PDA

View Full Version : 3rd Semi-Final?



dizzydjc
9th June 2012, 22:44
OK, bare with me...I've been doing some thinking theoretically...

So, let's say in 2013 there are 45 countries participating in Sweden, which is looking more and more likely I have to say. Now, this year there was a lot of hoo-ha about countries that maybe should have qualified but didn't (Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland & Finland to name but a few...) so I have come up with a theory.

3 semi-finals!

Now before you all start saying well that wouldn't work, because of money issues that the broadcasters would have to pay etc etc but when it comes down to it I think it could work and could work well.

It was announced in the EBU conference in Baku that they were looking at cutting down the number of rehearsals that they have each year, so what if they only needed one dress (jury) rehearsal and 2 x normal rehearsals for each act. Sufficient enough? I think so. The show rehearsal (minus the participants but maybe just the props) could be put into another rehearsal before the dress ones. You following so far? So anyway, let's say the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are the days of the semi finals. The jury rehearsal being on the day of the semi final itself also. Monday and Friday would be the show rehearsal for the props, presenters and interval acts etc for all semi finals and the final. The Saturday also having the jury rehearsal and final on the same day.

So that's that bit covered, now to the interesting part...

So, for instance sake there are 45 countries participating so we need to split them out. Imagining the Big 5 + host country stay in the final, that leaves 39. 39 / 3 = 13. Obviously some years there may be less countries, but as close to divided by 3 as can be anyway.

So, 13 countries in each semi final. Every country isn't obliged to broadcast every semi-final so only the countries that participate in each semi would be obliged to broadcast that semi. Also this applies to the Big 5 + host country that would be divided equally to each semi like they do at the moment.

From each semi, only a total of 6 can qualify. 6 X 3 = 18 plus the big 5 etc bringing it to 24. A nice number that doesn't let the final drag on too much (which I felt it did this year).

So how would this differentiate from the 2 semi finals that we have at the moment? Well, of course the countries would be split up fairly and equally from pots. What you will find though is the more semis that there are, less chance of neighbourly voting in a large amount of countries as these would hopefully be split up more and more. Take semi 2 from this year as example, a total of 5 ex-yu countries bundled into one semi. I don't want to get into an argument over politics etc but I think nobody can argue that there are cultural/neighbour votes going on here which I don't particularly have a problem with, until it knocks out other countries who are not part of these groups.

Also, it would mean more chances for different countries to qualify each year, without the fate of never qualifying in 8 years (spare a thought for the dutch). An example of this? Well, before 2008 there was no sign of Iceland qualifying, or Albania, Portugal, Belgium. You name it - having just the one semi final with all countries bundled together did not work at all, and I doubt even for a second that even if juries were included we would see much of a difference.

Anyway, something to think on of course. But i'm interested to hear your views on the matter. I personally think it would be a positive thing and would make things more exciting (for a die hard eurovision fan anyway) and more fair of course.

rajo
10th June 2012, 01:52
Two semi-finals are sufficient, in my opinion. Three would be much more expensive, in my opinion.

But the allocation of participating countries has to be reconsidered. I would suggest that the countries which were more successful in passing the finals in the past, should all go into one semifinal, and the countries who did poorly should also go into one semifinal. This would balance the chances in the first place.

Serbia, Ukraine, Bosnia-Herzegovina always qualified, Netherlands, Austria, Belgium qualified only once so far, and San Marino, Slovakia never!

Yamarus
10th June 2012, 02:02
A "chronic non-qualifiers" semi-final? Why not.

But you'd have to find 18 of them...

Belgium
Austria
Netherlands
San Marino
Latvia
Portugal
Slovakia
...

rajo
10th June 2012, 02:24
We have to acknowledge that 9 out of 10 qualifiers from both semis were also among the top 10 favourites according to past attempts. Only Georgia and Israel failed on this record.

So, given the updated records from 2004 to 2012, I would suggest we allocate the semifinals for 2013 as follows:

Semifinal of successful countries




1
Ukraine
100,00%


2
Bosnia and Herzegovina
100,00%


3
Serbia
100,00%


4
Greece
100,00%


5
Romania
100,00%


6
Russia
100,00%


7
Azerbaijan
100,00%


8
Turkey
88,89%


9
Moldova
87,50%


10
Armenia
83,33%


11
Georgia
80,00%


12
Norway
77,78%


13
FYR Macedonia
77,78%


14
Denmark
77,78%


15
Iceland
66,67%


16
Albania
66,67%


17
Hungary
66,67%


18
Ireland
66,67%



Semifinal of chronic losers:




1
Slovakia
0,00%


2
Montenegro
0,00%


3
San Marino
0,00%


4
Netherlands
11,11%


5
Poland
11,11%


6
Bulgaria
12,50%


7
Slovenia
22,22%


8
Belgium
22,22%


9
Belarus
25,00%


10
Croatia
33,33%


11
Estonia
33,33%


12
Switzerland
33,33%


13
Portugal
37,50%


14
Austria
40,00%


15
Latvia
44,44%


16
Finland
44,44%


17
Cyprus
44,44%



Israel, Lithuania and Malta are tied with 55,56% each, so they have to be split 1 to 2 to fill the open positions in both semis.

It's also interesting to note, that Finland is the only country who already won under the new regulations. But there would be seven winning countries in Semi-1.

rajo
10th June 2012, 03:06
I also would suggest that the Big 5 & host countries won't vote in the semifinals, because they also have certain voting routines which favours particular countries, e.g. UK, France, Germany give Turkey and Greece a welcome boost, Spain and Italy back Romania, Ukraine and Albania; and Sweden has a taste in its neighbours....

94ayd
10th June 2012, 09:20
and Sweden has a taste in its neighbours....

This year it was definitely proven to be true... xrofl3

I wouldn't mind 3 semis for them being better balanced in terms of regions but 13 countries (and less) in one semi, seems way too few. The most-frequent-qualifiers and least-frequent-qualifiers semis sound more promising. :)

sannerz
10th June 2012, 09:36
Didn't Serbia miss out on the final in 2009?

rajo
10th June 2012, 15:13
Not with the televoting! So I took away the jury impact in 2008 and 2009

A-lister
10th June 2012, 15:35
I think 3 semis would be too much, the last thing I want ESC to become is the mess MF or some other national selections with too many semis for its own good.

A-lister
10th June 2012, 15:37
I also would suggest that the Big 5 & host countries won't vote in the semifinals, because they also have certain voting routines which favours particular countries, e.g. UK, France, Germany give Turkey and Greece a welcome boost, Spain and Italy back Romania, Ukraine and Albania; and Sweden has a taste in its neighbours....

Well, I think they should vote, but I'm surprised they're not also divided into the 'voting-pattern pots', which I think they should be. Now they are just randomly chosen to vote in either semi, but they should vote based on voting-patterns imo, just like the rest competes/votes according to that.

A-lister
10th June 2012, 15:39
We have to acknowledge that 9 out of 10 qualifiers from both semis were also among the top 10 favourites according to past attempts. Only Georgia and Israel failed on this record.

So, given the updated records from 2004 to 2012, I would suggest we allocate the semifinals for 2013 as follows:

Semifinal of successful countries




1
Ukraine
100,00%


2
Bosnia and Herzegovina
100,00%


3
Serbia
100,00%


4
Greece
100,00%


5
Romania
100,00%


6
Russia
100,00%


7
Azerbaijan
88,89%


8
Turkey
87,50%


9
Moldova
83,33%


10
Armenia
80,00%


11
Georgia
80,00%


12
Norway
77,78%


13
FYR Macedonia
77,78%


14
Denmark
77,78%


15
Iceland
66,67%


16
Albania
66,67%


17
Hungary
66,67%


18
Ireland
66,67%



Semifinal of chronic losers:




1
Slovakia
0,00%


2
Montenegro
0,00%


3
San Marino
0,00%


4
Netherlands
11,11%


5
Poland
11,11%


6
Bulgaria
12,50%


7
Slovenia
22,22%


8
Belgium
22,22%


9
Belarus
25,00%


10
Croatia
33,33%


11
Estonia
33,33%


12
Switzerland
33,33%


13
Portugal
37,50%


14
Austria
40,00%


15
Latvia
44,44%


16
Finland
44,44%


17
Cyprus
44,44%



Israel, Lithuania and Malta are tied with 55,56% each, so they have to be split 1 to 2 to fill the open positions in both semis.

It's also interesting to note, that Finland is the only country who already won under the new regulations. But there would be seven winning countries in Semi-1.

I like this idea! It's probably a better solution than the current (I mean all ex-Yugo in one semi??? C'mon... it just shows that the current 'voting-pattern' system isn't really working.

They could make a new list like this every year though, so it won't be the exact same countries in the semis every year.

rajo
10th June 2012, 16:03
I just fixed the list because of some flaws in it.

Sweden would have to go through the tough semi in 2014, because it has a 80% success rate so far for qualifying.

Other countries like Czech Republic, Monaco and Andorra, who all have a perfect 0%, would be in the other semi, if they decided to come back one day.

I think this suggestion is really fair to everybody, but still not perfect. The price of qualifying is that you land up in the tougher semi maybe, where your chances are zero then.

And Semi 1 might be too tough for those countries who do not always qualify, like Lithuania, Norway or Malta. But also for Turkey, because their diaspora mainly resides in the countries who do not so well in Eurovision.

@ A-Lister: This list has to be updated every year of course. :) I did it myself after the semis, but I also have to say that I got 9 out of 10 quallifiers right this year because of these statistics. I even got Malta right!

AdelAdel
10th June 2012, 19:02
In my opinion, the semi-final thing isn't working like it should, the previous system (before 2004) was great, because each country was sure to take part at least every 2 years and now we have, for example, Netherlands not qualifying since then.

rajo
10th June 2012, 19:05
Good point, AdelAdel, but this system wouldn't work anymore. We're having too many countries right now in Eurovision, so every country can participate only every 2 years, because there is no place in the other year.

AdelAdel
10th June 2012, 19:13
So why not make like 35 countries in the final? When ESC began, there were about 10-12 countries, they increased it to 25 and stopped. 25-12=13. They added 13 slots, they could add 10 more.

rajo
10th June 2012, 19:24
35 would be too much in my opinion. The show would be too long, at least 2 hours longer. And the countries in the first half would be easily forgotten until the voting starts. That would be tiresome.

AdelAdel
10th June 2012, 19:28
I figured out you'd bring the length problem. I'd like to remind you that the show had been lenghtened by almost 2 hours since 1960s.

FilipFromSweden
10th June 2012, 19:39
3 semis are to much, even for a hardcore fan like me :(
Have you guys thought of that a semifinal since 2008 has never had more then 19 songs in it.. It feels like its the limit ^^ 20 and over = final. But 20 in one semi would be funny, just that soon we are up in numbers like 2007

rajo
10th June 2012, 20:46
I figured out you'd bring the length problem. I'd like to remind you that the show had been lenghtened by almost 2 hours since 1960s.


Yes, and I am fine with 3 hours. I don't want 5!

So, Baku would have seen at 5 AM in the morning....

GRE
11th June 2012, 10:28
Its my dream to have 3rd semifinal..!

Stargazer
11th June 2012, 15:16
I think three semi-finals is a bit too much, especially if it would mean that fewer songs qualify for the final. Instead, since we're already up to 26 songs in the final - why not make it 30 songs in the final and have 12 songs from each semi-final qualify. More spots in the final means more of our favorites going through to the final.

GRE
11th June 2012, 20:26
No we need less songs in the Final.
26 are too many.
If we have each year Big5+host=6 countries,and then 6 countries from each of each semi (3*6=18).
Total 24 countries.

AdelAdel
11th June 2012, 20:44
Ok, I got another idea - how about abandoning semi-finals are returning to the system from before 2004. Since now there are about 40 countries and 26 slots - only the big 5 and ESC winner would qualify to the next ESC, instead all the countries that didn't take part in the previous one would participate, 40-6=34. This would mean that 14 lowest-placed countries wouldn't be able to participate next year. This way we would come back to the system from before 2004, but in a more extreme way.

94ayd
11th June 2012, 20:52
I thought Eurovision was about sharing. And if we applied your system, it would take years for some countries to take part together. :(

rajo
11th June 2012, 21:07
If we had 46 countries in, then the lowest 20 are out, actually every country except for Big 5+winner, and two more who were not even in the contest. So: No, thanks!

AdelAdel
11th June 2012, 21:13
Fine, so let's go back to one of my earliest ideas - abandon televoting, jury will have 100% vote. And don't complain about EBU losing money that way, ESC had no televoting until 1998 and the contest didn't bankrupt.

rajo
13th June 2012, 01:04
I also think that televoting was a stupid idea. German broadcasters are not entitled to profit from the calls, so it is of no use at least in the biggest TV market.

But my point is that, televoting is absolutely flawed: We have massive votes from immigrants not votings objectively but solely based on their origins, or we have one nation two countries like Greece and Cyprus, who are also Greeks, or Serbia/Montenegro/Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Hercegovina, or Albania/Kosovo/FYROM, millions of Russians living in the Ex-SSR.

And we also have people like me, who may like a lot of songs, but who are reluctant to spend their money on voting, or who are not voting massively but only once.

Either we should abolish televoting, or we should reform it: one vote per song is fair enough!

Yamarus
13th June 2012, 10:04
I am not a fan of televoting either, to be honest. But there is no way we are going back to 100% jury, people would scream "unfair" and denounce the juries as corrupt.

That is why I am a reluctant proponent of the current 50/50 system. It is the lesser of all evils, even though it is far from perfect.

AdelAdel
13th June 2012, 16:01
I'm just wondering what conditions need to be fulfilled for Cyprus NOT giving 12 points to Greece and the other way round. Because, like we see, even with 50/50 voting it's not possible. Juries are the only way for that not to happen.

rajo
13th June 2012, 18:14
Well, we always expect juries to be fair and objective, but maybe they aren't.

AdelAdel
13th June 2012, 18:27
When there were only juries around, the Cyprus-Greece duo didn't give maximum notes to eachother that often, and there were even contests when they didn't give eachother any points.

Mickey
13th June 2012, 23:37
Whatever you think about bloc voting, phone votes are absolutely vital for the contest. Televoting gives ESC a link with the popular music of the day. It makes the show relevant.

Back in the 90s we got into a situation where we had a long procession of jury-pleasing big ballads. Everyone sent what they knew the juries liked and so there was much less variety. There was no need to make music that the public listen to. Songs that were big international hits (UK 1996 being the classic example) weren't good enough to win ESC. And that's never a good situation to find yourself in.

Going back to a relegation format is also a very bad idea. Countries that are forced to sit out a year often don't come back.

I'm not against the idea of a third semi, but only if we exceed the current capacity of 46 countries.

AdelAdel
13th June 2012, 23:46
Whatever you think about bloc voting, phone votes are absolutely vital for the contest. Televoting gives ESC a link with the popular music of the day. It makes the show relevant.

Back in the 90s we got into a situation where we had a long procession of jury-pleasing big ballads. Everyone sent what they knew the juries liked and so there was much less variety. There was no need to make music that the public listen to. Songs that were big international hits (UK 1996 being the classic example) weren't good enough to win ESC. And that's never a good situation to find yourself in.


You're right, both: Ireland 1992 & 1993 were extremely overrated, while being so damn simple and boring. More unique songs in those years got left out.

rajo
14th June 2012, 00:07
In the meanwhile juries also have a taste in up-tempo and contemporary songs.

My impression from the split televote and jury votes so far is, that even up-tempo songs scored better with juries than with the audience, like Cyprus, who has no friends except Greece. Or Austria got 7 points from Belgian jury in the Semi, but none from the public.

Of course, juries also go for strong voices, which typically go with ballads. But ballads without an exceptional voice, are just boring for both the audience as well as the juries.

I think that Chiara, Niamh Kavanagh or Linda Martin would suffer a defeat nowadays even with juries, since their voices are not really special.

AdelAdel
14th June 2012, 00:12
I think that Chiara, Niamh Kavanagh or Linda Martin would suffer a defeat nowadays even with juries, since their voices are not really special.

Chiara and Niamh Kavanagh represented their countries again some time ago with split 50/50 voting and they placed extremely low.

rajo
14th June 2012, 00:26
Oh, I guess I missed that, since my interest in Eurovision eroded by 2007

Matt
15th June 2012, 19:17
Not with the televoting! So I took away the jury impact in 2008 and 2009

Why? Then you should do the same for all the other years as well. If it wasn't for the juries Serbia wouldn't have qualified in 2011.

rajo
15th June 2012, 21:34
I'm not gonna do that. I'll stick with the Top 10 of either televoting or combined voting. We don't know the rest of jury votes of 2008/2009, just their choices which eliminated the 10th place of televoting in 3 out of 4 ocassions.

I take the complete Top 10 of televoters instead in those years.