This month saw just two perfect 10s, a sharp contrast to the 20 we had this time last year. NCAA judging seems to be undergoing a bit of a recalibration with the introduction of the SCOREBoard, a system designed to evaluate judges’ accuracy and consistency. Whether this initiative will have a long-term effect remains to be seen, but the presence of a secondary panel of judges appears to have already influenced scoring trends. While there may be fewer 10s this season, the hope is that they will reflect higher-quality performances than in recent years. As a reminder, I use the following scale to assess the quality of a 10.0 routine:
⭐ This was clearly not a 10.0 routine (but still very good!)
⭐⭐ There was definitely a deduction there, but maybe the judges blinked?
⭐⭐⭐ 10.0 vibes, but not actually perfect
⭐⭐⭐⭐ It was a “college 10”
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 100% a perfect routine
Jordan Chiles, UCLA (Jan. 18)
Deductions
Foot adjustment (-0.05)
Height (-0.05)
If you look closely, you can see Chiles’ left foot scoot back a tiny bit when she lands. There really was no way the judge on her right could have seen it, but the judge on the left could have if they were looking closely. The height deduction…
