Originally posted by tarnish I ended up watching this and was a little disappointed that they pretty much ended the show with, "Woah! That's never happened before. See you Monday!"
CBS radio said this morning that they will have a rematch. They didn't say if they get to take home their "winnings" or if they will just scratch Friday's show.
In short, he made the wager in an effort to cause a tie. Obviously, he needed to get the question right, as did the other two, so you really can't argue collusion.
Of interest is that some people say he showed "good sportsmanship," others claim he didn't. The reasoning is interesting. Some believe that "good sportsmanship" would be competing for a total win, because playing for a tie is somehow "cheapening" the game and everyone should always play to win outright (and assume that everyone else will do the same). Again, though, I submit it would be difficult to argue that he did not act in his own self-interest, and, further, to his maximal self-interest.
Some believe that he somehow "ripped off" those who were waiting as potential contestants for the next game. I think that's the worst kind of bullshit: a player in the game has no responsibility to a potential player outside the game (and the whole reasoning has suddenly made me rather aware of why right-wingers get frustrated with left-wingers over certain social issues ).
More interesting (to me, anyway) are the points about the connotations of bringing back the same opponents. Clearly, Scott could have won outright against those two opponents simply by betting an additional dollar. Is it a better strategy to bring back two people you've already proven you can beat? How significant is the chance that, given another chance with different categories and questions (i.e. no "all Irish related questions for the Jeopardy round"), that one of the others could beat him?
Originally posted by tarnishClearly, Scott could have won outright against those two opponents simply by betting an additional dollar. Is it a better strategy to bring back two people you've already proven you can beat?
Finally, somebody said it. Why NOT go with the devils you know? Besides, you come off as a nice guy, if things don't quite go your way Monday, maybe one of the other folks can return the favor and let YOU tie with THEM.
I am the type of competitive person that would rather be beaten to a pulp than have somebody just let me win anything. That said, if letting me win made me $16,000 richer, I would probably get over it pretty quick.
I think the show's producers will be OK with this as long as it is a one-time deal. However, if it gets to the point where the type of collusion that CRZ suggests (even if it is not a spoken agreement) starts to become commonplace, I would suspect that the producers would change the rules and either create a tiebreaker or not allow contestants to keep money until they have established themselves as an actual individual winner. I don't think Jeopardy is interested in seeing a lot of ties.
(edited by ges7184 on 17.3.07 1650) The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
I wouldn't worry about this making the next contestants miss their chance or have to wait. If it's like Wheel of Fortune and other games, they film so many of these in a day that those people simply wait for the next show taping, but just another 30 minutes or so for the next taping to start.
Originally posted by OliverWow...for something so rare to happen in a game show, Alex Trebek certainly was very, ummm...underwhelmed. Geez, Alex, show some emotion!
I wonder if it was because he felt the same way we did at Chez Tracker: The computer systems guy couldn't do the math right? He didn't accomplish a significant feat, he lost a win. He came back from behind in the first round to put himself clearly in the advantage for Final Jeopardy, and he pulled what amounts to a geek prank.
Learning later that the champ purposefully played for a tie may create a more kind response from Alex later. And honestly, if I was in the position to be on the show and find myself in his shoes, I might be tempted to wrangle the unique conclusion instead of going for the simple win. But only if I felt I could take those same jokers in the next game.
If I was either of the two challengers, I'd resent the situation. Even if they beat him the next game, they know they had that chance only because the champion toyed with them to create a tie. Scott didn't bet that he knew the right answer, he bet THEY knew the right answer. That doesn't seem like good-natured competition. That seems manipulative. And the majority of my game mind don't cotton to it.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Originally posted by Matt TrackerIf I was either of the two challengers, I'd resent the situation. Even if they beat him the next game, they know they had that chance only because the champion toyed with them to create a tie.
If someone toying with you earned you $14,000 or $15,000 more than you would have earned had they NOT toyed with you, I think you'd get over it pretty quickly.
"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!" -Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
Could Alex have known beforehand that the game was going to end in a tie? I assume somebody behind the scenes knows what's popping up on the Final Jeopardy board before everybody else. Otherwise, what's preventing somebody with a raunchy sense of humor to draw dirty pictures or curse words, thus messing up the taping? Couldn't somebody have told him "Hey, we've got a tie."
Originally posted by Matt TrackerIf I was either of the two challengers, I'd resent the situation.
Hell, I'd thank the guy for the $16,000. It sure beats the $5,000 for 2nd and the $3,000 for 3rd. And if I do beat him the next game, then I thank him again.
It's a game show. Who cares about the morality of it all? Something cool happened and the guy manipulated the game so it would happen. Sony's got plenty of money and the integrity of the game is still there (there aren't any rules against what he did). If anything, it gives a little ratings boost to Jeopardy and everybody forgets about it in two weeks.
Originally posted by Roy.Could Alex have known beforehand that the game was going to end in a tie? I assume somebody behind the scenes knows what's popping up on the Final Jeopardy board before everybody else. Otherwise, what's preventing somebody with a raunchy sense of humor to draw dirty pictures or curse words, thus messing up the taping?
Well, I'm guessing that they have something in the rules that anyone who does something like that doesn't get his money. Since even the last-place finisher gets a grand, I would say the risk is pretty low. They can always reshoot the ending if necessary. I think he just didn't react much because he was just concerned with wrapping things up.
I'm suprised at all of the controversy here. This is far from the first time where a Jeopardy champ has bet for the tie rather than the outright win; it's just the first time one has done it when there was a tie for second place. I don't think it's ever been considered a problem before. If anything, most considered it a nice gesture.
Well, he lost today. I think that's apropos. So he made the one guy $16,000, and the second guy at least $28,677. He did have a huge lead going into Final Jeopardy. He had $12,600, 2nd-place had $6900. He bet the $1200 that could have once again put him in a tie with the other guy. But two things kept that from happening: 2nd-place bet $5,777 instead of the full $6900, and secondly, 1st-place got the question wrong. 2nd-place guy won with $12,677, or two-day winnings of $28,677.
EDIT: Teapot, so he gets told something like "If Person A gets it correct, he wins. Otherwise, if A gets it wrong and Person B gets it correct, he wins...." That kind of thing?
So it is. Damn, dunno why I thought it was more. I guess that pays for, what, airfare and hotel and little else if you're coming from far away and get third place.
Originally posted by Mr. Boffo[S]o he gets told something like "If Person A gets it correct, he wins. Otherwise, if A gets it wrong and Person B gets it correct, he wins...." That kind of thing?
What's the rule on correct spelling in final jeopardy? Alex commented that the winner last night misspelled his correct answer, but it wasn't held against him. I could swear I've seen other misspellings disqualify an answer in that round.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Originally posted by Matt TrackerWhat's the rule on correct spelling in final jeopardy? Alex commented that the winner last night misspelled his correct answer, but it wasn't held against him. I could swear I've seen other misspellings disqualify an answer in that round.
If the misspelling changes the pronunciation of the response, then it is marked incorrect. The archetypal example is "Vilnuis" instead of "Vilnius". In the case of 3/19, the guy misspelled "Alan Shepard" as "Alan Shepherd" (a common mispelling). Since the pronunciation is the same between the two, there was no problem.
Thread ahead: American Idol 3.20.07 Top 11 "British Invasion Night" Next thread: Lost 3-12 - Par Avion Previous thread: Do they REALLY not know what's in each case?
It's great, just like Bender! Of all things, I'm absolutely astonished at how much continuity there was scattered throughout the movie. There were so many moments where I just pointed at the screen and recalled a piece of the old series.