Author Topic: jeopardy TOC semifinals question (Read 5326 times)

TLEberle · « **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:20:36 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210157\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:12 PM\']All these great ideas Travis has -- I wonder which one really was his?[/quote] I was just going to let you guys keep going and attributing all of these things to me. Please go on.

Chris Lemon hit it right that I was putting forth a "play-in": the three high scoring losers in the Quarterfinal round would compete for the last Semi-final spot, with the winner of that game moving on. It sounds great in my head, but it would take all kinds of jiggering of the rules that I haven't thought of. The idea works much better when you have a field size of just over or under a power of two, and of course, a two-sided contest.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:27:22 AM »

I asked this question on the Jeopardy discussion board, and it turns out that one person very quickly pointed to this game. It's a Teen Tournament, not a TOC, but the structure is the same and apparently this game pitted three wild card players against each other in the first semifinal. So there is precedent.

EDIT: And someone else pointed to it happening in the 2007 College Tournament. How about that?

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #17 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:36:09 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'210158\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 12:20 AM\'] It sounds great in my head, but it would take all kinds of jiggering of the rules that I haven't thought of. [/quote]
Oh, yeah, you're right, because the way Chris described it (which made tons of sense to me at the time) you'd only be left with two finalists. Again, all things are theoretically doable, but that (like the four-player Super Jeopardy rounds) would be a hard thing for fans to wrap their brains around.

TLEberle · « **Reply #18 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:57:29 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210161\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:36 PM\'](like the four-player Super Jeopardy rounds) would be a hard thing for fans to wrap their brains around.[/quote]Even as a nine-year old fan who squeeed with delight at the prospect of having well-loved champions back to play again, I could smell the fail of the four-player round coming a mile away. I'm sure there's a reason the $1,000,000 Masters was done in the standard two-week frame.

clemon79 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:34:19 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210161\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:36 PM\']
Again, all things are theoretically doable, but that (like the four-player Super Jeopardy rounds) would be a hard thing for fans to wrap their brains around.[/quote]
Yeah, I didn't like the head-to-head final either, but as you said, it gets you done in ten days.

If you were going to do a full play-in system, it would take a lot longer and a bigger field: say, eight first-round matches, the play-in, three semis...and that leaves you with a three-day final as the culmination of three weeks? Blah.

Playing the final over multiple days has never been my favorite thing in the world, but the TOC better suits the existing wildcard system than it does a play-in, I think.

Don Howard · « **Reply #20 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:47:43 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'210163\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 01:34 AM\']
If you were going to do a full play-in system, it would take a lot longer and a bigger field: say, eight first-round matches, the play-in, three semis...and that leaves you with a three-day final as the culmination of three weeks? Blah.
[/quote]
Blah indeed. Certainly better than it being a three-month tournament, however. Dance, monkey, dance!
This is purely preference, I grant you, but why can't it be the top nine in the tournament, the winner of each of the three qualifying days goes on to the two-day final series, no wild cards. The whole thing's done in a week.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #21 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:35:14 AM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'210175\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 08:47 AM\']This is purely preference, I grant you, but why can't it be the top nine in the tournament, the winner of each of the three qualifying days goes on to the two-day final series, no wild cards. The whole thing's done in a week.[/quote]
Well, it could, of course. Especially if the attitude was "get it over with". Jeopardy, however, sees the Tournament of Champions as an important and ratings-attractive event that they would prefer to have fill two weeks instead of one.

Meanwhile, someone on the Jeopardy board went back through all the Tournaments of Champions and found out that, in fact, three wild card players did meet in the semifinals one time. So yes, it has happened once out of twenty (not counting this one) ToC's

Don Howard · « **Reply #22 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:05:23 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210177\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 10:35 AM\']
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'210175\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 08:47 AM\']This is purely preference, I grant you, but why can't it be the top nine in the tournament, the winner of each of the three qualifying days goes on to the two-day final series, no wild cards. The whole thing's done in a week.[/quote]
Well, it could, of course. Especially if the attitude was "get it over with". Jeopardy, however, sees the Tournament of Champions as an important and ratings-attractive event that they would prefer to have fill two weeks instead of one.
[/quote]
How are the ratings for the tournaments as compared to regular play, I wonder.
Interestingly enough (interesting to me, anyhow) I absolutely love the NCAA basketball tournament, which is all about multiple weeks of elimination games. Just a part of my inconsistent wacked out genetics, I suppose.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #23 on:** March 12, 2009, 03:12:05 PM »

I always thought it would be cool in the second and subsequent ToC's to take out the fourth wild-card spot and put the previous year's winner there.

Now that (i) they're no longer married to starting on Monday and (ii) they generally wait more than a year between ToC's, I'd like to see a format with more QF games and fewer wild cards. The simplest version would have six QF's, three wild cards and a single-day final. My preferred version would be seven QF's, no wild card and a second-round bye for the top winner from the QF's.

clemon79 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 12, 2009, 04:38:36 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210177\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 07:35 AM\']
Meanwhile, someone on the Jeopardy board went back through all the Tournaments of Champions and found out that, in fact, three wild card players did meet in the semifinals one time.[/quote]
Mmm, this crow tastes delicious.

I would love to know what the logic was that predicated that decision.

toetyper · « **Reply #25 on:** March 12, 2009, 05:38:43 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210177\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 10:35 AM\']

Meanwhile, someone on the Jeopardy board went back through all the Tournaments of Champions and found out that, in fact, three wild card players did meet in the semifinals one time. So yes, it has happened once out of twenty (not counting this one) ToC's
[/quote]

THANK YOU

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #26 on:** March 13, 2009, 03:40:38 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'210175\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 09:47 AM\']This is purely preference, I grant you, but why can't it be the top nine in the tournament, the winner of each of the three qualifying days goes on to the two-day final series, no wild cards. The whole thing's done in a week.[/quote]
Haven't they done this format once or twice? I want to say it was either for a 10th Anniversary tournament (with one player from each of the previous nine years) or a Teen Reunion tournament.

I recall hearing in the past that, before getting to producer whims, one thing they always avoid in a tournament semifinal is having any two contestants face each other who already faced each other in the quarterfinal. I wonder if that's always held true or not.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #27 on:** March 13, 2009, 05:50:38 PM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'210200\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 03:12 PM\']Now that (i) they're no longer married to starting on Monday[/quote]
I haven't been paying enough attention to see if this is a trend, but I figured that this year's ToC starting on Wednesday made sure that the Finals wouldn't be bumped out due to NCAA coverage.

TLEberle · « **Reply #28 on:** March 13, 2009, 09:17:15 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'210273\' date=\'Mar 13 2009, 12:40 PM\']Haven't they done this format once or twice? I want to say it was either for a 10th Anniversary tournament (with one player from each of the previous nine years) or a Teen Reunion tournament.[/quote]10th Anniversary did that: one person drawn from the semi-final pool from the last eight tournaments plus the winner of the most recent grand championship made up the nine contenders.

For the Teen Reunion, twelve contestants from the early teen championships played; the three top daily winners played in a single game for all the money. The one who emerged victorious in the semi-final but didn't make the Friday show won a smaller fourth place prize.