Game Shows That Aired on New Year's Day

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 09:39 AM\'] Thanksgiving Day, the day after Thanksgiving, and New Year's Day are always rife with game show pre-emptions. [/quote]
 As well, however, they also make for interesting spots for game shows....

Either Thanksgiving Day 1985 or the day after, an hour-long "Price" aired from 12:30-1:30.......There was also some scenario on Christmas Day 1991, I'm almost thinking a half-hour price from 12:30-1 or 1-1:30, something like that..

Another holiday to throw into the mix is Memorial Day, back when CBS carried the NBA; I remember M.D. 1990 having a half-hour Price from 2-2:30...

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 11:50 AM\']

Either Thanksgiving Day 1985 or the day after, an hour-long "Price" aired from 12:30-1:30.......There was also some scenario on Christmas Day 1991, I'm almost thinking a half-hour price from 12:30-1 or 1-1:30, something like that..

Another holiday to throw into the mix is Memorial Day, back when CBS carried the NBA; I remember M.D. 1990 having a half-hour Price from 2-2:30... [/quote]
 I think Thanksgiving 1986 also had a TPIR rerun in the afternoon. The day after Thanksgiving 1985 was the one year I can remember(in the days of game shows besides TPIR) that CBS ran its whole game show lineup instead of the usual kidvid programming.

The Memorial Day 1990 episode was probably a rerun from February(i.e. Bake-Off day)

[JCGames]

The King Orange Jamboree parade in Miami was on New Years Eve. It ran on NBC as a prime time special. I don't know if this parade still esists, or ABC doesn't care for it....I'd rather see that than that stupid Dick Clark rockfest.

I do recall the network patterns for the bowl games.....NBC had Fiesta/Rose/Orange in that order, CBS had the Cotton and ABC had the Sugar and Gator. CBS also had the Sun Bowl somewhere between Christmas and New Year's, as they still do today. NBC usually varied what they showed from 10-11am EST on 1/1....one year it would be a Rose parade preview, the next it would be the Fiesta Bowl parade. CBS always had the Cotton Bowl Festival parade live from Dallas from 10-11 before switching to Pasadena.

I think ABC used to run their kids cartoons on NYD morning in place of what game shows or comedy reruns they had. They used to do this on Thanksgiving too. This year they did reruns of their current sitcoms on both Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Thanksgiving was a no-brainer when it came to game show preemtions...what with NBC and CBS showing parades followed by NFL games and ABC showing cartoons followed by college football.

Another well known regular holiday preemption from my younger days was the Christmas sacrifice of 10-11am games on NBC for the National Cathedral Christmas service.

[mbclev]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 08:10 AM\'] Objeopardy: One of the earliest occurrences of all three players ending Final J! with no money occurred in APril 1985, when the players forgot that the 1984 Rose Bowl was played on Jan. It's played on the 2nd when NY Day falls on a Sunday, which it did in 1984. [/quote]
 The earliest such occurrence was on September 18, 1984 on the second Trebek show when all 3 players got the day the 20th century actually began wrong in Final Jeopardy (according to Jeopardy!, it's January 1, 1901; I don't know exactly the basis for that correct response).  They all said January 1, 1900 and bet all their winnings because they probably weren't aware of wagering strategy, being the second show and all.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'mbclev\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 09:57 AM\'] when all 3 players got the day the 20th century actually began wrong in Final Jeopardy (according to Jeopardy!, it's January 1, 1901; I don't know exactly the basis for that correct response). [/quote]
 It's very simple: if it's generally accepted that the first January 1 after the December 25th when Christ was born marked the start of the year 1, A.D., and there are 100 years in a century, then the LAST year of the 1st century is the year 100, and the first year of the 2nd one is 101. Extrapolate that, and the first year of the 20th century is 1901.

[gameshowguy2000]

So you mean that ALL that talk of 2000 being the FIRST (F-I-R-S-T) year of the New Millennium is WRONG (W-R-O-N-G)?

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 05:41 PM\'] So you mean that ALL that talk of 2000 being the FIRST (F-I-R-S-T) year of the New Millennium is WRONG (W-R-O-N-G)? [/quote]
 Yes.  (Y-E-S, for whatever reason you're doing that.)

As simple as it can be made:  When you count to one hundred, you START with the number "1" and you END with the number "100".  So the part of a century that ends in "00" is the LAST part of the previous century, not the first part of the new one.

They all said January 1, 1900 and bet all their winnings because they probably weren't aware of wagering strategy, being the second show and all.

And for the next twenty years, contestants ever since have been wagering all but one dollar, even though there is rarely a strategic reason to do that either.

[ChuckNet]

And for the next twenty years, contestants ever since have been wagering all but one dollar, even though there is rarely a strategic reason to do that either.

Well, it did pay off for a contestant back in 1993, whose opponents risked it all in Final J! and lost, while he ended up winning w/*$1*.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 05:48 PM\'] [quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 05:41 PM\'] So you mean that ALL that talk of 2000 being the FIRST (F-I-R-S-T) year of the New Millennium is WRONG (W-R-O-N-G)? [/quote]
Yes.  (Y-E-S, for whatever reason you're doing that.)

As simple as it can be made:  When you count to one hundred, you START with the number "1" and you END with the number "100".  So the part of a century that ends in "00" is the LAST part of the previous century, not the first part of the new one.

They all said January 1, 1900 and bet all their winnings because they probably weren't aware of wagering strategy, being the second show and all.

And for the next twenty years, contestants ever since have been wagering all but one dollar, even though there is rarely a strategic reason to do that either. [/quote]
 Matt, I know we were both born the same year during the Eisenhower administration, but now I'm confused as to which decade.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 08:43 PM\'] Matt, I know we were both born the same year during the Eisenhower administration, but now I'm confused as to which decade. [/quote]
We were born in the first year of "the sixties".  The informal naming of decades is a completely different concept and a completely different reckoning of time than the measure of a century.  "The sixties" are simply those years that have a six in the tens place.

In other words, "the nineties" ended in 1999, but the century did not.  Two different things.  People are free to disagree with this concept, but they'd be wrong.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I'm surprised more of us don't remember The Great "Which Is The 'Right' Year to Celebrate Hugely, 2000 or 2001?" Debate. A classic example of people arguing past each other: one side couldn't see why the other couldn't read a calendar, and the other side couldn't see why the first side couldn't understand that "2000" starts with a different digit than the past thousand years did.

I was proudly on the third side, which could see both the first and second sides, as well as realizing that it was all incredibly arbitrary anyway, what with the calendar devisers probably missing Jesus' birth by several years as well as happening to use a base 10 number system.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 05:12 AM\'] I'm surprised more of us don't remember The Great "Which Is The 'Right' Year to Celebrate Hugely, 2000 or 2001?" Debate. A classic example of people arguing past each other: one side couldn't see why the other couldn't read a calendar, and the other side couldn't see why the first side couldn't understand that "2000" starts with a different digit than the past thousand years did. [/quote]
 I don't think anyone's forgotten that debate, but the question as you word it isn't the issue.  If the question is simply when should we celebrate hugely, then by all means it should have been on the year 2000 (as it was).  We dig round numbers, that's just human nature.  

Nevertheless, it's a celebration of having reached the end, just like the kick you get when your car's odometer turns over to a round number.  Celebrating the year 2000 is one thing.  Calling it the first year of the new century is simply wrong.  This is just a fact.  I can see why some people might be confused by it, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact.

I was proudly on the third side, which could see both the first and second sides, as well as realizing that it was all incredibly arbitrary anyway, what with the calendar devisers probably missing Jesus' birth by several years as well as happening to use a base 10 number system.

"I can see both sides" isn't a third side, it's a cop out, and the fact that historians missed by a few years and that we use the base ten system really isn't relevant all these years later.  They're numbers, they have a pattern, and we have terms for those patterns.

[gameshowguy2000]

So, does this mean that we've been tricked into believing that 2000 was the start of the New Millennium/21st Century?

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 02:22 PM\'] So, does this mean that we've been tricked into believing that 2000 was the start of the New Millennium/21st Century? [/quote]
 Didn't you already ask this?  

Anyway, if you believe that the year 2000 is the first year of the new century, or the first year of the new millenium, you are wrong.  If you wish to believe that you were "tricked" into believing that, that's really up to you.  As I said before, this does not mean that we were wrong to make a big deal about the arrival of the year 2000.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 08:09 PM\']

And for the next twenty years, contestants ever since have been wagering all but one dollar, even though there is rarely a strategic reason to do that either.

Well, it did pay off for a contestant back in 1993, whose opponents risked it all in Final J! and lost, while he ended up winning w/*$1*. [/quote]
 Ask any true Jeopardy fan (there are a bunch of them on Sony's board) and they'll tell you that this guy almost certainly had a better strategic wager to make that would have involved wagering much less than he did.  It's because he wagered badly that he only won one dollar.