Author Topic: J! first season question (Read 6618 times)

ChuckNet · « **on:** September 24, 2003, 12:57:14 AM »

During that initial 84-85 season, there were several occasions (as per ex-researcher Harry Eisenberg's book), where only one contestant was eligible for Final J! because the other 2 players finished Double J! in the red...was there ever an ep where NO ONE was eligible?

Chuck Donegan (The Curious \"Chuckie Baby\")

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2003, 02:47:39 AM »

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Sep 23 2003, 11:57 PM\']During that initial 84-85 season, there were several occasions (as per ex-researcher Harry Eisenberg's book), where only one contestant was eligible for Final J! because the other 2 players finished Double J! in the red...was there ever an ep where NO ONE was eligible?[/quote]
I'm going to make an educated guess of \"no\". With all the talk of FJ! only ending in a 0-0-0 tie twice ever, I think that would've come up by now.

zachhoran · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:11:38 AM »

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Sep 23 2003, 11:57 PM\'] During that initial 84-85 season, there were several occasions (as per ex-researcher Harry Eisenberg's book), where only one contestant was eligible for Final J! because the other 2 players finished Double J! in the red...was there ever an ep where NO ONE was eligible?

Chuck Donegan (The Curious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
There was never an episode(at least in the Trebek era) where no one was eligible for Final J!. There were a couple of occasions with only one person playing Final J!, I recall one in the first Trebek season, and one in the second season. None have occurred since season two AFAIK. When such a scenario occurred, the player's wager was revealed BEFORE their FJ! response.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #3 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:15:28 AM »

The fact that they had so many eliminated players in the early going is what led them to institute just about the biggest rule change from the original version. Originally (with Fleming and the first season of Trebek), you could buzz in as soon as the clue was revealed. What you were doing is basically gambling that you would know the correct response even before you saw the clue. Lots of people did that, but of course if you didn't know the answer, you were left there looking stupid.

A smart player (Chuck Forrest comes to mind) could monopolize the game by just ringing in for everything and taking his chances on the few he'd miss. Now, of course, you only buzz in if you think you know, so there are a lot less time-wasting wrong answers (more precisely, there are fewer \"I don't know\" responses) and fewer negative scores.

NickintheATL · « **Reply #4 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:27:30 AM »

Since that rule got implemented starting with season two, how could Zach's post be valid unless total disaster happened with two players?

I also think another contributing factor as to why 2 players would finish in the red like that on the Trebek version is because of the increased dollar values over the Fleming version ($200-$1000 compared to $20-$100), if it wasn't the buzzing scheme the 2nd time it happened (if it did), then it must have been either the one player on a run or some very bad answers on the other 2 players' part.

Just guessing...
Nicholas J. Mooneyhan
http://mooneyhan2.home.comcast.net/gameshow/
Re-Open for business!

zachhoran · « **Reply #5 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:31:11 AM »

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Sep 24 2003, 09:27 AM\'] Since that rule got implemented starting with season two, how could Zach's post be valid unless total disaster happened with two players?

I also think another contributing factor as to why 2 players would finish in the red like that on the Trebek version is because of the increased dollar values over the Fleming version ($200-$1000 compared to $20-$100), if it wasn't the buzzing scheme the 2nd time it happened (if it did), then it must have been either the one player on a run or some very bad answers on the other 2 players' part.

Just guessing...
Nicholas J. Mooneyhan
http://mooneyhan2.home.comcast.net/gameshow/
Re-Open for business! [/quote]
I was just stating that the last time I recall only one player playing in FJ! was in season two. I had forgotten about the old school Fleming J! rule Matt described still being in effect for the first Trebek season.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #6 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:33:57 AM »

Quote

Since that rule got implemented starting with season two, how could Zach's post be valid unless total disaster happened with two players?

If zach says he remembers a season two incident, I'd tend to believe him. So yeah, we'd pretty much have to assume it was a total-disaster situation. It's possible, there have even been a couple of close calls fairly recently.

NickintheATL · « **Reply #7 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:35:16 AM »

Just to let you know, I'm not calling you wrong, I'm merely speculating given the facts, I don't know either, I've not seen any of the first 3 years outside of the premiere episode (hello GSN???).

Nicholas J. Mooneyhan

zachhoran · « **Reply #8 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:41:42 AM »

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Sep 24 2003, 09:35 AM\'] Just to let you know, I'm not calling you wrong, I'm merely speculating given the facts, I don't know either, I've not seen any of the first 3 years outside of the premiere episode (hello GSN???).

Nicholas J. Mooneyhan [/quote]
Since GSN is going to give us J! seven days a week again, it would be nice to see a season going back a decade or two(no, we know it won't be the 1978-79 Fleming version), not necessarily likely, but 'twould be nice. If there's an argument that the questions are too dated, just look at Blockbusters on the weekends and see some somewhat-dated material.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2003, 11:41:10 AM »

Quote

If there's an argument that the questions are too dated, just look at Blockbusters on the weekends and see some somewhat-dated material.

I don't think the fact that the *material* might be dated has ever been a concern at GSN. It just seems fairly obvious -- and their acquisition of Millionaire would support this -- that they want the \"look\" of the channel to be as new and fresh as possible.

So if their choice is between an older season of Jeopardy and a newer season of Jeopardy, they're going to go with the newer. They're not interested in the nostalgic appeal.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2003, 01:01:08 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 24 2003, 09:33 AM\']

Quote

Since that rule got implemented starting with season two, how could Zach's post be valid unless total disaster happened with two players?

If zach says he remembers a season two incident, I'd tend to believe him. So yeah, we'd pretty much have to assume it was a total-disaster situation. It's possible, there have even been a couple of close calls fairly recently. [/quote]
I will back Zach up. I remember seeing a one-player FJ at some point after season one ended.

ChuckNet · « **Reply #11 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:35:30 PM »

Quote

Originally (with Fleming and the first season of Trebek), you could buzz in as soon as the clue was revealed. What you were doing is basically gambling that you would know the correct response even before you saw the clue.

This was the technique that one first-season champ, Michael Day, used to his advantage and won 5 games...it was for that reason they also switched to a lockout system that required several tenths of a second to be reset after a contestant's buzzer was pressed.

Incidentally, when Day returned for the following season's ToC, Harry Eisenberg recalled in his J! book that he \"looked rather surprised to discover his signaling button didn't work the same way as it had in the past\".

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2003, 02:48:28 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 24 2003, 11:41 AM\'] It just seems fairly obvious -- and their acquisition of Millionaire would support this -- that they want the "look" of the channel to be as new and fresh as possible.

So if their choice is between an older season of Jeopardy and a newer season of Jeopardy, they're going to go with the newer. They're not interested in the nostalgic appeal. [/quote]
If that's the case, how do you explain them restarting the '88-'89 season of Wheel of Fortune?

(And yes, I realize I'm bringing up an old thread here...but this is my first time on the board in about a month.)

zachhoran · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2003, 07:40:12 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'Oct 1 2003, 01:48 PM\']
If that's the case, how do you explain them restarting the '88-'89 season of Wheel of Fortune?

[/quote]
One argument given in this board was that WOF is less dated material-wise than Jeopardy! is. Though they still show Blockbusters eps. three years older than the oldest Trebek J! shows.