Simple Family Feud Question

[J.R.]

This question has just been nagging me for a couple days, I know it might sound silly but:

Who gets the money ? Is one lump sum given to one person, is it equally divided among the five or something else ?

Thanks !
-Joe R.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 09:30 AM\'] Who gets the money ? Is one lump sum given to one person, is it equally divided among the five or something else ? [/quote]
 I have no first-hand knowledge, but it would seem logical that they'd cut five separate checks for each of the five contestants.  Anything else could potentially create some REAL family feuds!

[dale_grass]

I don't know how it works, but here's how it should:

The producer or whoever dolls out the checks should make sure the payouts are weighted due to performance; i.e. if the fifth position player never had a face-off and only gave strikes, only give him 5%.

After all, if you give equal shares to people who aren't equal, that's communism.  

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'dale_grass\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 10:12 AM\']The producer or whoever dolls out the checks should make sure the payouts are weighted due to performance; i.e. if the fifth position player never had a face-off and only gave strikes, only give him 5%.[/quote]
I know you're only kidding here, but if you think about it, penalizing the fifth player for not participating in a face-off means that you think that player's family should have played so badly that a fifth round was needed.  In other words, you're penalizing the fifth player for his family's outstanding performance.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 07:53 AM\'] I have no first-hand knowledge, but it would seem logical that they'd cut five separate checks for each of the five contestants.  Anything else could potentially create some REAL family feuds! [/quote]
 Friends of the family were on the original Dawson Feud, and I can tell you conclusively that they were issued seperate checks for their winnings.

[dale_grass]

In other words, you're penalizing the fifth player for his family's outstanding performance.

No matter how strong a chain is, there's always a weakest link.  There's a reason that player was put in the fifth position as opposed to first or second.  I know the whole idea sounds cruel, but I can't help but feel ticked if one player may only contribute strikes and get 50 in Fast Money while another player gets answers put on the board and scores 180 in Fast Money, and both walk away with equal shares.

Of course, I could always shut up and just enjoy the game.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 10:17 AM\'] [quote name=\'dale_grass\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 10:12 AM\']The producer or whoever dolls out the checks should make sure the payouts are weighted due to performance; i.e. if the fifth position player never had a face-off and only gave strikes, only give him 5%.[/quote]
I know you're only kidding here, but if you think about it, penalizing the fifth player for not participating in a face-off means that you think that player's family should have played so badly that a fifth round was needed.  In other words, you're penalizing the fifth player for his family's outstanding performance. [/quote]
 Niot to mention that until the 300 point rule was instituted in 1979, the odds very very heavy against the game even getting to a fifth face-off (especially during the first few years of the ABC run, where the first four questions were Single-Single-Double-Double [even when they added the Triple as a fifth question].  Most likely (and I don't know this for a fact), before the Triple questions were instituted, the fourth Double question should have been enough at virtually any value to give one family the win.

Doug

[David Lawrence]

[quote name=\'dale_grass\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 12:41 PM\']No matter how strong a chain is, there's always a weakest link.  There's a reason that player was put in the fifth position as opposed to first or second. [/quote]
Sure, some families stick their weakest player in the 5th spot. (And during the 200-point era, it's not necessarily a bad idea.) At other times, though, you find a sharp player in that spot, which I think is a good idea. If a game requires a 5th face-off, I think one would want someone both quick and bright going up to the podium who can take control of the Triple Point question with likely only 3 answers.

I think the 3rd spot is really the best place for Grandma, the 10-year-old, or the cousin who's not quite right in the head but is a 5th body so the family has enough people to do the show. Two good players up front to get off to a good start, the weak link, then 2 more good players who can bring it home.

[Jay Temple]

I would say that in almost all formats, the last question played for face value is the best spot for your weakest player.  One exception:  In the Bullseye era of 1-2-3-3, I'd put the worst player in the 5th spot.  Also, I don't remember the point values from when they only had four to a team.  If it was 1-2-3-3, I'd put the weak player in the #2 spot.

[HYHYBT]

The 1994 version did have 1-2-3 scoring. As for payments, the only way that's both reasonably fair and simple would be to divide equally and everyone get their own check. You start getting into who got the most answers right, played the most face-offs, got the most points in Fast Money, etc., and it just gets impossible unless one player was a complete idiot.

On positioning, well... I'd still put the weakest player last, assuming all family members are pretty close on buzzer speed. You might not even *get* to five rounds. Even if you do, the Face-Off is relatively easy: no answers are taken already, and by the triple rounds the #1 is usually obvious. But the second and third players often get to answer twice in the early, longer rounds, and if they do go to five questions, after the Face-Off you're back at the front of the line again to finish up.

Now, if everyone's good at the game but one or two have pokey hands (keep out of the gutter) then put them first.

[passwordplus]

I thought I'd put this one in the thread to avoid having another thread on FF. Why in the heck is the sound muffled when Richard Karn is talking to the losing family? It seems as if they don't want you to hear what they are saying. This has been happening on the shows this week, and alot last season as well.

[ChuckNet]

I think the 3rd spot is really the best place for Grandma, the 10-year-old, or the cousin who's not quite right in the head but is a 5th body so the family has enough people to do the show.

Although written in jest, David Letterman's Book of Top 10 Lists (1995), contradicts this theory in one item on a list of the Top 10 Signs Why Hillary is the Smartest Clinton:

"When the Clintons appeared on FF, she stood in the 3rd position (according to most Feud strategy experts, the key position on the team)."

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")