Crosswords Close to Sinking? Colbert Speaks.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'169031\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 04:32 PM\']Am I the only one who actually likes Crosswords and wonders why Cash Cab's Ben Bailey can get an Emmy nomination and yet MGC is circling the drain?[/quote]This should be the textbook definition of apples and oranges. There's really nothing that can better illustrate it.

[clanky06]

Another way of looking at the "last minute spoiler flaw" is that when a winner-to-be stumbles at the very end, a spoiler lucks out with the pot, rather than the "house" getting it. I too enjoy MGC both for the "play along at home" crossword clue solving, and the drama of the twists and turns. It might be "unfair," but it's not boring!

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clanky06\' post=\'169044\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 09:45 PM\']
Another way of looking at the "last minute spoiler flaw" is that when a winner-to-be stumbles at the very end, a spoiler lucks out with the pot, rather than the "house" getting it. I too enjoy MGC both for the "play along at home" crossword clue solving, and the drama of the twists and turns. It might be "unfair," but it's not boring!
[/quote]

You're right, that is another way of looking at it. Who cares if the house gets the pot? And the twists happen so often and are so arbitrary, it's no longer dramatic when they do. That makes it boring. The game doesn't build.

[Robert Hutchinson]

The last-second spoil is also only the most noticeable flaw of the game. You've got your vague clues that have a half-dozen reasonable answers, your incentive for a badly trailing player to intentionally miss a clue in order to become a spoiler, your wild variations in bonus round difficulty . . .

I'll still watch the show when it's on, mainly because the core gameplay can still be very entertaining, but I harbor no illusions about whether it's a good game.

[TimK2003]

Happened to stumble across the [url=http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1010000501/post/1690016969.html#comments]MGC Blog link as seen on the Broadcasting & Cable Website.[/url]

There are a few more entries to the 'sponsored blog', including an entry from Ty Treadway himself, as well as a few comments from others.

Overall, this public awareness campaign is....interesting.

[rebelwrest]

You know I've been thinking of a way to fix the show.  I'll throw my two cents in.  Why not create a strike system.  A spoiler must earn two check-marks with two correct answers in order to take one of the main players lecturn away.  However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes.  A player only gets a strike when he or she rings in and misses.  Also, the spoilers are there for the whole game until a point.  Finally, to get rid of a spoiler winning at the last second, a bell rings signifying only 2 minutes left in the game in which the spoilers are removed, and the two players in front play a rapid fire crosswords.  The person in the lead wins the game.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169495\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 08:05 AM\']
You know I've been thinking of a way to fix the show.  I'll throw my two cents in.  Why not create a strike system.  A spoiler must earn two check-marks with two correct answers in order to take one of the main players lecturn away.  However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes.  A player only gets a strike when he or she rings in and misses.  Also, the spoilers are there for the whole game until a point.  Finally, to get rid of a spoiler winning at the last second, a bell rings signifying only 2 minutes left in the game in which the spoilers are removed, and the two players in front play a rapid fire crosswords.  The person in the lead wins the game.
[/quote]
...and by the time you finish explaining all of this to your audience, the first question you'll be asking is "Can you come back tomorrow?"

Sadly, your contestants won't be able to hear it over the chirping of all of the crickets.

[rebelwrest]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169497\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 11:43 AM\']
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169495\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 08:05 AM\']
You know I've been thinking of a way to fix the show.  I'll throw my two cents in.  Why not create a strike system.  A spoiler must earn two check-marks with two correct answers in order to take one of the main players lecturn away.  However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes.  A player only gets a strike when he or she rings in and misses.  Also, the spoilers are there for the whole game until a point.  Finally, to get rid of a spoiler winning at the last second, a bell rings signifying only 2 minutes left in the game in which the spoilers are removed, and the two players in front play a rapid fire crosswords.  The person in the lead wins the game.
[/quote]
...and by the time you finish explaining all of this to your audience, the first question you'll be asking is "Can you come back tomorrow?"

Sadly, your contestants won't be able to hear it over the chirping of all of the crickets.
[/quote]

Lemon, do you really think that if implemented, my explanation will be quoted verbatim on the show.  Heck no, it would probably be said in bits and pieces throughout the show.  

Ty: Spoilers you can replace a contestant once you get two correct answers, but you can only replace a contestant who has guessed wrong twice.

Third part of show (last seqment of main game)
Ty:  Remember when the bell rings only the two people in front gets to continue on with the game.

After bell rings:
Ty: Spoilers, thanks for playing.  Now its time for rapid crosswords.  We'll go fast for two minutes.  The one of you with the most cash wins.  Good luck, starts the two minutes........Now.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169517\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 01:23 PM\']
Lemon, do you really think that if implemented, my explanation will be quoted verbatim on the show.  Heck no, it would probably be said in bits and pieces throughout the show.  
[/quote]
Not only wouldn't that be any easier to follow or take any less time, but broken up it easily could look to the viewer as though Ty's making it up as he goes along.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169517\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 10:23 AM\']
Lemon, do you really think that if implemented, my explanation will be quoted verbatim on the show.  Heck no, it would probably be said in bits and pieces throughout the show.[/quote]
My point is, it's STILL too complicated for the average simpleton TV viewer. I KNOW you can relate to that.

Plus your system has holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through: Let's say Front Player A misses, and Spoiler 2 gets it right. Then Front Player B misses, and Spoiler 2 gets that one right as well. You now have a Spoiler who has earned the right to step in...and no podium for him to step into. Brilliant, that.

So, to recap: it's too complicated AND broken. Please stay out of the TV production business.

[rebelwrest]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169519\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 01:39 PM\']
Plus your system has holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through: Let's say Front Player A misses, and Spoiler 2 gets it right. Then Front Player B misses, and Spoiler 2 gets that one right as well. You now have a Spoiler who has earned the right to step in...and no podium for him to step into. Brilliant, that.

So, to recap: it's too complicated AND broken. Please stay out of the TV production business.
[/quote]

In a situation when two players can be replaced, spoiler can choose who to replace, and I would like to know who decided that some gameplay is too complicated for the average american.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169526\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 02:46 PM\']
In a situation when two players can be replaced, spoiler can choose who to replace,
[/quote]
Except that you just said that

However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes.

and Chris specifically presented a (very likely) situation in which a spoiler earned the right to steal but neither player -- not both, as you state above, but neither -- can be replaced.

and I would like to know who decided that some gameplay is too complicated for the average american.

When you can't even follow your own description without getting confused, I'd say that "too complicated" is a good analysis.

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169526\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 02:46 PM\']
In a situation when two players can be replaced, spoiler can choose who to replace, and I would like to know who decided that some gameplay is too complicated for the average american.
[/quote]

Your idea, rebelwrest, just makes everything needlessly more broken. You can spin it any way you want...it just makes the role of the spoiler just that much less of a factor in the show.

I've got one that can sort of keep everything the way it is, but add a few elements in as it goes.

1) play the first round as you normally would

2) add the spoilers in in round 2, but make them play for their own money instead of a podium. The difference? Give the spoilers money to start the round ($500 or $1000, or something like that), but still give the front row priority to offset the money advantage the spoilers would have.

3) after round 2, the two lowest money amounts are eliminated, the three remaining players play round 3 under normal rules until time runs out.

[rebelwrest]

OK, thanks for the explanation.  I just offered a solution, and it didn't work.  Thanks for the criticism.

[TLEberle]

Your idea, rebelwrest, just makes everything needlessly more broken. You can spin it any way you want...it just makes the role of the spoiler just that much less of a factor in the show.

I don't think that's necessarily bad, either.

I've got one that can sort of keep everything the way it is, but add a few elements in as it goes.

1) play the first round as you normally would

2) add the spoilers in in round 2, but make them play for their own money instead of a podium. The difference? Give the spoilers money to start the round ($500 or $1000, or something like that), but still give the front row priority to offset the money advantage the spoilers would have.

3) after round 2, the two lowest money amounts are eliminated, the three remaining players play round 3 under normal rules until time runs out.

But then, why bother to have spoilers? Why not introduce five players and cut the low scorer until the game ends? If the low money scorers are out without regard to class, then it's just an extra layer to wade through. With as fast as the game goes, what would be wrong with a no-muss no-fuss rulebook?