4
26. :fr: 3
27. :de: 3

As you all can see, there were not many huge differences this year.
 

ElRuso

Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Posts
567
My summer vacation just started and this has irked me since last year. This system is like a hybrid of both the ranking system and the voting system that was used from 1971-1973. Yeah the scoreboard would be a mess, but I think with all the technology in Eurovision now. I think the EBU can handle it.

EBU couldnt handled even connecting to the countries smoothly this year. And all the commentators and viewers would go crazy. Plus, there will be more numbers on the scoreboard.
 
Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
147
Add 11 and 9 points maybe. Les douze points are priceless.

But I already did add 9 and 11 points. :p But I think the reason they did not use 9 and 11 points was to prevent ties. I know Douze Points is a pinnacle of Eurovision. It was tough for me to change this.
 

ElRuso

Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Posts
567
But I already did add 9 and 11 points. :p But I think the reason they did not use 9 and 11 points was to prevent ties. I know Douze Points is a pinnacle of Eurovision. It was tough for me to change this.

I meant to the actual Eurovision:rolleyes: But it would be strange. Les onze points pour la Belgique:lol:
 
Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
147
EBU couldnt handled even connecting to the countries smoothly this year. And all the commentators and viewers would go crazy. Plus, there will be more numbers on the scoreboard.

Yes that is true that the connections to the countries' spokespersons were problematic, but Jan Ola Sand gets the votes are announced. Also, I would like to see a little more craziness on the scoreboard.
 

ElRuso

Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Posts
567
This is the result with the "old" 50/50 system for this years ESC:

1. :se: 368
2. :it: 319
3. :ru: 293
4. :be: 221
5. :au: 160
6. :lv: 155
7. :ee: 104
8. :il: 89
9. :no: 86
10. :al: 65
11. :rs: 58
12. :am: 57
13. :ge: 53
14. :ro: 46
15. :az: 45
16. :me: 37
17. :sl: 36
18. :lt: 29
19. :gr: 23
20. :cy: 18
21. :hu: 16
22. :pl: 15
23. :es: 12
24. :uk: 5
25. :at: 4
26. :fr: 3
27. :de: 3

As you all can see, there were not many huge differences this year.

So we must screw the juries completely:lol:
 

EscGeek

Well-known member
Joined
December 12, 2011
Posts
10,409
Location
Milky Way
I suggest this one:

1st-18 points
2nd-16 points
3rd-14 points
4th-12 points
5th-11 points
6th-10 points
7th-9 points
8th-8 points
9th-7 points
10th-6 points
11th-5 points
12th-4 points
13th-3 points
14th-2 points
15th-1 point
 
Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
147
I suggest this one:

1st-18 points
2nd-16 points
3rd-14 points
4th-12 points
5th-11 points
6th-10 points
7th-9 points
8th-8 points
9th-7 points
10th-6 points
11th-5 points
12th-4 points
13th-3 points
14th-2 points
15th-1 point

It would be an improvement, but the EBU could also troll us and just use the top 3 like in 1962. Just imagine all those 0's.
 

GRE

Well-known member
Joined
December 6, 2010
Posts
7,505
Location
Greece
Maybe Mr.Bjorkman wants to make the score system like Melodifestivalen. :rolleyes:
 

FilipFromSweden

Well-known member
Joined
March 27, 2012
Posts
5,804
No I'm sorry, I don't want it to change. I understand your argument, but I like it the way it is except for it should be the juries pick a top 10 and the voters a top 10, not the juries ranking 1-26/27.

Maybe Mr.Bjorkman wants to make the score system like Melodifestivalen. :rolleyes:

That would mean lesser amount of points
 

pyryniemi

Well-known member
Joined
October 1, 2009
Posts
2,810
The current (12, 10, 8-1 points) system was put into use when there were only around 20 participants. I do think it's a better idea if lets say top 15 songs got points, but I'm not sure how that would be implemented in the best way xthink

I also like your idea of every rank counting here, but final results show would be very complicated though xthink In addition, if the juries were abolished, 100% televoting + every rank counting would help the songs that are liked everywhere instead of the songs that only do well because of diaspora winning the televote in 10ish countries (when other 30 rank them near last)
 

Chorizo

Active member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Posts
3,838
Giving points to more countries, would reduce the effect of neighbor and diaspora voting, which would generally be a welcome change. The voting shouldn't get too massive, though.
 

Sim

Well-known member
Joined
October 1, 2009
Posts
19,371
Location
Evergem, Belgium
about your new voting system I don't know if it's good to give 25 countries points. Maybe an extension to 12 or 15 is possible.

What I do agree about is the fact that the number of jury members must be extended.
Five people can really destroy the televoting results of a country.

An example: In the grand final in 2014 Belgian televoters put Armenia in the first place (ok diaspora is certainly in) but the juries only put it 25th, so it became 11th in the overall ranking. In a jury system with 10 or even 20 members well divided (young,old,men,woman,professional, fan,...) then you would get a more accurate image of what a jury thinks...
 
Top Bottom