Should Jeopardy re-impose a game-win limit?

[Ian Wallis]

This has been the season of super-champs so far.  I know this has probably been brought up on other boards, but would Jeopardy be better by imposing a game-winnings limit again?

When you get a dominant champion who just rolls on and on, it could be very hard to get rid of them - especially if the audience is lukewarm to them.  I've read comments about both Matt and Amy that because so many of their games were runaways, some viewers just lost interest because if was usually a foregone conclusion as to who would win quite early on in the game.

I'm not suggesting a 5-game limit, but what about something like a 20-win limit?  Is that reasonable?

Any opinions?

[Jeremy Nelson]

I would gather that some people just didn’t like Amy because she’s trans or a woman, but that’s a whole other ball of wax.

The truth is that Jeopardy’s ratings were up during Amy’s run, and I would presume the same for Matt’s as well. The show always gets an extra publicity surge when a superchamp comes along, and part of the mystique is wondering how far they’ll climb, not if they’ll reach a 20 game limit. Besides- the 20 game limit means that when dominant superchamps come along again, people will start to wonder how good they REALLY could have been without a cap, and there’s no reason to insert a “what if” at this point when things are already rolling.

I think people may have some fatigue because of the number of double digit champs we’ve had so far this season, and rightfully so- it has been a little exhausting to keep watching for half a season as 4 or 5 people dominated the champion’s lectern- but these things are always good for the show IMO.

Don’t add a cap. It’ll hurt the show long term.

[BrandonFG]

I think people may have some fatigue because of the number of double digit champs we’ve had so far this season, and rightfully so- it has been a little exhausting to keep watching for half a season as 4 or 5 people dominated the champion’s lectern- but these things are always good for the show IMO.

I could see this. It can get anticlimactic when an Amy or Matt or James consistently heads into Double - let alone Final - Jeopardy! and it's already a runaway with little chance of either contestant catching up. At that point, as a viewer I simply focus on playing along and don't worry about who scored how much. On nights when I can't watch the entire episode, I still enjoy the Final J! clue on Youtube. And not surprisingly any time I clicked the link, Amy usually had a $20-30K lead, but I enjoyed the daily brain teaser.

The great thing about the unlimited wins rule is that we get to know contestants as people...see their personalities and quirks. So many shows have to tell us everything up front because they don't have returning champions. IMO, it makes the "interview" portion of the show feel a little less rushed.

[ChrisLambert!]

No, because it’s not a problem. Big streak winners create publicity for the show and can potentially open up new opportunities for the champs.

[Robair]

I think the most elegant solution is that after every, say, 10 games won, the host asks the champ if they want to continue playing. The point being, you play these regular-season games in order to make it to ToC. 20 games should get you in, or perhaps over $500k. Once you've reached that, you should have least earned the option to preserve some sanity and gear up for the bigger payouts of ToC. Judging from Amy Schneider's last few games where she tanked almost every Final, it might have been advantageous on her part to step back and let some other folks play.

[jjman920]

I think the most elegant solution is that after every, say, 10 games won, the host asks the champ if they want to continue playing. The point being, you play these regular-season games in order to make it to ToC. 20 games should get you in, or perhaps over $500k. Once you've reached that, you should have least earned the option to preserve some sanity and gear up for the bigger payouts of ToC. Judging from Amy Schneider's last few games where she tanked almost every Final, it might have been advantageous on her part to step back and let some other folks play.

See, the problem with this is that people like money, and how much money is enough for them is certainly dependent on their life situation. If you tell me that I could have a chance to win five times the amount of the ToC top prize, something I'm not assured to win going up against players that are as good as me, I'm going to take the option with the better guarantee, which would be continuing to play.

I'm certainly aware of how mentally taxing it can be mentally on players. Both between playing the game and having to travel to the studio on tape days/weeks. But it all goes towards a life changing sum of money.

[That Don Guy]

Does it have to be a number of games limit? How about a money limit - say, $1,000,000?

I vaguely remember an early NBC High Rollers episode where Alex Trebek commented that the audience tended to start rooting against champions that had already won at least $20,000, so there is such a thing as "winning too much money" in some people's eyes.

[Chuck Sutton]

I think the most elegant solution is that after every, say, 10 games won, the host asks the champ if they want to continue playing.

Seems kind of redundant players are free to leave anytime they want for any reason.

[rjaguar3]

I think the most elegant solution is that after every, say, 10 games won, the host asks the champ if they want to continue playing.

Seems kind of redundant players are free to leave anytime they want for any reason.

I've never seen the Jeopardy! official rules, but probably they would have a rule prohibiting a returning champion from leaving without cause (on pain of forfeiture of winnings). The Whew! rules had such a provision: http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,33384.msg391733.html#msg391733

25. If I am champion, I agree to return to whatever tapings the producer schedules, and I understand that failure to do so may result in the forfeiting of any prizes or moneys I have won.

[Chuck Sutton]

OK, sorry did realize there was a penalty`(although I doubt they would enforce it)  still if someone really wants out how hard is it to "take a dive" on final jeopardy.

[Kevin Prather]

Are we really talking about voluntarily walking away from a $150,000-a-day gig?

[TLEberle]

OK, sorry did realize there was a penalty`(although I doubt they would enforce it)  still if someone really wants out how hard is it to "take a dive" on final jeopardy.

Why would they have a rule with no enforcement behind it?

[MSTieScott]

I don't know if a spoiler warning is necessary, but to be safe: The following post discusses results from this past week's Jeopardy! episodes.


Matt's and Amy's runs have been welcome good publicity for a show that needed to take a one-year extension to name Alex Trebek's successor. I don't know firsthand whether the ratings go up during a superchamp's streak, but it seems to make the news more consistently and more frequently than the usual clickbait "Wheel of Fortune contestant makes a mistake that we say cost them a million dollars because we can't be bothered to look up how the rules work."

In Los Angeles, Friday's episode of Jeopardy! was accompanied by a crawl from the local affiliate saying that Amy's final game (which aired in full at its originally scheduled time) would be rebroadcast Saturday night at 9:30 in place of the usual random episode from earlier in the season. So that leads me to believe that a champion's long run does equal better ratings.

I think the most elegant solution is that after every, say, 10 games won, the host asks the champ if they want to continue playing.

Even if the champion is exhausted, they're going to want to continue playing. After all, the Tournament of Champions will be far enough away that they'll have time to recuperate.

In fact, Amy talked about the exhaustion a little bit on Twitter. At the beginning of what turned out to be her final taping day, she had an unexplained feeling that it was going to be her last.

There were a few reasons for that. The biggest was simply mental fatigue; flying from Oakland to LA, long, mentally draining taping days, all while trying to keep the rest of my life running, really added up. The game itself was always fun, but everything else was wearing thin

(source)

About losing:

Ngl, it was crushing. I know I'd been thinking my streak would end, but that doesn't mean I wanted it to!

(source)

Even if she had been given the option to step down, she wouldn't have taken it.

[TLEberle]

It is unlikely that Jeopardy would start doing box scores and then say “we’ve made a terrible mistake, you can only win ten games now.”

Part of the intrigue is that you never know if the next stretch will belong to Austin Rogers or Arthur Chu, and the championship sorts out the best of the best and who maybe got a gift in playing lower caliber contestants.

[Chuck Sutton]

OK, sorry did realize there was a penalty`(although I doubt they would enforce it)  still if someone really wants out how hard is it to "take a dive" on final jeopardy.

Why would they have a rule with no enforcement behind it?

Since there is no legal way to force someone to continue,  there has to an incentive to continue,

But if someone really wanted to stop playing/working/performing I do not think show would want the publicity of refusing pay everything you already "earned"

But considering some of the reactions in the media to Simone Biles saying she could not compete, I could wrong.