Comparing 3A State Qualifiers: 2013 vs 2014
There’s this year, and there’s last year. After 2 years of the IHSA sectional system in competitive dance, have the first-year kinks worked themselves out? The teams staying home this weekend probably don’t think so, but what’s for certain is that this year’s 30 teams look a lot different than last year’s.
First up is the average score of the 30 qualifying teams: 87.00. As you might expect for sectionals, this is higher than the average 3A scores from other contests this season, although that 87.00 doesn’t count the routines that placed 7th and below at each sectional. Last year’s average was almost 10 points lower at 77.61. And even though the 2013 qualifiers were led by two routines over 96, they also had 10 teams below 70. This year, the qualifiers are tightened up with a high of 92.60 and the 30th ranked qualifier just barely missing 80. While there aren’t astronomically high scores leading the way, there’s also a clear lack of low scores, and a ton of good, solid-scoring routines in between. This all translates to a much-improved average score this year compared to 2013.
Besides those two high scores last year there were only two more routines at 90 or above. This year, the 3A field proudly has six routines over 90. Even more telling are the number of routines between 80 and 90 points: we have 23 of them this year, versus just 11 last year. With more than double the number of “80s” routines (which stand a decent shot at showing up on Day 2 of state), the 3A state qualifiers are like those restaurant-quality tortilla chips that are just so much better than the store-bought kind, at least according to the numbers. Whether the field is that much stronger or the judges have a better eye for good routines would naturally be the next question to ponder if there was a way for coaches to quantify judging consistency.
Whether the sectional assignments make for the best competition at state is definitely up for debate, though it’s clear that in both years, one or two sectionals stood out with higher scores. The locations shifted versus last year, but the average score of the six qualifiers stayed pretty consistent over the two-year period. Take the 3A-2 field at this year’s “North” sectional site and its top six average score of 89.23. Last year’s equivalent sectional was also the “North” sectional, and their top six averaged an 89.93. Same goes for the second-highest sectional in both years. Last Saturday’s “Northwest” sectional featured a qualifier average of 88.13, and 2013’s 2nd-highest sectional (“Southwest”) had an 83.29 top six average. The places and perhaps the players change, but it’s easy to see that two sectionals stand out. Whether that’s by design, geography, or some other set of factors is another question for the dance community to tackle this offseason.
In a perfect world, you’d want all five sectionals (Glenbrook South 3A-1 and 3A-2 which we’ll call “North 1 and 2”, Huntley or “Northwest,” Morris or “Southwest,” and Stagg or “South”) to have about three routines come in above the 87.00 average. This is nowhere close to true, as you might expect: the North-2 and Northwest sectionals have five of the six teams above 87.00, and the sixth qualifier from both groups came very close to that score. Two of the sectionals are underrepresented in the “above-87” group.
Here are this year’s qualifiers ranked along with their sectional, and then placed side-by-side with last year’s group (you can see the PDF here):StateQualifiers14vs13
| 2014 RANK | 2014 Score | Sectional | 2013 RANK | 2013 Score | Sectional | Day 2 @ state | points diff. at this placement (Õ14 vs Õ13) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 92.60 | Chi / SW | 1st | 97.53 | Chi / N | 2nd (96.46) | -4.93 |
| 2nd | 91.10 | Chi / N - 2 | 2nd | 96.40 | Chi / N | 3rd (95.12) | -5.30 |
| t-3rd | 91.00 | Chi / N - 2 | 3rd | 92.40 | Chi / SW | -1.40 | |
| t-3rd | 91.00 | Chi / NW | 4th | 90.93 | Chi / SW | -0.07 | |
| 5th | 90.87 | Chi / N - 1 | 5th | 88.53 | Chi / N | 10th (67.62) | +2.34 |
| 6th | 90.17 | Chi / N - 2 | 6th | 88.50 | Chi / SW | +1.67 | |
| 7th | 89.43 | Chi / N - 1 | 7th | 87.27 | Chi / N | +2.16 | |
| t-8th | 89.13 | Chi / SW | 8th | 87.23 | Chi / NW - 1 | 1st (98.36) | +1.90 |
| t-8th | 89.13 | Chi / S | 9th | 85.57 | Chi / NW - 2 | +3.56 | |
| 10th | 88.33 | Chi / N - 2 | 10th | 85.07 | Chi / N | +3.26 | |
| 11th | 88.03 | Chi / NW | 11th | 84.80 | Chi / N | 8th (76.24) | +3.23 |
| 12th | 87.93 | Chi / NW | 12th | 83.50 | Chi / NW - 2 | 7th (78.46) | +4.43 |
| 13th | 87.87 | Chi / N - 2 | t-13th | 80.53 | Chi / SW | +7.34 | |
| 14th | 87.73 | Chi / SW | t-13th | 80.53 | Chi / NW - 2 | +7.20 | |
| 15th | 87.60 | Chi / NW | 15th | 80.27 | Chi / NW - 1 | 5th (83.24) | +7.33 |
| 16th | 87.30 | Chi / NW | 16th | 78.13 | Chi / SW | 9th (74.04) | +8.87 |
| t-17th | 86.93 | Chi / NW | 17th | 77.97 | Chi / NW - 2 | +8.96 | |
| t-17th | 86.93 | Chi / N - 2 | 18th | 77.37 | Chi / NW - 2 | +9.56 | |
| 19th | 86.67 | Chi / S | 19th | 75.50 | Chi / NW - 2 | +11.17 | |
| 20th | 86.63 | Chi / N - 1 | 20th | 73.77 | Chi / NW - 1 | +12.76 | |
| 21st | 86.50 | Chi / SW | 21st | 69.27 | Chi / NW - 1 | +17.23 | |
| 22nd | 85.33 | Chi / SW | 22nd | 69.23 | Chi / SW | +16.10 | |
| 23rd | 85.27 | Chi / SW | 23rd | 67.23 | Chi / NW - 1 | +18.04 | |
| 24th | 84.50 | Chi / N - 1 | 24th | 66.83 | Chi / S | 4th (83.90) | +17.67 |
| 25th | 83.10 | Chi / S | 25th | 66.33 | Chi / S | 6th (82.16) | +16.77 |
| 26th | 83.07 | Chi / S | 26th | 64.50 | Chi / S | +18.57 | |
| 27th | 83.03 | Chi / S | 27th | 60.40 | Chi / NW - 1 | +22.63 | |
| 28th | 82.93 | Chi / S | 28th | 58.33 | Chi / S | +24.60 | |
| 29th | 80.30 | Chi / N - 1 | 29th | 57.50 | Chi / S | +22.80 | |
| 30th | 79.70 | Chi / N - 1 | 30th | 56.87 | Chi / S | +22.83 | |
| Avg Score | 87.00 | 77.61 | |||||
| Middle Score | 87.45 | 79.20 |
Note once again the tighter spread of scores this year. On the other hand, the sectional balance issue comes up again. While Minooka leads the way with a routine out of the Southwest sectional, there isn’t another Southwest or South qualifier until 8th place, and the next one comes in at 14th, and the one after that at 19th. The upside is that all sectionals are represented in the top 9. Last year’s distribution was much worse. While four out of the five 2013 sectionals showed up in the top 9, the fifth sectional’s highest qualifying score was ranked 24th. Despite that disparity it was pretty cool to see two routines from that sectional get to Day 2 at state last season, both placing in the top 6.
When you compare the actual placement rankings and their corresponding scores, the two years look very different. From 1st to 4th place, this year’s scores are lower. Then from 5th on down to 30th, the scores at each ranking position are higher, and often a ton higher. In fact the score improvement over last year starts to hit the double-digits at 19th place and goes all the way to 30th.
Yet another way to compare the two years is to see how each sectional’s qualifiers compared to the overall Top 30 average (here’s the PDF)SecComparison13vs14:
| 2014 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago - North -1 | Chicago - North -2 | Chicago NW | Chicago SW | Chicago South | |
| 1st | 90.87 | 91.10 | 91.00 | 92.60 | 89.13 |
| 2nd | 89.43 | 91.00 | 88.03 | 89.13 | 86.67 |
| 3rd | 86.63 | 90.17 | 87.93 | 87.73 | 83.10 |
| 4th | 84.50 | 88.33 | 87.60 | 86.50 | 83.07 |
| 5th | 80.30 | 87.87 | 87.30 | 85.33 | 83.03 |
| 6th | 79.70 | 86.93 | 86.93 | 85.27 | 82.93 |
| AVERAGE of TOP 6 | 85.24 | 89.23 | 88.13 | 87.76 | 84.66 |
| vs. Top 30 avg. | -1.76 | +2.23 | +1.13 | +0.76 | -2.34 |
| 2013 | |||||
| Chicago - NW -1 | Chicago - NW -2 | Chicago North | Chicago SW | Chicago South | |
| 1st | 87.23 | 85.57 | 97.53 | 92.40 | 66.83 |
| 2nd | 80.27 | 83.50 | 96.40 | 90.93 | 66.33 |
| 3rd | 73.77 | 80.53 | 88.53 | 88.50 | 64.50 |
| 4th | 69.27 | 77.97 | 87.27 | 80.53 | 58.33 |
| 5th | 67.23 | 77.37 | 85.07 | 78.13 | 57.50 |
| 6th | 60.40 | 75.50 | 84.80 | 69.23 | 56.87 |
| AVERAGE | 73.03 | 80.07 | 89.93 | 83.29 | 61.73 |
| vs. Top 30 avg. | -4.58 | +2.46 | +12.32 | +5.68 | -15.88 |
This year, the top six from each sectional had an average that was no more than a couple points off of the Top 30 average of 87.00–another signal of a highly competitive, tight field. In 2013, the sectional that came closest to that year’s Top 30 average (77.61) was still about 2.5 points above it. Two of the other sectionals deviated about 5 or 6 points off of the average, while the final two sectionals were double-digits away from 77.61.
Finally, it’s worth reminding ourselves that Saturday was just Saturday. Put those same teams through the sectional grinder and you could get a very different looking Top 30. More proof of Cinderella stories is found in last year’s Day 2 routines. The top 10 last year went into state weekend ranked anywhere from 1st to 25th.
Ya never know.