Earlier this month, Jeopardy! home viewers finally got to see one of the show’s latest tweaks in action.
Contestants Laura McLean and Sarah Norris had each earned $6,799 at the end of the final round. Until 2016, they would have returned as co-champions, but now they had elicited the first use of a tiebreaker. The approach had previously only applied to tournament play, but was now officially a part of the regular version.
For what it’s worth, McLean, who had entered the March 1 episode in question as the returning champion, rang in and defended her title. But as Michael McGough wrote in the Sacramento Bee, the revelation met its share of pushback from fans.
“Some said it was ‘anticlimactic,’” McGough noted. “Others thought it was unfair that the winner could potentially be decided by whichever contestant’s hand was quickest to the buzzer.”
Of course, this was only everyone’s first impression of the tactic. But given the inherent rarity of a tie for first place at the end of Final Jeopardy!, the tiebreaker sample size will take time to grow.
Regardless of how they carried it out, the powers that be allowed for one inevitable plus point. By making room for only one repeat contestant in the March 2 episode, Jeopardy! sped up its revolving door. In turn, one more successful test-taker got on the air sooner, and a chain began accordingly.
That and other benefits could be derived and amplified if the program pursues any of these five fixes next.
Bring back the five-game cap
For the last 15 seasons, reigning Jeopardy! champions have played until they lost. Starting in September 2003, rather than (literally) drive away with a seamless 5-0 record, they could pursue Ripken-esque records.
Upon the program’s policy change, Ken Jennings wasted little time setting an astronomical bar. His record-setting tear of 74 victories aired over half of the year 2004.
The timing of Jennings’ run helped accelerate the thrill of the novel format. Since then, the nation has gotten to know likes of Julia Collins amidst similar thrill rides.
But Collins’ 20-game win streak, which is second to Jennings’ on the all-time leaderboard, came 10 years later. And it is not even one-third the length of the record run.
Ken Jennings was quick to capitalize on a new no-limit on Jeopardy! championship runs in 2004. But no one has mustered a run one-third as long as his in the 14 years since. (Photo by Ben Hider/Getty Images)
Jennings, Collins and others (to a lesser extent) will always have their rightful legacies as exceptional Jeopardy! contestants. With that said, the rule that begat their respective runs delayed or prevented as many as a combined 86 new faces’ turn in the spotlight.
These historic hot streaks are too few and far between to outweigh the cons of the 2003 switch. Moreover, the last 14 years are living proof of how virtually impossible it will be to surpass Jennings.
Go back to spreading the wealth a little more. This, incidentally, is already one of the potential benefits of bringing the tiebreaker to non-tournament games. And we can still get extra doses of the outstanding five-time winners in the Tournament of Champions.
Draw up rhyming-and-reasoning tournament fields
The aforementioned Tournament of Champions — along with its teen, teachers and college counterparts — carry no egregious flaws as they are. Nonetheless, there is no need to rest on one’s laurels when there are enhancements to explore.
For these tournaments, an extra measure of bragging rights is the key. In any of the four, geography would work as a basis for quarterfinal matchups. As an example, the contestants representing the three eastern-most hometowns could face off on Monday. The next three would follow them on Tuesday, continuing until a troika of Pacific Coasters (or something close to that) caps Week 1.
Depending on its spread of qualifiers, the College Championship could also form a bracket based on majors. Similarly, the Teachers Tournament can pit instructors of the same or similar subjects for its first five games.
Think of it as the NCAA conference finals before everyone conglomerates for the national tournament. That would be Week 2, when five automatic and four at-large bids continue their pursuit of the title.
Wheeling it in
For all of Jeopardy!’s advantages over its sister show, Wheel of Fortune — e.g. giving the Clue Crew more meaningful, dignified jobs than Vanna White — the latter program has one distinct perk. Anything the second- and third-place contestants earn, they take home, unless it falls below the guaranteed prize range.
Until 2002, a Jeopardy! silver medalist received an all-expense-paid vacation. Third prize was a new possession via a “promotional consideration” partner. A year-plus before the five-win limit was lifted, the show went to rigid $2,000 and $1,000 cash prizes for the first and second runners-up, respectively.
If it had not before, the problem with this approach surely came into clear view in the March 1, 2018 episode. McLean correctly answered the tiebreaker prompt, allowing her to return for her third game. As such, Norris’ actual payday plummeted by $4,799.
Where is the justice in that? McLean rightly earned an extension on her Jeopardy! tenure, and that distinction should have been victory enough. Just because Norris fell short in sudden death does not mean her regulation tie with McLean was somehow suddenly invalid.
It should be a $1,000 guarantee for every contestant, with every player raking in more if they eclipse that barrier. Period.
Release dropped Daily Doubles
Remember the Saturday Night Live parody of Celebrity Jeopardy! with Ben Stiller as Tom Cruise? When “Cruise” selects a Daily Double, he predictably botches the response. Adding to the absurdity, Sean Connery (Darrell Hammond) pounces on the rebound and offers an equally off-base guess.
Naturally, the added absurdity stems from the longtime policy of letting Daily Double clues evaporate once the first contestant answers. By definition, no one other than the selector can ring in.
But what would happen if the lucky contestant knew the clue was all theirs, but not for long if they cannot cultivate a correct response? Depending on how a game is unfolding, it could make for more compellingly meticulous wagers. It could add more weight to a given contestant’s quest to maintain or seize the lead, or to build or nullify an eventual runaway.
Just because the unlimited-championship-reign experiment fizzled does not mean others are not worth trying out. This would be a change worth testing in the name of added drama.
Relax the pronunciation particulars
No reasonable teacher deducts points from a test score when a student slightly misspells an accurate blank-filler. So why should host Alex Trebek bleed dollars from a contestant’s earnings plus precious seconds from the clock, with a Soary-but-you-added-an-S speech?
As long as generally learned audiences know what a contestant means, or even if they don’t on a more challenging clue, this petty policy has no place.
Leave a Reply