Game Show Fans 50 Greatest - Results

[MSTieScott]

Scott: Welcome to the results for the 2016 Game Show Fans 50 Greatest! Forty-eight of you voted, and I'm here with the results. But I'm not here alone -- to provide commentary that's more insightful than what I could come up with by myself, I'm joined by JasonA1. Jason, before we find out which shows made the top fifty, what are you interested in seeing from the results of this poll compared to the results of the 2006 poll?

Jason: Well, as I said before, I'm interested to see what 10 years has done to the results - namely, what the advent of YouTube has done to them. Even 10 years ago, if you weren't in the tape trading community, odds are you were relying on your memory or hearsay to judge the shows not being run on GSN. Now, with video seemingly everywhere, we all have a chance to remember even our less-than-favorite shows. But also, I'm very curious what happened to the newest "classics." In the "between time," since 2006, we got all sorts of new games on cable, plus more network shows in the wake of Howie Mandel's briefcases. That's a lot of shows and a lot of time to help figure out where the games of the new millennium truly fit in a list of the greatest of all time.

Scott: I'm glad you mentioned Howie Mandel's briefcases, because that's one of the things I'm looking forward to learning, too: When this poll was conducted in 2006, Deal or No Deal was less than a year old. At the time, we collectively ranked it as the 44th greatest game show. Now that it's had a chance to run its course, will we think more or less of it? But the result I'm most looking forward to seeing concerns two stalwarts: The last time around, Jeopardy! and Pyramid took second and third place, respectively. But Jeopardy! beat Pyramid by just one point. Will it be another neck-and-neck race between these two, or will one of them receive a clear victory over the other?

Let's reveal the results! In the end, 226 shows received at least one vote, but only fifty of them will receive the fandom's top honors. We begin with the shows that just barely made the cutoff.


50. Weakest Link
276 points; 21 votes
2006 ranking: 49

Scott: Even the syndicated Weakest Link had been off the air for about three years when we had the 2006 survey... still, now that it's been 13 years, I was curious whether it would fall off the top fifty entirely. Turns out we gave it essentially the same ranking.

Jason: If you love trivia, Weakest Link is certainly a place to get lots of it. Given our cadre of Q & A fans around here, I'm not surprised to see it back on the top 50 after all this time. George Gray proved it could be done more than capably with another host. Unlike other game shows, I actually enjoyed some episodes of the all-celebrity Link, because the players often had fun sniping at each other and tried to get Anne to crack. I'd be curious to see if Weakest Link could flourish in a revival, but I'd be wary if they decided to cast a more well-known host. There's enough going on that I don't think you need a second show happening at center stage.


49. College Bowl
277 points; 12 votes
2006 ranking: 46

Jason: When it came time to finish my list for 2016, I found a place for College Bowl, less so for the show itself. I think College Bowl deserves lots of credit for helping young people take in interest in knowledge & eventually find a place in school where they could flourish because of it. Watching existing episodes today, you get some early examples of a more modern directing style with the split-screen of both teams, coupled with audio & video questions. Allen Ludden shows enthusiasm for the proceedings, and shows sincerity as he implores the younger audience to get themselves prepared for their own higher education.

Scott: That's the exact same reason I included College Bowl on my ballot -- while I weighted "personal enjoyment" more heavily when I was ranking the shows, I did give consideration for historical impact, and I feel College Bowl deserves recognition for that. Note that only 25% of respondents actually voted for College Bowl; however, seven of those twelve ballots placed the show in the upper 25, which is what allowed it to make this list.


48. Win, Lose or Draw
281 points; 21 votes
2006 ranking: 52

Jason: The first newcomer to the top 50! (But not the last!) It's easy to forget just how big Win, Lose or Draw was in its first run. Saturday Night Live had a very funny parody, picking on the fact it was seemingly on all day with tie game after tie game. The show traveled across the country before their big brothers Wheel & Jeopardy made a yearly thing of it - Chicago, Florida, New York, Hawaii. And thanks to Antenna TV, we have tape of Burt talking about this game in the '70s on The Tonight Show. Win, Lose or Draw was never about the money being won, which is something today's producers might want to remember.


47. Tattletales
291 points; 20 votes
2006 ranking: 31

Scott: This is one of the most extreme changes in ranking between 2006 and 2016. And it can't entirely be attributed to the natural volatility of the bottom of the 50 best: In 2006, 47 out of 80 voters (more than half) put Tattletales somewhere on their list; this time around, fewer than half of the voters saw fit to include it. And on average, Tattletales was ranked lower on individual ballots compared to ten years ago. What happened?

Jason: I'm not entirely sure. If you don't have Buzzr, you'd have to seek it out on your own, so perhaps Tattletales isn't as fresh on our collective minds. Fans might have found more game-heavy shows to rank higher in the meantime, as well. This could also be a case of our average voter age dropping, with less of those fans fond of seeing stars they don't know interacting? Just a guess.

Scott: Yeah, if anything, I thought Buzzr would help Tattletales stay relatively high on the list. Of course, Buzzr's episodes have largely been stuck in the He Said, She Said-inspired beginnings of Tattletales, so... maybe not so much. Actually, if I had to put forward a theory: In 2006, as the poll was beginning, there was discussion and debate about which titles would and wouldn't be considered the same show. Matt mentioned that he would be combining Tattletales and He Said, She Said -- which makes sense to mention, since what Tattletales is best known for bears little relation to its predecessor -- but I'm wondering if that clarification put the show in people's minds and led to them placing it on their ballots. On the ballots this year, the only people who "voted" for He Said, She Said were the ones who listed their vote as "Tattletales/He Said, She Said," acknowledging the previous combination ruling.


46. Twenty One
319 points; 18 votes
2006 ranking: 41

Scott: I believe you and I are of the same opinion regarding the inclusion of the scandal shows on our ballots, Jason. However, in the case of Twenty One, eighteen people disagree with us.

Jason: Yes; I didn't include scandal shows on my ballots in either year. Inherently, the original version of Twenty One didn't work, and producers quickly saw to it that the outcomes were always exciting. Looking back on the Maury Povich version, I think it was a missed opportunity to break out from the post-Millionaire pack. Strikes and tie-breaking questions kept games short - probably too short. Adding a Second Chance helper draws comparisons to Phone-a-Friend. Ditching the Twenty One twist of a new champion's money coming from the old champion, along with the added bonus round, stripped its unique qualities even further. I think there's definitely a place for this sort of game to shine, where two players compete without knowing the others' progress. But both versions had issues. I'm curious how others made this decision.

Scott: I'm sure they'll tell us in the replies, but my hunch is that they wanted to acknowledge the undeniable fact that before the truth was revealed, the original Twenty One took this country by storm. And since I was just talking about historical impact three entries ago, I suppose I can understand that reasoning, especially because the rules explicitly stated that the definition of "greatest" was up to each voter. (Although, of the twelve people who voted for College Bowl, only five also voted for Twenty One.) But in my opinion, the phrase "great game show" implies that the program itself does something right. And if rigging the show is the only way to make it watchable, I just can't bring myself to call it great.

[TLEberle]

For me it's "what kept [the show] from being great?" Sure, Weakest Link had a high trivia per minute ratio, but frequently the contestants were risk-averse dunderheads playing for a relative pittance and casting out the strong players who could build the pot (but then they'd win it.) Tattletales is an interesting enough idea for people who care about celebrity gossip, but I'm not in that wheelhouse. Win, Lose or Draw was ubiquitous but there were so many other good shows that I put ahead of it. Twenty-one's revival could have been good if not great, but they decided too many times to stay on the beaten path: questions that were more pop culture than general knowledge (at least that's what I remember), silly tropes of the times, far too much money for too little work and a network that didn't really let the show grow into itself. The live orchestra was an elegant touch, but in a genre where we're constantly looking for a show to have a one-line elevator pitch, it was just another quiz show throwing around bundles of Benjamins.

[BrandonFG]

From what I remember, Maury's Twenty One did pretty well in the ratings (I think it was Top 30), but NBC wanted a Millionaire killer. Had they waited a little longer, and stopped spoiling results in advance, it might've worked. The format changed quite a bit too, IIRC.

[gromit82]

First of all, I want to thank Scott for running this poll, and also Jason for his commentary.

Forty-eight of you voted, and I'm here with the results.

There was a big drop in the number of voters compared to the 2006 poll, which had 80 participants. (I missed the 2006 poll at the time because I wasn't active on the board.) The drop in participation probably has something to do with the fact that membership in the board has been closed for a couple of years. While I appreciate the desire to keep trolls away, I doubt we'll be able to run a meaningful poll 10 years from now unless we open up the board to additional members.

[Dbacksfan12]

For me it's "what kept [the show] from being great?" Sure, Weakest Link had a high trivia per minute ratio, but frequently the contestants were risk-averse dunderheads playing for a relative pittance and casting out the strong players who could build the pot (but then they'd win it.)

Heaven forbid there be a system to get rid of unlikable, cantankerous personalities.  Maybe play some strategy instead and try not to be a show off know-it-all.  Perhaps they weren't as big of a dunderhead as you suggest.

[Fedya]

You can be smart and not be an unlikeable, cantankerous personality.  (Ken Jennings.)

[gromit82]

Since the 2006 poll indicated what years the shows that ranked in the poll aired, I'm going to provide that info here. This will help show what eras the shows we liked most were from. (Hopefully Scott will take over providing this information.)

If there are any errors in these dates, please feel free to provide a correction.

50. Weakest Link (2001-2003)
49. College Bowl (1959-1970, 1987, 1990-1995) (including Campus All-Star Challenge)
48. Win, Lose or Draw (1987-1992, 2014)
47. Tattletales (1969-1970, 1974-1978, 1982-1984) (including He Said, She Said)
46. Twenty One (1956-1958, 2000)

[MSTieScott]

I'm deliberately leaving out years and variant titles (unless relevant to the results) in an effort to balance clarity and brevity. For example, I don't want the Password and Pyramid entries to be overwhelmed by a string of titles and date ranges -- there are enough numbers being presented already. We're game show fans; we know what Win, Lose or Draw means.

I don't mind if you want to keep track of that information, though if 2006's results are any indication, the most popular shows will not be limited to one specific era.

[Matt Ottinger]

Actually, if I had to put forward a theory: In 2006, as the poll was beginning, there was discussion and debate about which titles would and wouldn't be considered the same show. Matt mentioned that he would be combining Tattletales and He Said, She Said -- which makes sense to mention, since what Tattletales is best known for bears little relation to its predecessor -- but I'm wondering if that clarification put the show in people's minds and led to them placing it on their ballots.

That makes a lot of sense -- and makes me feel a little sheepish for potentially skewing the results like that.  Still, I'm glad it's on the list.  It's a personal favorite, and even though it's so much a product of its era, I'd still like somebody to take a shot at reviving it.

[PYLdude]

For me it's "what kept [the show] from being great?" Sure, Weakest Link had a high trivia per minute ratio, but frequently the contestants were risk-averse dunderheads playing for a relative pittance and casting out the strong players who could build the pot (but then they'd win it.)

Heaven forbid there be a system to get rid of unlikable, cantankerous personalities.  Maybe play some strategy instead and try not to be a show off know-it-all.  Perhaps they weren't as big of a dunderhead as you suggest.

Then they deserved the pittance they got.

It really wasn't that hard to put together a string of enough answers to reach and bank the target. Why was it that only the contestants on the syndicated series could figure that out?

I don't know about you but I want to keep the best player on my team because with him, or her, I have the best chance to maximize my potential prize. That way if I'm lucky enough to get to the final round with him/her and win, I've beaten the best player and reap the proper reward.

[TLEberle]

Heaven forbid there be a system to get rid of unlikable, cantankerous personalities. 

Why would you want to get rid of them? Who else would you root for?

Given that the survey is an opinion piece I registered my opinion as to what things made it so that Weakest Link wasn't in my top 50. I enjoyed the show (especially with George Gray) and watched when it wasn't in conflict with something else) but there were too many quibbles to rank it. When the two finalists are clawing over a thousand dollars that doesn't fill me with excitement. (Now on the other hand, the weeks they did when they had family members competing for the prize fund were the most interesting and exciting to me.) The people who decided to put Weakest Link on their list obviously had good reasons for it, and they're certainly welcome to share if they like--I'll disagree and I may ask them questions, but I won't look down at them for it. One person doing that in this thread is plenty enough.

[Joe Mello]

It really wasn't that hard to put together a string of enough answers to reach and bank the target. Why was it that only the contestants on the syndicated series could figure that out?

Probably because stringing six independent events together is easier than eight, and I imagine the people who had gone on the syndie version were probably a little more well-versed with how the game worked than the network players who came before them.

Also, when it got down to the Round of Three, was the difference between strongest and weakest players always so vast that it wasn't worth taking fewer bucks for a better shot at winning?

[Sodboy13]

I never got past typing out a list of 50-ish of my favorite games and then having no idea how to rank them (for the most part), but I did have Weakest Link on that list, and would probably rank it somewhere in the 35-50 range. It is possible that my ranking is colored by the British version, and I know that's something we're supposed to exclude from consideration for this. I really did enjoy the format and the gameplay, and the fact that between the groan-inducing backstabbing zingers, there was a heck of a lot of trivia content per hour. I would have liked to see George Gray get a crack at an hour-long version - condescending wiseass worked a lot better for me in the domestic version than disciplinarian schoolmarm.

[JasonA1]

For me it's "what kept [the show] from being great?" Sure, Weakest Link had a high trivia per minute ratio, but frequently the contestants were risk-averse dunderheads playing for a relative pittance and casting out the strong players who could build the pot (but then they'd win it.)

Heaven forbid there be a system to get rid of unlikable, cantankerous personalities.  Maybe play some strategy instead and try not to be a show off know-it-all.  Perhaps they weren't as big of a dunderhead as you suggest.

I think voting off the Strongest Link was a decision made by a small bloc of players before the show (as they were allowed to do). I don't think a group of people would make that collective decision on stage and/or base it on "know-it-all"ness.

Weakest Link fell out of my top 50 when I tried to watch a refresher episode and Anne started explaining "round five, team..." I was beyond checked out. Too much of the same thing. Win, Lose or Draw also did not make my top 50. I think it was the right show at the right time, but not "Great."

-Jason

[TLEberle]

Weakest Link fell out of my top 50 when I tried to watch a refresher episode and Anne started explaining "round five, team..." I was beyond checked out. Too much of the same thing. Win, Lose or Draw also did not make my top 50. I think it was the right show at the right time, but not "Great."

A big problem I had with the NBC version was that even though the game was progressing it didn't feel like that because rarely did the teams pile up some serious money to play for (as a percentage of the maximum) so it had to rely on the host caricature and the catty remarks that were old after once around the horn. When teams are routinely playing for a prize of $50,000 to $75,000 because they either can't reach the last rungs of the ladder or the players bank after every other right answer it loses quite a lot.

I think that the half-hour version with five rounds (including a double-stakes round five as an incentive to keep theS-M-R-T folks around) was about as good as you could ask for with that format and if the syndicated version was all we had to vote on I would rate it more favorably. I don't think it would make it to Greatness as we're defining it, but there y'are.