macmillanandwife
Active member
- Joined
- June 7, 2012
- Posts
- 181
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:
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 ( to , , ) 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:
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:
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:
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:
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!
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 ( to , , ) 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:
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:
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:
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:
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!