COMP WEEKEND 4: GARDNER-SOUTH WILMINGTON 12/7/24

These scores reflect the IHSA section of this competition. The IHSA section of an IDTA event is an entirely separate block of routines from the rest of the day. Teams perform their IDTA category routines as usual, but most will also perform those routines again, separately, under the IHSA rubric during the IHSA block of dances.

While scored in the IHSA system, the placements are still determined IDTA-style (add up the judges’ scores and then subtract penalties). For closer matching to IHSA-style placements, I averaged the judges’ scores and then applied penalty subtractions to reach a rough equivalent of scoring at IHSA-only competitions. That’s why there might be some odd discrepancies between placement order (which is what was announced at the competition, and which may involve IDTA tiebreakers) and the IHSA-equivalent / 8CA-style scores you’ll see listed below:

1A

*** this is a really good example of the potential discrepancy I mentioned just above this table. Using my IHSA-equivalency formula (take the average of the judges and then subtract penalties), I got these scores — which are different from the announced placements (add up the judges’ scores, then subtract penalties).

Unity earned a first by adding the 2 judges’ IHSA scores (70.0 + 70.2) and then subtracting penalties (-0.25) for a 139.7. Eureka’s (their 2nd routine) 2 IHSA scores minus penalties (69.9 + 69.8 – 0 = 139.7) earned a second place trophy based on IDTA tiebreaker rules. For our 8CA “IHSA rough equivalent,” I averaged the two IHSA scores and then subtracted penalties, which is the usual system for determining IHSA placements. This accounts for the “IHSA rough equivalent” not matching up with the announced trophy placements.

2A

Similar to what you see in the 1A scores, we have a discrepancy between the announced placements and the “rough IHSA equivalent” scores.

3A

Back to The Ready Line front page