It's Broke, so Fix It!

[SamJ93]

How about TPiR? One could argue that in the half-hour days of the show, if all three contestants won their games, a player could be shut out of the showcase just because their prize was lower in value than the other two players'.  Not really all that fair.  Sure, the SCSD is almost entirely chance-based, but it at least gives everyone a fair shot.

--Sam

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 10:39 AM\'] I'm a seven-in-thirty man myself. [/quote]
Thing is, more often than not for much of the 80s run [I can't pinpoint the exact day when this started] 7 out of 7s were happening so frequently they were almost dull.

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 12:46 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 10:39 AM\'] I'm a seven-in-thirty man myself. [/quote]
Thing is, more often than not for much of the 80s run [I can't pinpoint the exact day when this started] 7 out of 7s were happening so frequently they were almost dull.[/quote]
True to a degree, but it was enjoyable (to me) to watch a team that got the rhythm down and could zip through those like pros.  (My friend Dave and I have it down well for playing the home version.)

There are a couple of ways to improve this without going to the 6-in-20 format:

1.  Allow a team to get as many words as they can in 30 seconds.  (I believe this was suggested by someone else here back when Donny's version premiered.)  There's a practical limit to how many they could get, so the writers would only have to come up with, say, 10 or 15 words per category.

2.  Keep the categories to a fixed number of words, but play the whole front game in a manner similar to the 80's tiebreaker rounds, with the team that completes its 3 categories faster winning the game.  Obviously there would still have to be a limit (30 seconds would still work just fine for 7 words) for completing a category, with perhaps a penalty of 5 seconds for each unguessed word.  (That is, if a team got 7 words in 21 seconds, that would be their time; but if a team only got 5 words in 30 seconds, their time would be 40 seconds.)  This method of play would, I think, add more tension to the game because of the competition against the clock.  In addition, it would prevent ties and thus save valuable time.

[SplitSecond]

Not railing on your suggestions, Mike, but I find it fascinating how people in general decry changes from the norm unless they're the ones suggesting the changes.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 01:46 PM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 10:39 AM\'] I'm a seven-in-thirty man myself. [/quote]
Thing is, more often than not for much of the 80s run [I can't pinpoint the exact day when this started] 7 out of 7s were happening so frequently they were almost dull. [/quote]
That's actually a good point.  For a while, I was also a proponent of what Mike suggested two posts up, that there be an unlimited number of subjects and you keep going 'til time runs out.  Still, I understand the advantage of having "successful" rounds.  

So eight-in-thirty then.

[76GMC]

I agree with SamJ93 about TPIR.

I was only 8 months old when TPIR went to an hour, so my first strong memory of the 30-min format was Kennedy's run.  The pressure to win a pricing game stuck out like a sore thumb, esp the car games.  

Depending on how the segments were loaded, the showcase contestants could be decided after two PGs (esp. if Clock Game was in the 3rd spot).

Going to the full-hour (and using the SCSDs) eliminated those scenarios on the daytime show.  You could blow your chance at the Golden Road's Viper and still redeem yourself by winning a Bonneville in the showcase.  

76GMC Rick

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 07:59 AM\']I couldn't stand the six-in-twenty rule.  Not simply because it was a change, but because it meant that virtually every segment of gameplay ended on a negative "time's up", rather than a positive "you got through them all".[/quote]
That's interesting; I'm thinking exactly the opposite.

Over the course of the *entire game*, the 80s version usually saw one player *lose* by failing to get all seven once or twice. Osmond's version was *won* by someone getting more words than someone else.

Common last category scenarios:
Clark: Team needs all seven to tie. Team gets six. Team loses; ends game on a sour note.
Osmond: Team needs two to win. They get them. Boring, but does end the game on a high note.

The biggest reason I like six in twenty? One cuckoo---er, burble---caused by a celeb doesn't often cost a team the game. Perfection is a mighty lofty goal.

Now, if they'd only gotten some celebs who could actually play the game...

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 01:42 PM\']Not railing on your suggestions, Mike, but I find it fascinating how people in general decry changes from the norm unless they're the ones suggesting the changes.[/quote]
An excellent point, and one that came to mind as I was making my suggestions.  If it were up to me, I'd leave the format unchanged from the 80's.  Knowing that producers tend to want to change formats when they revive them, if only to put their own stamp on the show, it's just fun to come up with our own ideas for the changes.  If someone had implemented either of my suggestions on Pyramid, I probably would have hated it (since neither would have been my idea at the time).

[opimus]

WML when they added Fate's law.

[Winkfan]

Not that there was anything wrong with their first format, but in the beginning, Tattletales had 'quickie questions' every third, fifth, or sixth question. It wasn't until the summer of 1974 that they switched to their 'all-quickie questions' format; and they stuck with it right up to the end of the 1974-78 run and all through their 1982-84 run.

Cordially,
Tammy Warner--the 'Sandy Duncan of the Big Board!'

[zachhoran]

Granted it was much too late to improve the show's ratings enough to get a second season, but TJW90 did change the maingame to include categories on the wheels. That was considered an improvement to some.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Winkfan\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 05:23 PM\'] Not that there was anything wrong with their first format, but in the beginning, Tattletales had 'quickie questions' every third, fifth, or sixth question. It wasn't until the summer of 1974 that they switched to their 'all-quickie questions' format; and they stuck with it right up to the end of the 1974-78 run and all through their 1982-84 run. [/quote]
 An excellent example, Tammy, one I wish I had thought of, and one I'd probably put above even my choice of Scrabble.  I never cared for the He Said, She Said style of questions, but I thought the all-quickie format was brilliant in its simplicity.

[Don Howard]

May we include Wheel Of Fortune switching to an all-cash (or mostly all-cash; at least the shopping was dumped) format?
Plus, I thought the bonus round used on Hollywood Squares for the final two years of the Bergeron run was the best.

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 08:23 PM\'] May we include Wheel Of Fortune switching to an all-cash (or mostly all-cash; at least the shopping was dumped) format?
[/quote]
I think the addition of the Bonus Round on WOF was a good thing, during the Woolery years, there was no "payoff" as it were, time just ran out.  One of the selling points originally was that people could buy glitzy prizes. ("Look at this studio.....")  Imagine where we would be today if they had stuck with the "Shopper's Bazaar" title.

[Stevek83]

How About FF going back to the "first team to 300 points wins" format? It's a lot better than the "whoever has the most points after we triple them" format. I hated to see family A win the first three rounds, only to miss one answer in the one strike only round, causing family B to steal it and win.