Author Topic: $100,000 Pyramid (Read 11174 times)

golden-road · « **on:** October 31, 2005, 12:03:48 PM »

I watched a $100K win two weeks ago, and it was mentioned that one of the players was the champion prior to the tournament's start. My question is this: If the champion before the tournament entered and won the $100,000, would they still continue their reign, or are they retired right then and there?

clemon79 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2005, 12:24:57 PM »

[quote name=\'golden-road\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 09:03 AM\']My question is this: If the champion before the tournament entered and won the $100,000, would they still continue their reign, or are they retired right then and there?

[snapback]100843[/snapback]

[/quote]
I love it when people ask policy questions about situations that never came up on game shows that haven't been on the air in a solid fifteen years.

That said, when Heather Davis (mmmmm Heather Davis) did not win her tournament, she came back as champeen and did in fact qualify for the next one. (I'm guessing this was the situation you encountered. Her time, of course, did not hold.) Since being retired as regular champion has no bearing on being able to win the tournament, I see no reason why winning the tournament would count against you being retired as a regular champion.

However, since it never happened, and since the show's been off the air for a solid fifteen years, there's no way to say for sure. Which, really, should have been the conclusion you came to yourself in the first place.

jmangin · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2005, 03:49:09 PM »

Meeeeoowww!!!

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2005, 06:25:15 PM »

I still say that I couldn't see them going ahead with letting someone play in two tournaments, although I'm sure Chris is recounting the situation correctly. Letting them continue in regular play after the first tournament, though, is completely fair.

clemon79 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2005, 07:03:02 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 03:25 PM\']I still say that I couldn't see them going ahead with letting someone play in two tournaments, although I'm sure Chris is recounting the situation correctly. Letting them continue in regular play after the first tournament, though, is completely fair.

[snapback]100892[/snapback]

[/quote]
Well, Heather (mmmmm Heather) did have to requalify...her time from before didn't count towards getting into the second one. So she had to win in the Winner's Circle twice to do it. So I'm not sure I see the problem. She had to get back in like anyone else. The only advantage she had was the experience of being champion, and any champion on the show has that experience.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2005, 09:24:19 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 07:03 PM\']Well, Heather (mmmmm Heather) did have to requalify...her time from before didn't count towards getting into the second one. So she had to win in the Winner's Circle twice to do it. So I'm not sure I see the problem. She had to get back in like anyone else.[/quote]

Anyone else who got to be on the show right before a tournament started. If you're the new champion with three weeks left, you have no chance at playing in two tournaments.

clemon79 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2005, 10:31:11 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 06:24 PM\']Anyone else who got to be on the show right before a tournament started. If you're the new champion with three weeks left, you have no chance at playing in two tournaments.

[snapback]100918[/snapback]

[/quote]
I'm missing something. What's your point?

(And I say that with no malace. I really don't see it.)

EDIT: Wait, I do see it. Don't agree with it, but I see it. That person who is champ three weeks out also gets the same five shows to qualifiy as anyone else. Heather got...well, however many she got.

Are you suggesting she should not have been permitted to requalify? If so, should she have been eligible for the new tournament in the event she didn't qualify for the first one? Too much of a can of worms, if you ask me. So you tell her she can't qualify for the next tournament. What kind of asshole does that make her in the eyes of viewers if she keeps winning and denying tournament-eligible players a chance to make a time for themselves?

And say I set a time in the first two days of a tournament period. There's a lot more people who have a shot to better me than there would be in the last two days. So it's already not a perfect system, but it worked well enough.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2005, 10:00:10 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 10:31 PM\']EDIT: Wait, I do see it. Don't agree with it, but I see it. That person who is champ three weeks out also gets the same five shows to qualifiy[/quote]

*once*

Quote

as anyone else. Heather got...well, however many she got.

Are you suggesting she should not have been permitted to requalify? If so, should she have been eligible for the new tournament in the event she didn't qualify for the first one?

IMO, yes, she should get to qualify for the next tournament if she didn't make the last one. That, too, gives her an advantage compared to players whose runs didn't overlap tournaments, but not as much of one.

Quote

Too much of a can of worms, if you ask me. So you tell her she can't qualify for the next tournament. What kind of asshole does that make her in the eyes of viewers if she keeps winning and denying tournament-eligible players a chance to make a time for themselves?

. . . huh? What viewer is going to think that? Be confused by Dick having to explain my complicated rules alteration, sure, but thinking she's an asshole? (And why wouldn't they be thinking that when they saw her playing the regular game after she'd already been in a big tournament?)

If the tournament-eligible players want to make a time for themselves, they should try winning the main game.

Quote

And say I set a time in the first two days of a tournament period. There's a lot more people who have a shot to better me than there would be in the last two days. So it's already not a perfect system, but it worked well enough.

That's not a "perfect system" only if you think that having a time to beat makes for better times in the Winner's Circle. "C'mon, JoAnne! Spit it out! I've got to beat 35 seconds-- ah, crap, nevermind."

SRIV94 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 02, 2005, 10:28:57 PM »

OK, I must be missing something (and feel free to whoosh if warranted; it's been that kind of week).

If someone wins the $100,000, wouldn't that take them immediately over the winnings limit? And if so, should they be allowed to continue as champion if they happen to be defending champion entering the tourney?

(Like I said, I must be missing something.)

Doug -- and the countdown to 1600 continues

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2005, 10:36:57 PM »

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 10:28 PM\']If someone wins the $100,000, wouldn't that take them immediately over the winnings limit? And if so, should they be allowed to continue as champion if they happen to be defending champion entering the tourney?[/quote]

What Chris and I are debating (well, I am--Chris may well be sick of it by now) is simply being allowed to qualify for a second tournament after having participated in a first tournament, win OR lose.

("It's week eight of our $100,000 tournament. Two of our players have won so many 21-21 tiebreakers that they have both exceeded the winnings limit. After this break, our remaining player, Susan, will try to beat the Pyramid. And she'll GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME, won't you, Susan?")

SRIV94 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2005, 10:46:55 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 09:36 PM\']What Chris and I are debating (well, I am--Chris may well be sick of it by now) is simply being allowed to qualify for a second tournament after having participated in a first tournament, win OR lose.

[snapback]101152[/snapback]

[/quote]
Lose, I can see the argument on both sides. It's someone who wins the tourney and the $100,000 that I think should be retired right then and there. It's not all that different than a PYL winner amassing $25K+ and then being shown the door.

Doug -- and the countdown to 1600 continues

clemon79 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2005, 10:56:08 PM »

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 07:46 PM\']Lose, I can see the argument on both sides. It's someone who wins the tourney and the $100,000 that I think should be retired right then and there. It's not all that different than a PYL winner amassing $25K+ and then being shown the door.

[snapback]101156[/snapback]

[/quote]
I don't remember, were you retired on the $100K show when you cracked the $50K barrier? 'Cuz if you were, then I suggest your example is QUITE A BIT different.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2005, 11:07:44 PM »

I don't believe so. I think one $100,000 winner had a grand total of over $150,000, no? Patty something?

clemon79 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2005, 11:13:32 PM »

[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 08:07 PM\']I don't believe so. I think one $100,000 winner had a grand total of over $150,000, no? Patty something?

[snapback]101163[/snapback]

[/quote]
Perhaps, but how much of that was won in tournament play? Obviously, the $100K, but remember there were the $5000 bonuses for 21-21 plus any failed WC money.

SRIV94 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2005, 11:18:49 PM »

After doing a little further Googling, I happened upon Chri$ Lambert's Bob Stewart Fan Page, which says that there was no winnings limit, but contestants could appear on no more than five episodes during normal play.

From that, it would appear that you conceivably could win the $100K as defending champion and if you had episodes left could come back and conceivably do it again.

So I'll give mysefl the WHOOOSH (lot less painful that way

).

Doug -- and the countdown to 1600 continues