"$100,000 Pyramid" primetime this summer on ABC

[clemon79]

Maybe they're already in "budget mode"

Maybe they should have thought of that before they made the first trip to the Winnar's Circle worth Fifty Thousand Damn Dollars.

[snowpeck]

Maybe they're already in "budget mode"

We're not seeing the shows in anything remotely close to the order in which they were taped, so that's a hard claim to make.

[BillCullen1]

The first two shows they taped saw back-to-back $100K wins. I was in the audience for those, and I don't think anyone was counting on that happening. Both of those shows have aired.

[Nick]

The whole Sunday Fun & Games lineup is doing reruns next week rather than throw new episodes up against Night 3 of the Olympics.

Canada's Much Music has been airing episodes following their first run on ABC Thursdays at 11 PM and the following Sunday at 5 PM.  While this Sunday's a repeat, this coming Thursday's and the early Sunday's airings are presently listed to be episode seven, featuring Steve Schirripa versus Melissa Peterman and Teri Polo versus Zachary Levi--before it airs on ABC next Sunday night.

I'll see if they do actually air it early.

[Jay Temple]

The rest of it wasn't bad at all.  There's much better clues for "Things That Jump" than "bean" and "rope", and as Michael pointed out, the top box had a very-gettable pop culture reference.

Well, yeah, that's when you have to dip into the adjective pool.  "A Mexican bean."  "A Double Dutch rope".  But it's always a lot easier in my chair than in their chair.

Calaveras County's frog

[Neumms]

Judging question from August 14:
Shouldn't "blown-up balloon" have been buzzed for "things you inflate?" They seem synonymous, and the clue is wrong, since one doesn't inflate a blown-up balloon.

[clemon79]

Judging question from August 14:
Shouldn't "blown-up balloon" have been buzzed for "things you inflate?" They seem synonymous, and the clue is wrong, since one doesn't inflate a blown-up balloon.

Yeah, I said "oh, that's gonna get buzzed" when it happened, and was surprised when it wasn't.

[Nick]

I was still distracted by their pathetic excuse for a tiebreaker.  There's something really wrong with the team getting fewer correct answers in the final round still ending up the winner, especially if they flub one of the answers with an unacceptable clue.  Is it really impossible to do a game show in this day and age without a "hurry-up offence" ready to move a bit faster through the proceedings if a tiebreaker round is necessary?

[Casey]

I would have buzzed her for coughing while describing Reasons Why You Cough... 

[chad1m]

I was still distracted by their pathetic excuse for a tiebreaker.  There's something really wrong with the team getting fewer correct answers in the final round still ending up the winner, especially if they flub one of the answers with an unacceptable clue.

I don't disagree that their current tiebreaker isn't the optimal solution, but when in Pyramid has it ever mattered in what round order you scored your points? 18 is 18, whether it comes in 6-6-6 or 7-7-4.

[TLEberle]

The problem I have is twofold: they're not revealing how close it was ("for every second you don't use, we'll give you $100" is a two-prong solution) and the other is whether or not there's a premium on seven-point rounds or not, because in that case someone who gets a seven point round wins over someone who doesn't.

Watched the second half last night and there was at least one point where I blipped ahead thirty seconds between the end of one round and the beginning of another without missing any game play. They absolutely could tighten it up and have a tiebreak sprint if they cared.

[clemon79]

The problem I have is twofold: they're not revealing how close it was ("for every second you don't use, we'll give you $100" is a two-prong solution) and the other is whether or not there's a premium on seven-point rounds or not, because in that case someone who gets a seven point round wins over someone who doesn't.

The main unfair premium is the difference between someone getting five quickly and then getting hung up on the sixth and the time expiring, and the one who gets five, but has to pass on one in the middle they took a lot of time on. Same issue; it's just luck of the draw as to when the stumper showed up.

Quick tiebreaker? Three words, timed to the tenth of a second, Go-style: the team who caused the tie sets the time, the other has to beat it.

[Unrealtor]

I wouldn't mind a tiebreak format that was based on who had the most/fastest 7-point rounds, especially since the post-1983 tiebreaker rounds basically ended up being a version of that anyway, but I'm not sure that there's a lot to be learned from comparing who got their sixth point when.

[Nick]

when in Pyramid has it ever mattered in what round order you scored your points? 18 is 18, whether it comes in 6-6-6 or 7-7-4.

It doesn't, and I'm not suggesting it should matter, but when I'm watching the show and I just notice the team that scored fewer points in the final round to make a tie ends up getting the win, my natural inclination is that there should be some credit for having scored more points earlier in the game; but the only proper solution is a tiebreaker round.

Quick tiebreaker? Three words, timed to the tenth of a second, Go-style: the team who caused the tie sets the time, the other has to beat it.

I like it, but do you get just three words, or is truly like Go and you have a stack and can pass if you desire?  It would fit except for the fact it flips the game on its head and you've suddenly got a team playing a category with an upward-counting clock.  That would stick out more sorely than the way they slapped the logo on the front of Michael's lectern.

[clemon79]

I like it, but do you get just three words, or is truly like Go and you have a stack and can pass if you desire?

Honestly I didn't think about it that hard, but since passing through words "to get to the easy ones" would be a really bad time-wasting strategy, I'd be cool with a stack of ten or so words.

It would fit except for the fact it flips the game on its head and you've suddenly got a team playing a category with an upward-counting clock.  That would stick out more sorely than the way they slapped the logo on the front of Michael's lectern.

The tiebreaker as it is now sticks out with the weird explanation and the dramatic reveal. If the count-up bothers you that much, start a clock at 30 for the first team. and let that be the maximum time, a la the 99 second time on Scrabble. If they somehow crash and burn and can't score 3 farking points with Words That Begin With This Letter, the other team simply has to tie in less than the 30 seconds. I'm not going to worry about the one-in-a-million "they also got 2 in exactly 30 seconds" situation.

/"I have nothing better to do than to ask you what happens if both teams get 0."
//if that happens, fire the contestant coordinator AND celebrity wrangler
///and get outside more, I beg of you