I don't think that having the match turn on one game is that good of TV, either. Even as a youngster, I noticed that a 1000-1000 tie on Hollywood Squares meant that one person won two games to the other's one. Sure, it's exciting to have the game hinge on a single question, but it's counterintuitive. The one guy won two games, and yet he's going home. That's my beef. I thought it was stupid then, I think it's stupid now. I don't see how that disqualifies me from a career in the industry any more than the fact that I'm 2,000 miles away from LA does. A producer that thinks outside the box could come up with a happy medium. Sometimes you can't work around that. The ninth guy to get called on down will not have as many chances as the first four. Sometimes the Big Wheel is capricious, and the showcase is full of furniture. TPIR is never going to be close to fair, and that's OK. A Jeopardy! contestant could be rolling along, while another person gets one right, bets big on a Daily Double, and it's now a ball game. Nature of the beast, there. I don't think that's necessary for "Card Sharks," though I concede that it's less bothersome because the whole game is revolved around the luck of the cards.
I was merely voicing my displeasure with the idea that the stakes must march up the scale every game. If you're going to do that, go whole hog and make the first game worth $100, and re-double it every time. That way you're guaranteed that whoever wins the last game goes to the Money Cards, and that's exciting because either player can win that last game. Or make a total mockery of the whole thing like "The Cheap Show" did, and have the first two rounds worth $100, and all rounds after that worth $2000.
Personally, I don't understand why producers are so against the idea that games can continue through to the next show anyway. "Card Sharks" was at its best in the original NBC incarnation, I'm merely trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. ANY results are going to be unsatisfactory.
