ICCA tournament structure
In Measure for Measure, A Cappella Blog contributor takes a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella. Please note that the views expressed by columnists do not necessarily represent those of The ACB as an organization, nor do they necessarily represent the view of individual columnists. The purpose of this piece is to explore issues and further civil, intellectual debate.
This week's topic: The current ICCA structure, in which the top two groups from each quarterfinal advance to the semis, and the winners of each semifinal go on to finals is the best structure possible for the ICCAs as they exist now.
True: The current structure of the ICCAs makes a lot of sense. It’s only natural that the champion of each quarterfinal should go on to the second round of the competition. Given how close these quarterfinals can be, and how subjective the judging for a competition can be, it makes perfect sense that the second place group from each quarterfinal should get to advance too. Permitting two groups to advance also gives groups a second chance—if a performance doesn’t go off quite as well as it should have, costing a group what would have been a victory, resulting in just a second place finish, it gives them their due opportunity to get it right a second time.
In addition, a semifinal show should be bigger and better than a quarterfinal. With that in mind, it’s a great thing that most semifinals feature eight groups—a greater number than most quarterfinals, and featuring greater quality among those eight groups. As spectators and participants can attest, these semifinals are truly spectacles to behold.
Moving onto the finals, it makes sense that only the top group from each region should advance. Given that it’s a joint show between high school and collegiate groups, having just six groups advance keeps the show lengthy, but manageable—rather than stretching to an unreasonably long event.
Taking all of this into account, there’s really no better way to structure the ICCAs.
False: The current structure for the ICCAs may not be bad, but there are certainly some alternative structures worth considering. Some groups have expressed their frustration with subjective rankings, suggesting that the objective pieces of the scoring should speak for themselves. With this in mind, why not satisfy both interests—let the quarterfinal champions advance as they ordinarily would, but have the other group to advance from each first round show be the remaining group with the highest objective scores.
Others may contend that too many groups make it to the semifinals, and as much as I am a fan, I can say that some eight-group shows, and the judging period that follows, have run a bit too long. There might be some value in tightening up, and letting only quarterfinal winners through to the second round.
For those who like big shows, it might seem to be a shame that only one group can advance from each semifinal. Letting two groups from each region go to the finals would make for a field of 12 competitors at the finals, which would, undeniably, be too large a number for that show. But what’s to prevent the ICCAs from letting one more elite group get through, as a wild card team of sorts? Similar to the alternative way of deciding who advances from the quarterfinals, the single highest objective scoring group from all of the semifinals might get a “wild card” spot in the finals. Taking subjective scores out of the equation, you can evaluate all of the remaining groups from the six regions on a level playing field, and since judging should, in theory, be consistent between the regions, this would be perfectly fair, and give one more group a chance to compete and entertain.
None of the alternatives are perfect, but it seems a bit dubious to say the current structure is the best possible. There’s always room for improvement.