Feud question

[Jimmy Owen]

I've come to terms that this is now "The Steve Harvey Show" where they happen to play Family Feud.  Steve's the draw, not the game.

[Matt Ottinger]

While it's not technically rigging the game, the stuff they do to force every game to be 4 rounds and no more than 1 sudden death question is incredibly disingenuous.  

I'm no expert on the law, but some of the things people are claiming seem more than merely disingenuous.  If I'm understanding it right, you guys are saying that the show may decide to change material in the middle of the game based on the performance of the teams up to that point in order to make it harder for the team in the lead to win.  Using that "technically" word again, you're "technically" not showing favoritism if there's a rule that's applied consistently regardless of which team is in the lead.  I would be very curious as to whether this plan is spelled out to the contestants in advance ("we make sure you'll play at least four rounds no matter what"), because it strikes me as manipulative in the extreme.

[tvwxman]

While it's not technically rigging the game, the stuff they do to force every game to be 4 rounds and no more than 1 sudden death question is incredibly disingenuous.  

I'm no expert on the law, but some of the things people are claiming seem more than merely disingenuous.  If I'm understanding it right, you guys are saying that the show may decide to change material in the middle of the game based on the performance of the teams up to that point in order to make it harder for the team in the lead to win.  Using that "technically" word again, you're "technically" not showing favoritism if there's a rule that's applied consistently regardless of which team is in the lead.  I would be very curious as to whether this plan is spelled out to the contestants in advance ("we make sure you'll play at least four rounds no matter what"), because it strikes me as manipulative in the extreme.

This is the problem I've always had with Feud : the scoring. A well-executed game should favor teams who overall do better. Feud weights its scores/surveys at the end. Always did.

Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?

[TheLastResort]

Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?

You'd still have the same problems. Some questions take longer to play out than others, so there's the timing issue.  And if the game is a runaway by the third question, the last one or two would be pointless unless you start doubling or tripling.

[Casey Buck]

Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?

That's something I've always thought of, but was too afraid to propose to the board. Get rid of the bank entirely, and have the rounds worth a set number of points. A scoring system that it set up to end at Round 4 has always been problematic (for example, Super Password, Body Language, and Go).

In a perfect world, I'd just have a best three-out-of-five system, and just rush/edit like hell if there's a need for a 5th round (maybe limit all surveys to the top 4 or 5 answers?), or stretch out Fast Money if it ends in a 3 round clean sweep.

[Matt Ottinger]

This is the problem I've always had with Feud : the scoring. A well-executed game should favor teams who overall do better. Feud weights its scores/surveys at the end. Always did.

To be clear, sure, I've known this as well.  But the idea that they might change the material in the middle of the game to make sure we go to four rounds is something I hadn't heard before.

Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?

Except that the fourth round is pointless and anticlimactic if one team sweeps the first three.  I kinda like the way Go did it.  They had their own scoring problem in which the third of four rounds was often meaningless, but what I liked was that if a sweep happened, they'd use the extra time to play two bonus games.

Realistically, the only way Feud works better as a fair and balanced game is if it's not played to fit in a half-hour format.  The 200 people who care about that are all in this forum.

[Jeremy Nelson]

A scoring system that it set up to end at Round 4 has always been problematic (for example, Super Password, Body Language, and Go).

Except Super Password and Go could end after three rounds. Body Language is the only one that properly fits your statement. The $100 puzzles were basically warmups, and the game basically went in to a 2 out of 3 from there on. Then again, that scoring format was the only way for the show not to end in a complete meltdown.

Realistically, the only way Feud works better as a fair and balanced game is if it's not played to fit in a half-hour format.

Funny enough you should say that. I remember that the first five or so episodes had a new challenging family introduced in the final segment, and I vaguely remember Richard saying something about not having enough time to start a new game. Knowing that, I'm guessing the show originally planned to straddle to account for Richard's jokes, but since the episodes timed out just about where they wanted to anyways, they became contained.

[TLEberle]

Except Super Password and Go could end after three rounds.

Super Password was a practice puzzle that could never make a difference in determining the winner, then best-of-three.

[WarioBarker]

If I'm understanding it right, you guys are saying that the show may decide to change material in the middle of the game based on the performance of the teams up to that point in order to make it harder for the team in the lead to win.

Not just harder -- impossible, or very nearly so.

Let's say a team sweeps Rounds 1-2 for 175 points (88/87). The resulting Double question, if swept, will award 124 points at most. Essentially, the more a family wins in the first two rounds, the less Q3 will be worth if swept, and it will never add up to 300.*

On the other hand, if the first two rounds are not swept (or each family sweeps a round), the resulting Double question will be worth enough points that the game would have been won if the first two rounds had also been swept by a single family.

Basically, Q3 is never enough to win if 1-2 are swept by a family but always enough for a coulda-won otherwise...and I've seen this scenario happen way too many times for it to be accidental. The fact that they've even thrown out a Triple question because they didn't feel like programming a sixth question (i.e., double Sudden Death) just in case is incredibly lazy.

(* Yes, I'm aware that they've occasionally screwed up and allowed the game to be won in three rounds -- indeed, I have an O'Hurley episode where that happens. The problem with that is the last commercial break is during Fast Money, not before or after where it would actually make sense and...you know...not deflate the mood.)

[TLEberle]

(* Yes, I'm aware that they've occasionally screwed up and allowed the game to be won in three rounds -- indeed, I have an O'Hurley episode where that happens. The problem with that is the last commercial break is during Fast Money, not before or after where it would actually make sense and...you know...not deflate the mood.)

How does a mid-game break deflate the mood?

[Jay Temple]

Speaking only for myself: It's awkward to call it Fast Money if it's spread out over six minutes because of the commercial.

I agree that if they're dead set against letting a game end in three questions, they should go 1-1-1-2-3 like they did at various times in the Dawson era. But my favorite format was 1-1-2-2-3, because of all the ways a game could play out, even with all normal-sized banks.

[clemon79]

The $100 puzzles were basically warmups, and the game basically went in to a 2 out of 3 from there on.

Not the case on Go. At all.

[Jeremy Nelson]

The $100 puzzles were basically warmups, and the game basically went in to a 2 out of 3 from there on.

Not the case on Go. At all.

Was referring to Body Language as far as that scoring.

[clemon79]

Was referring to Body Language as far as that scoring.

Yes, perhaps I should actually *read* your post next time. My humble apologies.

[Mr. Armadillo]

(* Yes, I'm aware that they've occasionally screwed up and allowed the game to be won in three rounds -- indeed, I have an O'Hurley episode where that happens. The problem with that is the last commercial break is during Fast Money, not before or after where it would actually make sense and...you know...not deflate the mood.)

If it's the WWE episode that I'm thinking of, the men had only about 105 points after the second question and needed to sweep the 196-point Double round to win it.  The producers probably didn't think that was likely enough to have to switch the question. (I can't remember the question, but I recall it wasn't all that easy of a question to sweep.)