Mao88 asked in an earlier thread: "If you could change one thing about figure skating, what would it be?"
Now, there are plenty of things I would change, like removing the anonymity of judges, having multiple judges marks for technical levels, and condensing the program components. But if I had to pick, it would be how marks are reported to the public. Many viewers outside of figure skating (and some that are on the inside) have little idea how to interpret these marks, and the current system condenses all the unbiased and biased marks together into one number that makes it seem as though there is no bias at all.
The New 10.0 System
Instead, I propose a new 10.0-scaled system, which doesn't change anything about the current CoP system except how it's reported to the public. The technical marks and program component marks are both reported on a 10.0 scale. This way, any changes made to the CoP system can be easily reflected by this proposed 10.0 system.
Let's take an example. Out of randomness, I chose Akiko Suzuki's SP from last year's Grand Prix Final, available at http://www.isuresults.com/results/gp..._SP_Scores.pdf.
What's reported to the public is the following:
It's short and sweet, but hardly insightful and not that viewer-friendly. They would need to delve into the protocols (how many people actually do) to make sense of it all. Instead, my proposed 10.00 system turns the marks into this:
Base Value 7.1
TES 7.9 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.5 8.1 7.7 8.0 7.6
PES 7.8 6.9 7.3 7.9 7.4 7.6 7.1 8.0 7.5
Figure skating audiences understand the scaled 10.0-scale system instinctively, and this makes each judges' mark extremely clear. We may not know the names of each judge, but we can clearly see if there's bias in the marks, particularly between Judge 2 who gave a 6.9 in PES and Judge 8 who gave a 8.0 in PES.
I imagine that all the TES and PES marks to be said aloud, whereas the base value and total are shown but not said. This can certainly be revised.
The total score mark has been left untouched, because ultimately that's what determines the placement of each skater at the most precise level.
How it's done:
To make this system work, there needs to be a set standard for the highest score. The world record for the technical mark in the ladies short program is a 44.70, set by Yuna Kim at the 2010 Olympics. Since we haven't seen a technical score like that in a while (and to make this example easy), let's just say that the world record is a flat 40.00.
Essentially, all that happens is that every mark is scaled to this world record. How this "world record" is chosen can be debated, but ultimately it doesn't matter as much, so long as it's relatively high.
First, let's take Judge 1 as an example, where we take the judge's GOE into full account on an individual basis:
The base value is 28.6. So in proportion to the 40.0 mark, the base value is reported as a 7.1.
Element Judge 1 GOE Points 3F+2T -1 -0.7 3Lz 0 0 FCSp4 2 +1 2A 1 +0.5 CCoSp4 1 +0.5 SlSt3 2 +1 LSp4 2 +1 Total Points +3.3 Subtotal 31.9 (out of 40.0) Reported 7.9 (out of 10.0)
Taken on its own, Judge 1 would have given Akiko Suzuki a 31.9 in TES. So in proportion to the 40.00 scale, that's a 7.9 out of 10.
If a ladies skater receives a mark that's 40.0 or higher from a judge in the SP, then we see those shiny 10.0 marks shown. There's no mark higher than a 10.0 that's shown on screen or said aloud, even if the skater earns indeed a 10.3 on the scale.
However, this 10.3 still counts and exists in the background, ultimately effecting the Total Score. So just in case we have two skaters that earn a 10.0, the difference will still be reflected in what's reported.
Why use the 10.0 scale and not 6.0 scale?
The main reason is that the judges already use the 10.0 scale for PCS. Using a 6.0 scale to report it would be unnecessarily complicated. The 10.0 system also makes it look different from the original 6.0 system, to make it clear that we're not going back to that system (though of course the 10.0 scale has been used in professional skating).
So, whew! What do you guys and gals think?