jeopardy TOC semifinals question

[toetyper]

has there ever been a game in the semifinals where 3 wildcards played or do  they try to avoid this

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'210093\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:00 AM\']
has there ever been a game in the semifinals where 3 wildcards played or do  they try to avoid this[/quote]
I cannot think of a single solitary reason they would ever allow this to happen.

[toetyper]

maybe the pairings are random

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'210103\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 10:22 AM\']
maybe the pairings are random[/quote]
No TV producer with an interest in remaining employed is going to say "Well, that's how the chips fell! We've gotta go with it!"

[Jay Temple]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'210101\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:41 AM\']
[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'210093\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:00 AM\']
has there ever been a game in the semifinals where 3 wildcards played or do  they try to avoid this[/quote]
I cannot think of a single solitary reason they would ever allow this to happen.
[/quote]
Just a few things here:[list=1]

• It makes as little sense to me as putting two of the top five money winners in the same quarter-final game, and I've seen that.
• ISTR that in regulation play, the contestant coordinators put players together in whatever manner they think will make the most competitive games.
• There was a ToC (1988?) where two players tied for the high score of the week in the QF's, and they each beat a wild card player by $1. One of those wild card players was placed as the high-scoring player in his semifinal game.

So, it's not far-fetched that some scenario might occur in which the producers felt that an all-WC game was a good thing. I'd disagree with them, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'210124\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 02:11 PM\']
It makes as little sense to me as putting two of the top five money winners in the same quarter-final game, and I've seen that.[/quote]
As in, in regulation play? I don't see why that doesn't make sense at all, depending on the field.

ISTR that in regulation play, the contestant coordinators put players together in whatever manner they think will make the most competitive games.

Precisely. Which proves my point all the more: why do you want to guarantee a wildcard player a spot in your two-day final?

There was a ToC (1988?) where two players tied for the high score of the week in the QF's, and they each beat a wild card player by $1. One of those wild card players was placed as the high-scoring player in his semifinal game.

But it's very possible that a wildcard player could have a higher score than *several* of the quarterfinal winners.

In fact, if I was being strictly fair, that's how I would seed it: the best wildcard qualifier plays against the #3 and #4 QF winners, the next best plays the #2 and #5 QF winners, and the #1 QF winner gets the two poorest WCs. Gives you the best chance of getting the #1, #2, and #3 QF winners into the finals.

But, at the same time, you want ratings all week, not just those two days, and that #1 / two crappy WCs game would likely be a snoozer. So I can see that getting massaged.

I'll gladly eat my words if someone can cite evidence (doesn't the J! Archive keep records of this crap?), but I'm still not convinced.

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'210125\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 05:32 PM\']
you want ratings all week, not just those two days
[/quote]
Good thing I'm not a member of a Nielsen family because when it's tourney time, that's the only time I watch.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'210131\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 04:14 PM\']
Good thing I'm not in a member of a Nielsen family because when it's tourney time, that's the only time I watch.[/quote]
Then you're in good company, because that's two more days than I do.

[That Don Guy]

[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'210093\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:00 AM\']
has there ever been a game in the semifinals where 3 wildcards played or do  they try to avoid this
[/quote]
The problem with this is, they would have to put three of the five quarter-final winners together in one of the other two semi-finals.  It just doesn't seem fair to the winners to have that happen.

-- Don

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'210125\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 02:32 PM\']I'll gladly eat my words if someone can cite evidence (doesn't the J! Archive keep records of this crap?), but I'm still not convinced.[/quote]Probably, but this website in particular tracks the Tournaments of Champions up until...he stopped doing it.

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210145\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 06:17 PM\']with this is, they would have to put three of the five quarter-final winners together in one of the other two semi-finals.  It just doesn't seem fair to the winners to have that happen.[/quote]I have no idea how this would be feasible, but I really like the idea of a loser's round, where the high scoring non-winners would play for a single spot in the next round.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'210147\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:53 PM\']I have no idea how this would be feasible, but I really like the idea of a loser's round, where the high scoring non-winners would play for a single spot in the next round.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're saying here, because the only way I can interpret it is more or less what we're talking about, and we're saying why it's NOT a good idea.  In the tournament, the four "highest scoring non-winners" advance.  The original question was whether Jeopardy had ever created a "losers round" featuring only wild-card players competing in one of the three semi-final games.  While Jeopardy is free to do whatever they want, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do that, since it A) guarantees that someone who lost their first game would be playing for the championship and B) forces three of the five who won their games to all play against each other in the semifinals.

Neither of those are Worst-Idea-Ever disastrous decisions that would forever alter the purity and goodness which is the world's most popular quiz show.  After all, you still have to win the rest of your matches no matter who you face.  Ultimately, if TPTB decided that three wild card players would make an intriguing matchup, it's certainly within their right to set it up that way.  It just doesn't "feel" right as a basic issue of fairness.  I doubt they've ever done it, and I doubt they ever will.

To answer one of toetyper's original thoughts definitively, no, the semifinal matchups are definitely not random, nor are they pre-determined by outcome, the way a traditional bracket would be.  After the nine semifinalists are determined, Jeopardy producers decide who will play whom in the semifinal games.

[Kevin Prather]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210151\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 08:24 PM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'210147\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:53 PM\']I have no idea how this would be feasible, but I really like the idea of a loser's round, where the high scoring non-winners would play for a single spot in the next round.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're saying here, because the only way I can interpret it is more or less what we're talking about, and we're saying why it's NOT a good idea.  In the tournament, the four "highest scoring non-winners" advance.  The original question was whether Jeopardy had ever created a "losers round" featuring only wild-card players competing in one of the three semi-final games.  While Jeopardy is free to do whatever they want, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do that, since it A) guarantees that someone who lost their first game would be playing for the championship and B) forces three of the five who won their games to all play against each other in the semifinals.

Neither of those are Worst-Idea-Ever disastrous decisions that would forever alter the purity and goodness which is the world's most popular quiz show.  After all, you still have to win the rest of your matches no matter who you face.  Ultimately, if TPTB decided that three wild card players would make an intriguing matchup, it's certainly within their right to set it up that way.  It just doesn't "feel" right as a basic issue of fairness.  I doubt they've ever done it, and I doubt they ever will.

To answer one of toetyper's original thoughts definitively, no, the semifinal matchups are definitely not random, nor are they pre-determined by outcome, the way a traditional bracket would be.  After the nine semifinalists are determined, Jeopardy producers decide who will play whom in the semifinal games.
[/quote]

Matt, if I'm understanding Travis correctly, he's saying that by having 3 wildcards together, and having the 4th against seasoned winners, sure you're guaranteeing one WC will move on, but chances are ONLY one will move on. If you spread them out, there's a chance (albeit a slim one) of having an ALL-wildcard final.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'210153\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:43 PM\']Matt, if I'm understanding Travis correctly, he's saying that by having 3 wildcards together, and having the 4th against seasoned winners, sure you're guaranteeing one WC will move on, but chances are ONLY one will move on. If you spread them out, there's a chance (albeit a slim one) of having an ALL-wildcard final.[/quote]
Well, OK, if that's the point then it does -- as he rightly said -- bring up feasibility issues.  The simplest solution in that case would be to have six qualifying games instead of five (making three more past winners very happy in the process) and then have the semifinals consist of two games where the six winners play each other and a third where only three wild card players face off.

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to guarantee one-and-only-one wild card player a seat at the final table, but that would be the easiest way to do it.

[clemon79]

Actually, I interpreted Travis's suggestion as something akin to the play-in game for the NCAA basketball tournament, where you would get, say, five winners, and then the three top losers play in the play-in game for the sixth and final spot in the semis. Then two semis with those six and mano-a-mano in the finals.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'210156\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 12:04 AM\']
Actually, I interpreted Travis's suggestion as something akin to the play-in game for the NCAA basketball tournament, where you would get, say, five winners, and then the three top losers play in the play-in game for the sixth and final spot in the semis. Then two semis with those six and mano-a-mano in the finals.[/quote]
All these great ideas Travis has -- I wonder which one really was his?

You're right, that would work and would actually be completely feasible in that the tournament still gets done in ten days.