I'll agree with you, Jay - Mark (like every producer) was in the unenviable position of trying to at least give a new spin to an often-done idea. I don't think any of the most popular trivia board games at the time forced players to eliminate wrong answers to find the right one, so Mark tried to come up with something that he could call his own contribuition. Can't blame him for trying. For what it's worth, I just finished typing the outline for probably the 5th revision of the word game I hope to bring to access cable this spring because no matter what style of play I come up with, I can think of half a dozen shows that have used something similar. I'm trying to balance a workable idea with a play style that hasn't been overdone, add a twist, yet is still in a form that will be recognized enough to make a viewer comfortable because of its similarity. Strange how that works, but it's television/music/movies in a nutshell. Networks want their own versions of a competitor's hit, so it has to be close enough without copying, yet if you go too far away from the hit idea, people may not take enough time to figure out what you're trying to do. It's all in the presentation.
and P.S. - Mark's TT still fit what I believe is the difference between most G-T games and those of others: Mark's games have often been geared for the thinking player/viewer, as compared to the knowing player/viewer. He seems to prefer puzzles to quizzes, and he tried to merge the two together - deduce what doesn't fit to find the right answer. This one just didn't mesh well - which is also probably why Jack Barry didn't last long at GT.