Rooting Against Contestants

[GSWitch]

[quote name=\'PPatters\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 04:57 AM\'] Actually, I'm pretty sexist in who I root for. When a man and a woman play against each other, I ALWAYS root for the woman. Don't know why, I just do. [/quote]
 My mascot (the Witch) would certainly love you, my pretty!

[GSWitch]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 07:56 AM\'] On shows like "Super Password" or "Pyramid", I always rooted for the male contestant, only because it seemed there were so few of them.  It seems most of the time those shows (and others) had two women playing against each other (is it because more women were likely watching during the daytime?)
 [/quote]
 The male player on both those shows were treated just like the Olympics, once every 4 episodes (same with the CBS Match Game).

No wonder Kerri Ketchum (Patrick Quinn) thought he could get away being on Super Password.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 12:26 PM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:35 AM\']A member of J!'s message board has been rooting against a player because he goes all over the board, not even going top to bottom, looking for Daily Doubles.[/quote]
In other words, the guy would've hated Chuck Forrest (although I don't believe Forrest was looking for DDs).

That was one of the surprises in the Million Dollar Masters tourney--that Forrest didn't execute his trademark strategy once.  Of course, I believe that in his one game he didn't get control of the board too often enough to get to execute his trademark strategy.[/quote]
This may be going off on a tangent, so I apologize, as I do if this topic has been frequently discussed in the past.

I've seen more than once that Alex suggest starting at the top of the board and working your way down. Given that the only advantage of selecting is if you find a Daily Double, and given that those are seldom high on the board, wouldn't it make sense to start halfway down each category? Especially now, as opposed to early in the run, that they get to all the questions on the board?

[JayC]

I always laugh when people are wrong or go bankrupt on wheel

[zachhoran]

From Name That Tune 1984-85:  Alfred, who was on one of the five aired pilot episodes was jerky against his female opponent in Bid-a-Note, saying "I'm so impressed" and other remarks. [/QUOTE]

How do you root against a pilot contestant? [/QUOTE]

The five pilot episodes for NTT84 actually aired near the end of the season(and one of the players in the pilot actually won the Golden Medley and ended up in the Tournament of Champions). I didn't know the shows were actually pilots until coming to Usenet. The last time NTT84 was in reruns was before most of us were on Usenet

[Ian Wallis]

I've seen more than once that Alex suggest starting at the top of the board and working your way down. Given that the only advantage of selecting is if you find a Daily Double, and given that those are seldom high on the board, wouldn't it make sense to start halfway down each category? Especially now, as opposed to early in the run, that they get to all the questions on the board?

I saw Alex do this during the early years a few times, but has he said that a lot lately?  I was under the impression he didn't really care anymore where players started.

What I can't understand is, when time's running out and a player is far behind, why they don't go to the higher-value questions more often.  Quite frequently Alex will say "less than a minute left", a contestant will be thousands behind, and still they'll start with the top and work down, quite often not making it all the way down before time runs out.  That's annoying - if it was me, I'd start at the bottom on the last category to make sure I had a decent shot of catching up.

[DrBear]

When the wife and I watch PYL or Whammy, we wait for a contestant to say "just one more time, Peter/Todd" and are a bit disappointed if they don't hit a whammy.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 05:05 PM\']I've seen more than once that Alex suggest starting at the top of the board and working your way down. Given that the only advantage of selecting is if you find a Daily Double, and given that those are seldom high on the board, wouldn't it make sense to start halfway down each category? Especially now, as opposed to early in the run, that they get to all the questions on the board?[/quote]
The main advantage of starting at the top and going to the bottom is this:  The writers sometimes (but definitely not always) will write the category so that the other clues relate in one way or the other to the top clue--and you may not understand the other clues having not seen the top one.

Otherwise, the only reason for doing it is the irrational "because it's always been done that way."  People almost always went from top to bottom back in the Art Fleming days and they pretty much do the same thing today.

[Jay Temple]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:26 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:35 AM\']A member of J!'s message board has been rooting against a player because he goes all over the board, not even going top to bottom, looking for Daily Doubles.[/quote]
In other words, the guy would've hated Chuck Forrest (although I don't believe Forrest was looking for DDs).

That was one of the surprises in the Million Dollar Masters tourney--that Forrest didn't execute his trademark strategy once.  Of course, I believe that in his one game he didn't get control of the board too often enough to get to execute his trademark strategy. [/quote]
 She didn't see Chuck's original appearances, but she thinks she's been told that he would jump around from one category to the next, still going from top to bottom.  (I think she's right about that.)  She was rooting against the recent contestant because he didn't even do that.

[starcade]

If you wish to extend the definition of "game show" to Survivor -- I think that's something Burnett openly rigs in that series.

Which see Jon, who better have some extra security detail placed on him this Sunday after all the **** he's pulled in this series.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 06:57 PM\'] If you wish to extend the definition of "game show" to Survivor -- I think that's something Burnett openly rigs in that series.
 [/quote]
 I don't quite understand your sentence.  What is it that you claim Burnett "openly rigs"?  Because all he's ever admitted to is reshooting certain things for the sake of getting the right look.  Every game show does that to one degree or another.  He has vehemently denied manipulating the competition to favor certain contestants over others, the standard by which we usually define "rigging".

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 12:11 PM\']The main advantage of starting at the top and going to the bottom is this:  The writers sometimes (but definitely not always) will write the category so that the other clues relate in one way or the other to the top clue--and you may not understand the other clues having not seen the top one.

Otherwise, the only reason for doing it is the irrational "because it's always been done that way."  People almost always went from top to bottom back in the Art Fleming days and they pretty much do the same thing today.[/quote]
I can think of a third reason, and it would be the main reason I wouldn't skip around: to build familiarity and a comfort level with the category.

I seem to recall hearing a few years back that, when they have a category that pretty much requires being selected in top-to-bottom order to make any sense at all, they require the contestants to start at the top and work down (although it doesn't get mentioned on air). Am I misremembering?

[Esoteric Eric]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Dec 14 2003, 10:21 AM\']I seem to recall hearing a few years back that, when they have a category that pretty much requires being selected in top-to-bottom order to make any sense at all, they require the contestants to start at the top and work down (although it doesn't get mentioned on air). Am I misremembering?[/quote]
Just this past week on a first-run episode, Alex did inform the players that they were required to work a particular first-round category in order, since each "answer" contained the keyword to the previous correct response.

Example (just off the top of my head*, not the actual game material):

$200: Variations of this sport include duckpins and candlepins
(What is bowling?)

$400: Bowling Green University and the U.S. Air Force Academy both use this nickname for their sports teams
(What is "Falcons"?)

$600: Falcons, Fairlanes, and Fairmonts were manufactured by this automobile company
(What is Ford?)

$800: In the song from "The Sound of Music," it's what you must do before you "Ford ev'ry stream"
(What is "Climb Ev'ry Mountain"?)

$1000: If you plan to climb ev'ry mountain in the Himalayas, you'd be well advised to be accompanied by one of the Nepalese guides
(What are Sherpas?)

Esoteric Eric, who really appreciates the occasional mention of candlepin bowling on game shows (at least once each on J! and WWTBAM, and perhaps others); EE's hoping to win Mega Millions one of these days, and introduce the New England / Maritime Canada-based game to the Puget Sound area

*As one can tell by the emoticon I occasionally use, there's not much keeping things ON the top of my head... ((8=D))

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'Esoteric Eric\' date=\'Dec 14 2003, 03:05 PM\']Just this past week on a first-run episode, Alex did inform the players that they were required to work a particular first-round category in order, since each "answer" contained the keyword to the previous correct response.[/quote]
Well, crap. I miss one J! episode in three months, and it's that one.

[Matt Ottinger]

Well, actually, I HAVEN'T missed any episodes in the last few weeks, and I sure don't remember anything remotely resembling what Eric's talking about.  I'm going to bring this up in the Jeopardy board.  If it happened, especially if it happened recently, somebody there is going to know about it.