Jeopardy! to Eliminate Ties?

[chad1m]

A couple of sources are corroborating the idea that games will no longer end in a tie on Jeopardy! Any ties at the end will be broken by a sudden death clue. The winner gets their score, the loser gets second-place prize. I believe this is the biggest (and only) rule change since they altered buzz-in procedures in 1985.

If this indeed happens, how will you feel? I don't mind ties going away. Organic ties are fun, but it feels like more of them have been "manufactured" in the last season or two. Ties were a novelty for a while, but I think the tiebreaker clue will be a more exciting finish to the show.

[TLEberle]

Citations?

I like ties; it's fun to watch more people winning money, especially when the tie is unexpected like the one on $20,200 last week. How is a tie manufactured, anyway? Usually things have to happen just-so for it to work; it isn't like the leader after DJ is betting enough that he'll tie if he's right, and second-place has to double-up and be right too.

[chad1m]

Citations?

A discussion at The Jeopardy Fan, plus someone I know who talked to a reliable source. (I understand they're important, but I'd like to think I've established enough credibility at this point that I'm not spreading bowling-buddy information.)

[TLEberle]

(I understand they're important, but I'd like to think I've established enough credibility at this point that I'm not spreading bowling-buddy information.)

My intent wasn't to impugn your reputation; I just wanted to know who was putting it out there, because it's a rather big change (I think the elimination of retiring champions would qualify as a big rule change as well).

[parliboy]

it isn't like the leader after DJ is betting enough that he'll tie if he's right, and second-place has to double-up and be right too.

That's pretty much what's happening, yes.

[TLEberle]

That's pretty much what's happening, yes.

Pardon me, I left off a clause. That's not happening every day, otherwise we'd be having ties all the time.

[BrandonFG]

Not a huge fan of the idea, and not because it's a "not broke, don't fix it" deal. I kinda feel that Jeopardy! is unique in that, after questioning 61 answers, if you tie with someone, you earned that payday. To lose it all on a 62nd question seems more manufactured IMO, and kinda anticlimactic. Besides, the show already seems kinda rushed at times, so I wonder how this would look. And unlike other shows, the highest score here doesn't send you to the bonus round.

That said, if two contestants tie at $15,000, I totally get the producers' wanting to give away $17K instead of 30K, even if it doesn't happen that often.

[tpirfan28]

I don't like the shootout in hockey.

I don't like this.

[weaklink75]

Agreed with those who don't like this change- if it ends up in a tie, it ends up in a tie; bite the bullet on the extra money and deal with it.

[TLEberle]

I look at it as nearer to the wild-card round that MLB gave us: instead of being more special, it is less special because it is predictable. The tie-breaker clue is a special thing because it only happens in tournaments, and the implication of that clue is huge.

If the show is going to change something, why not change "spelling counts except when it doesn't"? That comes up far more often and is a thing that should actually be dealt with instead of ties. I'd actually be in favor of the tie-breaker if the losing co-champion was allowed to come back the next day but won no money for it.

According to BuzzerBlog, one of the sources is Ryan Alley, recent three-game winner, who says it is his strong belief that the rule change will happen after the tournament.

[Jay Temple]

I too don't like this change. That said, during the first season, they explained on a daily basis that if there was a tie for second and third place, the player who led going into FJ would take second place. I just assumed, until it happened, that they would do the same thing for first place. I'd even prefer that over a 62nd question.

[BrandonFG]

To me, that seems even more unfair and just as anticlimactic as the extra question. If I have $7,500 and my opponent has an even $15K, I could go for broke, but it still wouldn't matter because I'm pretty much going home with the consolation cash.

[PYLdude]

To me, that seems even more unfair and just as anticlimactic as the extra question. If I have $7,500 and my opponent has an even $15K, I could go for broke, but it still wouldn't matter because I'm pretty much going home with the consolation cash.

Not only that, your opponent is being forced to wager something on the FJ in that event to ensure a tie doesn't happen. That just makes the whole exercise stink.

[Ian Wallis]

It seems ties have been happening more frequently lately, but if this is true I don't like it either.  I agree with what the others have said - if you're tied with someone after FJ, you've earned that money.  It's not like the production company is going to go broke anyway.

[WarioBarker]

It's not like the production company is going to go broke anyway.

Probably not, but based on this post by Jess (Prizes) over at the Buy A Vowel forum where she goes through the company's recent financial statements, Sony's not exactly swimming in money either.

Even so, it's still a pretty bad change.