I could give an argument of Match Up being a necessity for this version... look no further than Match Game 98. That version had all celebs playing both rounds, but with a broken scoring system. Never mind that later in the run, with Pearson, that owned Goodson productions at the time, insisted on a LOT of matching, thus questions in the later part of the run usually only had ONE very obvious answer, and no other possible answers, and even worse, very obvious efforts by the panel to be sure they all had the same answer... it looked like a group of students cheating on the test without a teacher around... I think once, Nell wrote the same answer on multiple cards and passed them along! For me it made the game less fun knowing everyone would have the same answer.

With the scoring on MG 98, and the nature of the questions, either you would match everyone or nobody... there was no room for error. You had to match each celeb twice, whereas in the 70s run, you only needed to match each celeb once. Match Up would've made this version as well as MG 90 a more fair way to compensate for any matches you didn't make in the other rounds.

I don't think this would actually save any time, but I just watched one of the specials from 1986 and was fascinated by the choice of transitioning from the 3rd game of the half straight into the Showcase Showdown without a break.

Contestant #1 bids on the showcase. Contestant #2 guesses whether the ARP is higher or lower than that bid.  If #2 is right, he wins the showcase. Otherwise #1 wins it (see Card Sharks).

However, that guarantees that the showcase will be won each episode. I'm sure CBS/Fremantle likes to see the occasional Double Overbid to keep the budget in check -- much like how their budget loves when a contestant selects the least expensive Big Deal door on LMAD.

I think the easiest way to save time is one showcase with both players locking in secret bids.  That would save four or five minutes, at least.  Editing out/down the hemming and hawing while listening to 180 different bids from 180 audience members saves time too.  Within $250 doesn't win both showcases, obviously, so the bonus could be $25,000, a car, or some combination of cash and transport.

Easy fixes all around for a two player showcase. If by some chance they both bid and they're under, stop tape and have them rebid while telling them they're under. I like cash equivalent to make up for no DSW.

Contestant #1 bids on the showcase. Contestant #2 guesses whether the ARP is higher or lower than that bid.  If #2 is right, he wins the showcase. Otherwise #1 wins it (see Card Sharks).

Only thing is, it's a big difference between guessing Higher/Lower for control of the row of cards, and guessing H/L for a chance at $20K+ in prizes. Way too little work for such a grand prize, esp. when someone obviously over/underbids by a lot.

I actually liked Kevin's idea of letting both contestants get their Showcase if there's a tie, but Mike makes a good point. How about a "DIY" Showcase where you're shown no more than four items. Each contestant can pick two or three and bid on that, under the condition that they can't pick the same three items. Whoever's closer wins.

You still only have four items described, and through editing magic the contestants make their "choices" by the time George finishes describing everything. "Jennifer, you're bidding on the Kia Soul, a trip to Rome, and a new camera. Robert, you chose the Kia, the camera, and the Macbook Pro. Lock in your bids and we'll be right back..."