Jeopardy

[OntarioQuizzer]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Jul 15 2004, 09:21 PM\'] Only 7 of his games have not ended in a runaway, out of 32.

This is getting nuts. [/quote]
 As I posted on another thread:

It's less than 7.

It's 5.

June 2, 8, 21, 25, and 29.

Andy Saunders

[Jay Temple]

My 2¢ (alt-0162 if you want to do it yourself) worth:

1. On a show where merchandise is not announced as part of the total, it is logical to look only at cash winnings.  (The first college champ to win a car was introduced in the following ToC with only the cash winnings, not "$xx,xxx in cash and prizes.")
2. On Super Jeopardy!, contestants' winnings included regular games and ToC appearances.  In the Million Dollar Masters, and even in the last ToC, IIRC, no figures were announced at all.
3. I am assuming that the ToC, which has been taped, will air out of order relative to the regular games.  If I were the producer, and Ken was still the defending champion when the ToC taped, I would not want him to appear because of continuity issues:  Either Alex would appear not to know whether he had lost at the time of the ToC, or he would appear not to know whether Ken won when the games resumed.
4.  Once Ken's regular appearances and his ToC appearance have concluded, his total would naturally include both.
5.  The reason The $100,000 Pyramid didn't have too big a problem with a defending champion appearing in a tournament is that they had a five-day limit.

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jul 24 2004, 12:13 PM\']
5.  The reason The $100,000 Pyramid didn't have too big a problem with a defending champion appearing in a tournament is that they had a five-day limit. [/quote]
 But they did have at least one champ in both Clark and Davidson $100K who was champion when the tournament began. The players in question did not win the tourney, and resumed their championship after the tourney ended. Whether someone who won a $100K tourney and was champion before it began would get to come back and defend their championship is up for speculation.

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jul 24 2004, 07:05 PM\']But they did have at least one champ in both Clark and Davidson $100K who was champion when the tournament began. The players in question did not win the tourney, and resumed their championship after the tourney ended. Whether someone who won a $100K tourney and was champion before it began would get to come back and defend their championship is up for speculation.[/quote]
IMO, the only fair thing would have been not to allow them to qualify for a second tournament. They were already being fair in placing them in the "first" tournament, because the Winner's Circle time they had set was in that window for qualification. Allowing them a chance at a second tournament would be unfair to all of the contestants who didn't get a chance to become champion right before a tournament week.

Of course, lots of progressive jackpots (I'm looking at you, Super Password) rewarded some contestants more than others based solely on how unsuccessful their immediate predecessor(s) had been during the bonus round, so what do I know from fair.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jul 25 2004, 11:42 AM\'] IMO, the only fair thing would have been not to allow them to qualify for a second tournament. They were already being fair in placing them in the "first" tournament, because the Winner's Circle time they had set was in that window for qualification. Allowing them a chance at a second tournament would be unfair to all of the contestants who didn't get a chance to become champion right before a tournament week.[/quote]
I don't see the problem in it, so long as the game was reset and they were required to requalify like Heather Davis (mmmm was. If you're good enough to post qualifying times in seperate tournament periods, you should be able to play in both, and your performance in the first one shouldn't count against you.

However, I can see the argument that a $100K champion is permanently retired, to allow more people a shot at it, so as Zach said, it will all only ever be speculation, since the show is gone. (R.I.P.)

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 25 2004, 02:54 PM\']I don't see the problem in it, so long as the game was reset and they were required to requalify like Heather Davis (mmmm was. If you're good enough to post qualifying times in seperate tournament periods, you should be able to play in both, and your performance in the first one shouldn't count against you.[/quote]
My point was that most contestants did not get a chance to qualify in both in the first place. If you're playing when a tournament is still three weeks away, your two separate 30-second victories get you one tournament slot.

The point is not to diminish good players who begin their runs right before a tournament, but to not give them an unfair advantage over players from the previous two months.