Your two favorite/two least favorite Family Feud formats?

[Long live Jeopardy]

Of all the main game formats Family Feud has used over the years, what do you think were the two best/two worst formats?

My two favorites were:

1. The original 200-point format (used from 1976-78): Two singles, then the doubles, and if your family won the first three rounds, you should reach 200 points easily.

2. The Bullseye/Bankroll format (used from 1992-95 and 2009-10): One single, one double, then the triples, so again, if your family won the first three rounds, you should reach 300 points easily.

My two least favorites:

1. The 400-point format (used from 1984-85): Four singles, one double, then the triples. There were several episodes where it would take forever to decide the winner.

2. The four rounds only format (used from 1999-2003): Three singles, then the triple. The game must be decided on the fourth round. Need I say more?

[chrisholland03]

I have one favorite:

1) The 300 point Dawson version - it had the right pacing to let the gameplay and questions unfold

My three least favorites:

999,999) The Bullseye game in general, and especially the hour long tournament version- the pacing in the main rounds was significantly disrupted and the Bullseye round felt like filler with no payoff

999,998) The single strike last round version

999,997) The 400 point Dawson version

All 3 of these took something away from the organic interaction between families and host in order to put additional focus on the game.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I specifically liked Combs' single-single-double-triple format, both because it made earlier rounds somewhat important and because he was skilled enough at pacing to fit the program into a half hour whether they played 3 rounds or 5.

[BrandonFG]

Dunno if I have a favorite per se, but the 1-1-1-3 one strike format never sat well with me because of the obvious scoring flaw. I do like the idea of one strike, just not the scoring.

I liked the chrome of Bullseye, but it definitely dragged the show down IMO.

[Ian Wallis]

Dawson 300-point rule seemed to work the best.

Least favorite:  as others have said - single, single, single, triple (one strike).

[JasonA1]

The least favorite half is a landslide, clearly.

My favorite overall scoring structure was S-S-S-D-T to 300, because you always got 4 main game questions, and the 5th, when played, was almost always the decider with Richard or Ray in hurry-up offense. Most games with this structure are essentially "who wins the first 2-out-of-3 and can pass 300 on the double question?"

But also, having a family roar back from 0 points to win the game vis a vis the last two questions was more than fair enough for me.

-Jason

[TLEberle]

This might be my hot take: I think the one strike round is fine, though Fremantle managed to take something intriguing and turned it into the $500 question from Family Secrets. Play at double value for question three, then the Danger-esque triple value for round four and five and take a speed-up signal from the floor director and a team who wins in three rounds gets two bites at the Fast Money.

I would have quite liked it if the daytime show had stuck with the notion that a game ends when it does and you play double dollars for every question after two, and games can stretch across days or weeks. Of course you can't really do that at night in the era of cassette mailing.

I like the concept of Bullseye as a way to make the bonus round worth a different amount every day, but I also think that Bert's Family Feud did that well enough. Plus they had the secret answer worth instant cash. I really don't need six or seven questions to enjoy a game of Family Feud when the last two are played at hyper-speed. Years ago when I hosted the Feud I stacked a game as double stakes for questions two and three, and treble stakes for four, five a. Question six was worth 297 points and had a single answer to reveal. I think I stuck to 300 points and question one at standard value was to allow teams a chance to play the game before the excrement became non-fictional.

[SRIV94]

I have one favorite:

1) The 300 point Dawson version - it had the right pacing to let the gameplay and questions unfold

That's my favorite too, since it fixes (sometimes) the main flaw of the 200-point game--the fifth family members almost never got to play a face-off (since usually someone would get to 200 before then).

Since the "Bullseye" format never cleared in Chicago (we only got the second half-hour), I can't speak to how bad it was, but it certainly sounds like a trainwreck.  Then again, I'm one of the few who never found Combs all that engaging.

[KrisW73]

The 300 point Dawson was my favorite (and IMO perfect) version.

[aaron sica]

Echoing what a lot of others said....My favorite was the 300-point as well. Least favorite was probably the 400 point round. By this point, the game just felt too rushed (right down to the quick strike sound and visual).

Second favorite would probably be the "Family Feud Challenge/New Family Feud" era. I liked the fact that FFC was put together such that a half-hour version could stand alone.

[Chelsea Thrasher]

My favorite part of Feud tends to be the extracurriculars and the host/contestants chewing up the scenery, so I tend to prefer the formats that left the most time to kill. 

Favorite's the original Dawson format from 1976-79. First to 200, Single x2, Double thereafter. For a five player team it also meant you could bring along someone slower who you still want on the team but don't want having to play a high-leverage face off. It also meant tons of time to kill, which usually led to a lot of fun - there's a reason a lot of the show's most interesting moments come from the first three years.

Second: Bert's Family Feud, Australia (2006-07).  Single, Single, Double, then faceoff Triple, first to 200 wins.  Mostly the same as the above, and really appreciated it as an improvement on what the US syndicated version tried to do its first few years (making R3 double, 200 instead of 300)

Least Two: The 400 point format by a country mile, with the Dawson '94 format coming in second. Dawson '94 was everything bad about the Combs era Bullseye format, but worse (Fewer 'Bankroll' questions causing odd bank amounts, a starting bank of $2500 in the front round, Entirely too much game for a slowing Richard).

[TimK2003]

My favorite part of Feud tends to be the extracurriculars and the host/contestants chewing up the scenery, so I tend to prefer the formats that left the most time to kill. 

Favorite's the original Dawson format from 1976-79. First to 200, Single x2, Double thereafter. For a five player team it also meant you could bring along someone slower who you still want on the team but don't want having to play a high-leverage face off. It also meant tons of time to kill, which usually led to a lot of fun - there's a reason a lot of the show's most interesting moments come from the first three years.

Second: Bert's Family Feud, Australia (2006-07).  Single, Single, Double, then faceoff Triple, first to 200 wins.  Mostly the same as the above, and really appreciated it as an improvement on what the US syndicated version tried to do its first few years (making R3 double, 200 instead of 300)

Least Two: The 400 point format by a country mile, with the Dawson '94 format coming in second. Dawson '94 was everything bad about the Combs era Bullseye format, but worse (Fewer 'Bankroll' questions causing odd bank amounts, a starting bank of $2500 in the front round, Entirely too much game for a slowing Richard).

Add me into the "Dawson 300" as my fave.  And, like Chelsea, one of my least favorite formats was the Dawson '94 version -- more so because they only had 4 family members per team instead of the usual 5.  This was when people started to overhaul successful games which didn't need overhauling (see: Game, Match '98)

[Kevin Prather]

I'll actually go for a super hot take. My least favorite scoring format is the current one. First team to 300 wins ... unless nobody gets there in four rounds, in which case the entire game is thrown out and the winner is decided by one face-off. I dislike that more than the Louie format. At least then the team with the most points was the winner.

[TLEberle]

I think that’s a not take—the thing is if Feud is played to a goal there will always be one question to decide it. Playing to a time limit would certainly introduce different issues.

Maybe an advantage round where they trailing team has to win two such questions would make the earlier rounds more relevant.

[Stackertosh]

I like the 300-point Dawson version.

My least favorite was the Bullseye/Bankroll especially on the John O'hurley version after the Bullseye and the prerecorded intro the game felt rushed