The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Timsterino on July 22, 2003, 01:33:49 PM
-
The story is on Steve Beverly's website. Champions are no longer limited to a five day run. They can remain champion as long as they keep winning. Should be interesting.
Tim :-)
-
Wow, now it'll get interesting! I am guessing they wont be getting cars anymore though.
-
Something tells me any contestant application with the name \"Thom McKee\" at the top will be expedited.
-
This isn't nearly as big a change as it seems at first sight. 5-day champions seldom happen on Jeopardy! anyway, and I'm curious to see how long we have to wait for this rule to actually matter and have somebody win SIX games in a row. My guess is we shouldn't hold our breath.
-
Press Release at TVBarn (http://\"http://www.tvbarn.com/ticker/archives/013472.html\")
I like the idea, but does that mean that there's no winnings ceiling too? The press release leans towards \"yes.\"
Clarence
-
I wonder who Steve stole that from. :P
Seriously, this could get interesting.
-
Game shows where people can appear for unlimited shows have gone the way of 8-track tapes in the last couple of decades(Maury's Twenty-One being the only exception in the last decade), it's nice to see J! bring the \"unlimited appearance\" rule into effect, though someone winning more than five games will indeed be uncommon.
Perhaps WOF, Feud, or Squares will try that someday :)
-
I am definitely all for the B&E mentality that \"the sky's the limit.\" Though five day winners are already uncommon, at least when we see some that do go that far, we get to see how good they really are. To answer an earlier post, that also means that there is no winnings cap as well.
The only downside I see to this is how it will affect the format of the Tournament of Champions.
The Inquisitive One
-
For criteria in determining who plays in the TofC, they'll probably take the champs winning the most games, and then use cash winnings as a criteria to break ties in number of games won.
-
On a sort of related note, does anyone else think that the Final Jeopardy questions have gotten harder recently -- either subjectively in terms of \"Gee, that's tough!\" or objectively in terms of how many players get the question wrong? I hadn't watched Jeopardy! in a long time, and when I started tuning in again it seemed like 2 or 3 people were getting the question wrong each day instead of 2 or three getting it right.
Harder FJs would, I imagine, limit insanely long reigns in the new format by making the day's leader less likely to go on and win the day.
Mike
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jul 22 2003, 07:25 PM\'] For criteria in determining who plays in the TofC, they'll probably take the champs winning the most games, and then use cash winnings as a criteria to break ties in number of games won. [/quote]
It would not surprise me to see the ToC end with this new rule, just because Harry Friedman seems to, in his WoF changes, be moving towards gearing the show towards an attention span that doesn't even last day-to-day (And, yes, I know this move seems to counter that, but I have my doubts as to whether he's confident enough in even the J! viewer to remember one season to the next). I see its purpose, to an extent, as allowing those people who were limited in their run by the 5-show rule to play on, and ending any cap on appearances eliminates that reason for its existance. That being said, I quite like having a ToC, because it elevates the play to an entirely different level, and that's an as good, if not a better, reason to keep it than rewarding 5-time champions is for dumping it. Now, if I were Harry (I'm not,) and I were keeping the ToC, I'd like to see qualification move to highest cash totals instead of longest stay. People who are fast on the button and wager big, seem to, in my observation, have shorter tenures because they don't give themselves margins for error, but this, in the context of each individual show, tends to make things more exciting. In other words, I'd rather see the 3-day champion who makes $120,000 than the 10-day champion who makes $100,000.
Now, the press conference alluded to \"many [other] exciting changes throughout the upcoming season.\" Any guesses as to what those are?
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 12:02 AM\']Now, the press conference alluded to \"many [other] exciting changes throughout the upcoming season.\" Any guesses as to what those are?[/quote]
The Clue Crew sub-hosts for a week!
Wow, I just scared myself.
I hope they try some interesting things with the categories. This past year, it seems like every round (J! or DJ!) had to have a \"Starts With This Letter\" category. I want Before and After In Other Words! I want Opera Spelling!
-
[quote name=\'Timsterino\' date=\'Jul 22 2003, 12:33 PM\'] The story is on Steve Beverly's website. Champions are no longer limited to a five day run. They can remain champion as long as they keep winning. Should be interesting.
Tim :-) [/quote]
One more gimmick from Sony to attempt to keep the viewers tuned in.
Pathetic, at best.
-
Pathetic, at best.
Pathetic? Certainly we've seen worse.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 04:47 AM\']One more gimmick from Sony to attempt to keep the viewers tuned in.
Pathetic, at best.[/quote]
I'll take it over the Clue Crew and that clutter of shapes they call a \"set\" anyday. Sorry it reminds me of \"Quicksilver,\" which means it does nothing for me.
-
this may be a stupid question, but at one point, wasn't there some sort of rule/law regarding a 5-time limit in game shows? I thought it came into affect after the Van Doren incident.
-
I don't recall the limit on number of wins ever being a certified law. After the scandals, Concentration had a 20 game limit, and that's more than 5(only one person won the 20 games). Other shows had other limits on number of wins or on the amount a player could take home.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 11:23 AM\'] Concentration had a 20 game limit, and that's more than 5 [/quote]
Are you sure, really - is 20 more than 5??
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 09:16 AM\'] this may be a stupid question, but at one point, wasn't there some sort of rule/law regarding a 5-time limit in game shows? I thought it came into affect after the Van Doren incident. [/quote]
Yeah, it's a stupid question. (See McKee, Thom)
-
If a contestent lasts five or more days do you still think they will get to choose a car?
-
[quote name=\'combsisthebest\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 10:39 PM\'] If a contestent lasts five or more days do you still think they will get to choose a car? [/quote]
No.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 12:58 PM\'] [quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 09:16 AM\'] this may be a stupid question, but at one point, wasn't there some sort of rule/law regarding a 5-time limit in game shows? I thought it came into affect after the Van Doren incident. [/quote]
Yeah, it's a stupid question. (See McKee, Thom) [/quote]
That's it. I'm callin' ya out on this one. Tell me why it's so stupid. Is it really that unlikely? Talk to me.
-
Well, in the first place, you seem pretty upset considering all Chris did was agree with your own assessment that you may have asked a stupid question. I doubt very seriously that he would have used the word \"stupid\" had you not specifically offered it.
His specific point was that Thom McKee became very famous as a game show contestant who stayed on his show for a long time. Closer to the \"Van Doren incident\", it's already been discussed that Concentration had a twenty-game limit, which would have taken much more than five days to get through. (Partly because, as it's been explained to me, 20 is more than 5...) And if Bill Cullen's TPIR had a limit for returning champions I'm not sure I ever heard about it (not that it was all that likely that a player would rack up too many consecutive appearances).
Networks established various total-earnings limits, in large part due to the scandals, but the choice to limit returning champions -- or even to HAVE returning champions -- was left to the individual show.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jul 24 2003, 06:48 PM\'] Closer to the \"Van Doren incident\", it's already been discussed that Concentration had a twenty-game limit, which would have taken much more than five days to get through. (Partly because, as it's been explained to me, 20 is more than 5...)[/quote]
That was discussed after i posted my question.
And if Bill Cullen's TPIR had a limit for returning champions I'm not sure I ever heard about it (not that it was all that likely that a player would rack up too many consecutive appearances).
There is no way I could've known that, since i wasn't alive in the 1960s.
Networks established various total-earnings limits, in large part due to the scandals, but the choice to limit returning champions -- or even to HAVE returning champions -- was left to the individual show.
That's what i kind of figured. That's why I posted the \"stupid question\" disclaimer. But it really drives me up the wall when people say my question is stupid, and don't back it up clearly.
-
(Matt Ottinger @ Jul 24 2003, 06:48 PM)
Closer to the \"Van Doren incident\", it's already been discussed that Concentration had a twenty-game limit, which would have taken much more than five days to get through. (Partly because, as it's been explained to me, 20 is more than 5...)
That was discussed after i posted my question.
True.
And if Bill Cullen's TPIR had a limit for returning champions I'm not sure I ever heard about it (not that it was all that likely that a player would rack up too many consecutive appearances).
There is no way I could've known that, since i wasn't alive in the 1960s.
You could've known that because I knew that. You just didn't, which is fine.
Networks established various total-earnings limits, in large part due to the scandals, but the choice to limit returning champions -- or even to HAVE returning champions -- was left to the individual show.
That's what i kind of figured. That's why I posted the \"stupid question\" disclaimer. But it really drives me up the wall when people say my question is stupid, and don't back it up clearly.
Then don't call your own question stupid. If you didn't know it, you didn't know it. There's nothing wrong with that. Don't give people fodder.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 24 2003, 06:17 PM\'] That's what i kind of figured. That's why I posted the "stupid question" disclaimer. But it really drives me up the wall when people say my question is stupid, and don't back it up clearly. [/quote]
You asked if it was stupid. I answered. I THEN backed it up by citing Thom McKee as an example, and really, the most blatant one. The REASON I didn't say more, frankly, is because I didn't feel I should have to; not knowing who Thom McKee is, in the context of this group, is roughly akin to going into a baseball group and asking \"What did Babe Ruth ever do that was so friggin' important?\"
So if you don't want people saying your questions are stupid, you have two options:
1) Don't ask stupid questions.
2) If you insist on continuing (1), at least PRETEND to think it's a legitimate question, because we'll be more than happy to help you figure it out if you're not sure.
-
ok. deal.
-
[quote name=\'reason1024\' date=\'Jul 22 2003, 10:22 PM\']Harder FJs would, I imagine, limit insanely long reigns in the new format by making the day's leader less likely to go on and win the day.[/quote]
On the contrary - wouldn't the better players be more likely to get obscure FJs correct? FJs should be easier if you want to prevent long runs. For example, who would be more likely to know that there was no US Vice-President in 1964?
-- Don
-
Relating to this topic, I have heard that the participants in the next Tournament of Champions will be determined by how many days he or she has reigned as champion.
For some reason, I still see a flaw in this schematic.
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Jul 25 2003, 09:23 PM\'] Relating to this topic, I have heard that the participants in the next Tournament of Champions will be determined by how many days he or she has reigned as champion.
For some reason, I still see a flaw in this schematic. [/quote]
Well... elaborate.
Brandon Brooks
-
On the contrary - wouldn't the better players be more likely to get obscure FJs correct? FJs should be easier if you want to prevent long runs. For example, who would be more likely to know that there was no US Vice-President in 1964?
I guess we'll find out :) My reasoning was that easier FJs will mean just about everyone doubles up, and the leader after Double Jeopardy will triumph. Since returning champions have already demonstrated they are smart and good on the buzzer, and continue to refine their timing against \"cold\" opponents, they'll probably be comfortably ahead at that point. Success succeeds.
While a better player probably ought to be able to get harder FJs correct, all it takes is one \"bad break\" to end a reign -- a really hard answer that a trailing player just happens to get the right question to through a fluke. (\"Hey! I know that one! My college roommate was Etruscan!\") -- or a lucky gambit with a low wager by an opponent where everyone misses.
Your only defense against a bad break in FJ is to make sure that you've doubled up on your opponent. Harder questions make those bad breaks more likely, IMHO.
There's probably always been enough factors with the Daily Doubles all along, and the cream has usually risen to the top in the past. Although, I've got to say that it seems like the Daily Doubles have gotten more dangerous too.
I know there's gotta be SOMEONE out there keeping track of this stuff... any idea anyone?
Cheers,
Mike / reason
-
Well... elaborate.
I will be glad to, Mr. Brooks. Let us say that the show hits a drought of 5+ game winners. There are more than 10 people who win the same amount of games (say, three games) and have won (on average) $45,000. Now, there are about five or more people who have been on for two days and took the show for an average of $60,000. Some of the $60,000 champions will be shafted out of a spot in the T of C because they were not there for enough days. (I know that this sounds like an extreme case, but this is possible.)
My point is that bigger money winners over shorter periods of time can get screwed out of a shot at a quarter million dollars.
The Inquisitive One
(Again, my reasoning can be wrong, so please feel free to clarify.)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Jul 25 2003, 11:39 PM\'] I will be glad to, Mr. Brooks. Let us say that the show hits a drought of 5+ game winners. There are more than 10 people who win the same amount of games (say, three games) and have won (on average) $45,000. Now, there are about five or more people who have been on for two days and took the show for an average of $60,000. Some of the $60,000 champions will be shafted out of a spot in the T of C because they were not there for enough days. (I know that this sounds like an extreme case, but this is possible.)
My point is that bigger money winners over shorter periods of time can get screwed out of a shot at a quarter million dollars.
The Inquisitive One
(Again, my reasoning can be wrong, so please feel free to clarify.) [/quote]
Valid point. But in terms of Jeopardy!, I see it a bigger feat to win more days earning less money than to win few games and get more money. (No offense to Myron; winning $50K in one day on J! takes plenty of skill, indeed.) You can get lucky on a wager on a category you know everything about. But it is less likely that you'll be \"lucky\" through out an entire game. Therefore, I think that lasting longer is better way of measurement... uh, I didn't mean that. You know what I mean.
Brandon Brooks
-
The thing that amazes me about the latest Tournament of Champions qualification discussion is that this is somehow new.
The first overriding qualification has always been the number of wins. That's why there were four-time champs invited this last go-round, it's why news of a three-time champ qualifying is always fodder for discussion.
This is not a radical departure from what they've done for the last 20 years. They'll take the champions with the longest streak of wins first, and if there is a tie for the last spot, they'll break it by dollar amount. Is this really earth-shattering?
Ben T.
-
Is this really earth-shattering?
No, more like an aftershock, but I still think it was worthy of discussion. After all, once they've made a radical change like eliminating the undefeated champion, I don't think you can assume that other rules will automatically stay the same just because that's the way they've always done it.
In this case specifically, one of the reasons for the change seems to be so that they can have people win lots more money. If bragging about large amounts of money is an important factor for them, then it seems valid to wonder whether \"total earnings\" would replace \"games won\" as the determinant.
-
One, admittedly rare, thing that will change somewhat just came to mind: four-day champions betting to tie in their fifth FJ!