Thoughts on a Modified Jeopardy ToC (for the next season only)

[TheInquisitiveOne]

Good evening.

I’m still trying to process the fact that beloved Jeopardy host Alex Trebek is no longer with us, but I had a thought on what to do with this season and the next. This is largely because of the thread regarding Alex’s eventual replacement.

One of the hallmarks of any Jeopardy season is the Tournament of Champions, which - under normal circumstances - would take place this month. However, it’s likely the potential 2020 field will be deferred to 2021. I think that would be a good idea, but here are my thoughts why.

In my opinion, the producers should take this season to get the new host up to speed - be familiar with the format and find that ideal cadence that will keep the flow going. I personally would hold off on tournaments until the following season, but if it helps, see if the new host can handle special shows with Kids’ Week or even the College Championship.

As for the Tournament itself: as a make good that would encompass all qualifying players, I would propose a super tournament with the top purse of $500,000. If the field allows it, separate the players into three blocks. The blocks would be played in standard tournament style, with the block winners each receiving $250,000. The block winners would then compete against each other in a “first to three” format for another $250,000.

By then, my hope is that viewers will be comfortable with the new host, and this one-off style format will help put Jeopardy back on track. What are your thoughts? Thank you in advance for your responses.

The Inquisitive One

[TLEberle]

I see no reason for a double tournament with a green host already, and they're not going to run a Decades-sized event with a million dollar purse with that still green host.

Jeopardy runs the TOC whenever they see fit--I see no reason that they shouldn't keep it to the eighteen months pattern that they've been doing or just hold it off until the new host becomes more seasoned.

[TheInquisitiveOne]

I see no reason for a double tournament with a green host already, and they're not going to run a Decades-sized event with a million dollar purse with that still green host.

Jeopardy runs the TOC whenever they see fit--I see no reason that they shouldn't keep it to the eighteen months pattern that they've been doing or just hold it off until the new host becomes more seasoned.

Which is a totally fair counterpoint. With everything else going on that has hampered this season, I’m pretty sure there are other concerns to be addressed.

I just want the players who would’ve been in this field to have a fair shot at it, even if it means altering requirements to accommodate the next ToC without altering the overall format.

The Inquisitive One

[Jeremy Nelson]

Sometimes we go 18 months between TOCs- it's not always an annual affair.

Plus, the field of 15 will be the field of 15 regardless. Five wins no longer guarantees a bid, so when they have the tournament, it'll just be the top 15 at the cutoff point.

[TLEberle]

Sometimes we go 18 months between TOCs- it's not always an annual affair.

Plus, the field of 15 will be the field of 15 regardless. Five wins no longer guarantees a bid,

Really? That's not what I've heard/recall. But you're right--the tournament will happen when it does.

[Jeremy Nelson]

Sometimes we go 18 months between TOCs- it's not always an annual affair.

Plus, the field of 15 will be the field of 15 regardless. Five wins no longer guarantees a bid,

Really? That's not what I've heard/recall. But you're right--the tournament will happen when it does.

I mean, we never wait two years for a tournament, so there's rarely ever a situation where a 5 game winner doesn't get in. But in a situation like this where we likely won't get a ToC for at least another year, there's way more time for people to move down the leaderboard.

Currently there are six people at 4 wins, so I think your 5 gamers are fine. I do wonder if the rules state they automatically cut off qualification when the lowest five game winner is on the bubble, orif it just ends when producers say it ends.

[Bryce L.]

I do wonder if the rules state they automatically cut off qualification when the lowest five game winner is on the bubble, orif it just ends when producers say it ends.

I can't recall the year (may have been in the five-game limit era), but there was one year (early 2000s, I think) where there were more than 15 five-time winners, so they held over the lowest ones to the next TOC.

[Unrealtor]

I'm curious how much the show bible says versus what's just practice. We saw with Emma Boettcher's inclusion in the last ToC that they could invite people who wouldn't otherwise have qualified and (arbitrarily?) hold people over to the next pool. If it's all formally written out, I assume that there's also a clause that lets them disinvite people in the top fifteen in the event that they deem it necessary.

[TLEberle]

I can't recall the year (may have been in the five-game limit era), but there was one year (early 2000s, I think) where there were more than 15 five-time winners, so they held over the lowest ones to the next TOC.

There have also been college winners who deferred to the next championship.

I recall a couple of weeks ago hearing Alex mention (perhaps it was to Kevin Walsh the most recent 5x winner) that his fifth win gave him an automatic spot in the TOC and Alex didn't come off as the sort of person who used language flippantly.

As disappointing as it is for those in the pool who will not get to have their games read by Alex nothing is guaranteed to anyone. At some point the host is going to have to read for a tournament and they can't stall that forever. I would love if the new host (or perhaps on-air auditions) brought back previous winners to play against each other for a couple of weeks for the new hire to get the beats and some experience.

To Unrealtor--the website says that the contestant must meet eligibility requirements and that qualified winners can be disinvited at the discretion of producers (cf: Barbara Lowe-Vollick and Jerry Slowik.) Emma's case was certainly helped by being a three time winner but it does sound like they can do as they please within the boundaries set down.

[bscripps]

I would love if the new host (or perhaps on-air auditions) brought back previous winners to play against each other for a couple of weeks for the new hire to get the beats and some experience.

I could really get behind this idea.

[TLEberle]

I would love if the new host (or perhaps on-air auditions) brought back previous winners to play against each other for a couple of weeks for the new hire to get the beats and some experience.

I could really get behind this idea.

One of my top three favorite books on Jeopardy is by Stephen Baker who wrote on IBM's preparing for the Watson showdown. One thing I remembered was how previous winners (and heavy ones at that) were brough in for some sparring time.

[Mr. Armadillo]

Emma's case was certainly helped by being a three time winner but it does sound like they can do as they please within the boundaries set down.

IIRC, she also either had more money than the 4-day winner who would have played or was really close to it, largely because she had to play to double Holzhauer's score.

Currently there are six people at 4 wins, so I think your 5 gamers are fine. I do wonder if the rules state they automatically cut off qualification when the lowest five game winner is on the bubble, orif it just ends when producers say it ends.

There's only four* at 4 wins.  The last two slots are currently held by 3-winners.

*One of those being Zach Newkirk, who is still the defending champion from the Pre-COVID Era.