Jeopardy! to Eliminate Ties?

[GSBOY92]

I don't like this at all. Ties are fun because you and your opponent take home the same amount of money and come back to face each other again.

If I were to guess why they want to get rid of ties, I say because of budget-saving costs. I say this because clues are getting more ridiculously hard almost every episode and contestants are having a tough time answering questions, thus leading to low-scoring games. Eliminating ties will just be a cheap tactic to give away less money.

And I agree that tie-breaking clues should be just for tournament purposes only because it builds suspense. Getting rid of ties will make the game less suspenseful.

[TLEberle]

Is there a statistic kept for number of ties in a given year of regular play?

[Kevin Prather]

If it's really a budget thing, there are less transparent ways to save money. Maybe scale back on the tournaments (or if tournaments are cheaper, run more of them). More difficult material, particularly FJs, would come across as less bush league than a rule change, and even celebrated by some Jeopardy enthusiasts.

[Matt Ottinger]

Not a fan of a tiebreaker in regular play.  Not crazy about it in tournaments, frankly, but I realize you have to do something.

[TLEberle]

If it's really a budget thing, there are less transparent ways to save money.

What's interesting is that while Jeopardy is looking to save money (and really, it's $20,000 out of $500,000 a month), while Wheel of Fortune steadily increases the prize money and prizes that the contestants can win.

[Kevin Prather]

If it's really a budget thing, there are less transparent ways to save money.

What's interesting is that while Jeopardy is looking to save money (and really, it's $20,000 out of $500,000 a month), while Wheel of Fortune steadily increases the prize money and prizes that the contestants can win.

Do they though? Has the average win on WoF gone up appreciably this year? Just because the numbers are bigger on the wheel doesn't mean that money's going in the players' pockets.

By the way, the ToC costs $49,000 a day. The College and Teachers tourneys cost $26,500 a day, and the Teen tourney costs $20,500 a day. Those are minimums and can go up by finalists scoring hot, but don't usually go up too much. Make of that what you will.

[TLEberle]

If the wheel values are 500-900, as opposed to 300-900, then I would think averaged for a sample size, yes, the players are winning more money in both the main game and bonus game. First thing I'd do is nuke some of the middling values on the bonus wheel; either 35k, 40k or 45k.

(Even with the massive grand prize and smaller prizes for entrants, the Decades Tournament daily prize budget was about $33,000 over the duration.)

[Sodboy13]

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned what I thought when I first read this: If this rule change is (potentially) going to be enacted after the Tournament of Champions, what, pray tell, took place during said tournament to prompt it?

Also, is there the possibility this could be a "tournaments-only" rule, for elimination games?

[MSTieScott]

If the wheel values are 500-900, as opposed to 300-900, then I would think averaged for a sample size, yes, the players are winning more money in both the main game and bonus game.

More difficult bonus round puzzles will take care of that problem. (I don't know whether that's the case -- I don't have any win/loss statistics.) I have noticed that ever since they moved the starting position of the wheel for each round, Pat has been landing on the $5,000 space in the Final Spin much less frequently, but I don't know when that change took effect.

As for "Jeopardy!," a question: I don't get to watch as much as I'd like, but in the few times I've seen the show recently, I did notice a slight uptick in the number of players in the lead who were betting to tie in Final Jeopardy! rather than to win by a dollar (my hunch is that this is a result of the recent media attention to Arthur Chu and his gameplay methods, but that's a different discussion). Is this a trend that has been occurring this season, and more importantly, has it been succeeding?

Naturally-occurring ties are exciting, but it's my opinion that a tie that comes about because the leader bet $2,400 instead of $2,401 is not a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, if that behavior is becoming more common, then the only way to discourage it is either with more difficult Final Jeopardy! clues (also bad television, and doesn't stop contestants with a lock game from betting to tie if they get Final Jeopardy! wrong) or a rule change. I don't like the idea of a tiebreaker clue in ordinary gameplay, but I have to admit that it would be the least conspicuous way to encourage contestants to wager to win.

[BrandonFG]

Just had a thought...with scores qualifying contestants for a tournament, does anyone know offhand how a tie in Sports Jeopardy! works? Do they go to a tiebreaker clue, or do both winners get $5K and qualify?

[TLEberle]

It doesn't scan: if the parent company is losing money at that huge a rate, eliminating the ties is like putting a single lettuce leaf in a tub of nachos and saying "it has a salad, so it's healthy now!" It's not going to turn around the company.

[PYLdude]

It doesn't scan: if the parent company is losing money at that huge a rate, eliminating the ties is like putting a single lettuce leaf in a tub of nachos and saying "it has a salad, so it's healthy now!" It's not going to turn around the company.

(Sorry, had to)

[clemon79]

Dammit, the two best things about a taco salad are also the two least healthy things.

[WarioBarker]

It doesn't scan: if the parent company is losing money at that huge a rate, eliminating the ties is [...] not going to turn around the company.

I don't think "turn around the company" would be the point of the change so much as "save a bit of money". Even if the tie is at less than about $1,500, where it'd cost more to bump the tiebreaker loser(s) to $2,000 than it would to give both/all of them the tied amount, they'd be spending less than they are with the current rule.

[TLEberle]

They could divide the cash prize in half/thirds and allow both people to return; that actually saves them the consolation prize, doesn't introduce a new thing that changes a rather fundamental bit that's been there thirty years, and it discourages the "double up" situation, because the players go from a full amount to just half. If it happens naturally those are the breaks, but I bet it would cut down significantly on DJ leaders who are being friendly with Sony's money.

I look at it the way I would look at canning the Double Showcase; sure you save the money every once in a while, but it eliminates something rare and interesting.