Possible Jeopardy Fix?

[Peter Sarrett]

The one thing that bugs me about Ken Jennings' run on Jeopardy! is the arguably unfair advantage he has, as a going-on-forty-time champion, with the buzzer.  Mastering the buzzer is an enormous part of the game, and a newcomer is going to be extremely hard-pressed to get his timing up to Ken's level.  That buzzer learning curve has actually been an issue with Jeopardy since its inception, but Ken's marathon run got me thinking about it a bit more.

My understanding is that a light goes on after Alex has finished reading the question.  Buzzing before that light goes on locks you out for a fraction of a second, and your podium will only light up if you buzz in first after the light goes on.  Presumably, the interval between when Alex finishes reading and when the light goes on is fairly constant.

What if it wasn't?  It occurred to me that if the light went on at a random interval between, say, .25 and 1.5 seconds after Alex finished, Ken's advantage would be eliminated.  It would no longer be a game of timing, but one of reaction speed-- something experience will not help you with.  That would seem to make the game more "fair", and allow new players to compete on a more level playing field.

[TV Favorites]

The thing is, why would Jeopardy want to get rid of Ken, at least right now?  He's helped bring the show some of it's highest ratings ever and they have been plugging his return all summer.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 06:09 PM\'] The one thing that bugs me about Ken Jennings' run on Jeopardy! is the arguably unfair advantage he has, as a going-on-forty-time champion, with the buzzer. [/quote]
 He had zero knowledge of the buzzer when he played his first game, either.

[inturnaround]

A returning champ should have an advantage like that. Think of it as awarding home field advantage to a team that does well in the regular season.

And "Jeopardy! Fix" assumes that it's broken. I think the producers love the ratings boost and the mainstream press attention and they don't think they should change anything. Besides, imagine the uproar if rules were changed midstream to try to disable the J! juggernaut?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'inturnaround\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 04:54 PM\'] A returning champ should have an advantage like that. Think of it as awarding home field advantage to a team that does well in the regular season. [/quote]
 Absolutely he should NOT have an advantage like that. A player should not enjoy an advantage that is transparent to the home audience.

Yes, we know how the buzzer system works on the show, but we're geeks. John Q. Public knows nothing of the lights that clear a player to ring in. And even if they do, all anyone ever does is marvel at the "incredible reflexes" the champion has. Timing and reflexes are two different things. Let's SEE how those reflexes are.

Besides, imagine the uproar if rules were changed midstream to try to disable the J! juggernaut?

Fair enough. Tell me, then, why Peter's rule shouldn't be implemented the second Ken loses. You wouldn't even have to mention it on the show, since it's not something the folks are home are supposed to know about, right?

[inturnaround]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 08:59 PM\'][quote name=\'inturnaround\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 04:54 PM\'] A returning champ should have an advantage like that. Think of it as awarding home field advantage to a team that does well in the regular season. [/quote]
Absolutely he should NOT have an advantage like that. A player should not enjoy an advantage that is transparent to the home audience.

[/quote]
The reason Ken has an advantage is because he keeps winning. At the beginning, he won solely because he was good at questioning the answers. Now he wins because he's comfortable with the show, the way it's played and because he remains good at questioning the answers.

His comfort level is something he developed because he kept winning. I think his cultivation of buzzer skills shouldn't be changed to allow a ring-in randomizer. Then it's just a race to beat the invisible, unpredictable buzzer light.

[thgames65]

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 06:09 PM\'] It occurred to me that if the light went on at a random interval between, say, .25 and 1.5 seconds after Alex finished, Ken's advantage would be eliminated.  It would no longer be a game of timing, but one of reaction speed-- something experience will not help you with.  That would seem to make the game more "fair", and allow new players to compete on a more level playing field. [/quote]
 I agree that having some variation in the buzzer activation would be fairer for challengers by reducing Ken's practice advantage, but your proposal for up to 1.5 seconds is too long in my opinion.  You still want to reward contestants for knowing the proper "question" right away rather than needing a second to come up with the right response.  Yes, you have 4-5 seconds to give your response even after you are called upon by Alex, but I would make the variation of the buzz-in delay less than 0.5 seconds.

Tim H.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 07:09 PM\'] Presumably, the interval between when Alex finishes reading and when the light goes on is fairly constant.

What if it wasn't?  It occurred to me that if the light went on at a random interval between, say, .25 and 1.5 seconds after Alex finished, Ken's advantage would be eliminated. [/quote]
 This essentially already exists.  A human being flips the switch after he hears Alex finish the question, so it's not like Ken has figured out that the light comes on exactly .2784 seconds after Alex finishes every time.  The "rhythm" of the buzzer is more of an intuitive thing.  

Ken's advantage is experience, sure, but that's been the case for twenty years.  I figured out how to play the buzzer after about five clues, so I have a hard time going along with the idea that Ken's later games and cumulative experience are really giving him any more of an advantage than a three- or four- game champion has.  He's just been that much better than his opponents.

To me, any of these ideas of how to "fix" Jeopardy are really just ways to make it harder on Ken specifically.  Jeopardy wanted something like this to happen, though I doubt they ever expected anyone to mount such an incredible streak.  Come the day that Ken finally loses, they won't do a thing to change the way things work, and they'll just be anxiously waiting for the next great champ to make his mark.

[Peter Sarrett]

I'm not looking to make things harder on Ken specifically.  He's clearly a great player, and I'm not trying to imply otherwise.  I'm just thinking out loud.

The light may be activated by a human, but it's a human who's been activating that light for years and has the rhythm down even more perfectly than Ken.  The randomness is definitely not already built into the system.

[BrentW]

Peter:

I just want to preface this with: I know you're just thinking out loud, musing and you are not targeting Ken specifically, even if a few might read it that way.  You have some good points, and I know where you are thinking -- trying to inject some "randomness" into a game that rewards consistency with a buzzer.  

But, I just don't see the problem, which if one thinks Jep! needs a possible "fix", they're implying there is a problem.

I think it's been said in so many words in this thread, but I'll try again: if (and that's a big IF I don't agree with) there is an inherent advantage with the buzzer for a 39+ day champ, it's because he's earned that right.  He had no knowledge or practice coming in, and he won those games.  He knocked off someone with more experience than him to do it in the first place.  He's benefitting from his victories and gaining experience.  

And since a person does activate the lockout mechanism (is it ALWAYS the same person all these years, by the way?), I am sure they vary themselves by hundredths of seconds, and sometimes even tenths, which are huge margins for reflexes of something like this.  I've seen times where Alex finished reading, and he can barely say the last word, before he says a contestant's name who has rung in...you'll notice these times because the camera has to switch REAL fast between the clue and the shot of all 3 contestants.  And other times, I can see all 3 contestants, furiously buzzing in for a sec before anyone is able to get in (definitely longer than the .2 secs it would be, if you assume that perhaps all 3 contestants jumped the gun and all locked themselves out).  And beyond these extreme examples, it still is a person running the show (the lockout mechanism), and I think Matt O. showed (as Alex wisely noted) that Matt gave Ken a run for his money because *he* mastered the buzzer so fast.  

And lastly, the thing that is the most glaring about the suggestion of purposely varying the time between Alex's last word, and the opportunity to buzz in: over 60 clues on the board, added together, that would be a good deal of "dead air".  Even a little under a sec of every other clue of the contestants just standing there, hovering...that would not be good TV.    

And the reward would not be that great; I dare say if it were implemented, Ken would quickly master the process of intently watching the lights and QUICKLY nailing his buzzer better than all the rest.  After all, he's used to the stress, the randomness of it, and the whole way you hold the buzzer and react quickly by allowing your thumb to be connected to your eyes...as it stands now, it's not a lot of different than his thumb being connected to his ears.  

OK, that sounded weird, butyouknowwhatImean.    At any rate, I enjoyed pondering your suggestion!  

Cheers,
Brent

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'BrentW\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 10:01 PM\'] And since a person does activate the lockout mechanism (is it ALWAYS the same person all these years, by the way?) [/quote]
No. It seems, though, that one person does it for quite a while, then they shuffle the staff and bring in someone new. It's entirely possible that the same person's been doing it for the entirety of Ken's run, but there have been some champs coming back for ToCs who were very disappointed to learn that there was a new person on that button.

[Neumms]

Question--mainly for Matt--do players get any sort of practice time with the buttons before they start the game? Obviously, this would help, especially if it takes even a few questions to get the hang of it.

We could also note that nobody complains about Thom McKee's run when "X" had the clear advantage of the first turn on every game of "Tic Tac Dough." (Of course, they could have rectified it a little by letting "O" go first if they tied the first game.)

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Sep 6 2004, 10:44 PM\']Question--mainly for Matt--do players get any sort of practice time with the buttons before they start the game? Obviously, this would help, especially if it takes even a few questions to get the hang of it.[/quote]
I'm not Matt, but I do play an audience member on TV, so...

Yes, the contestants (including the champion) each get to play a third or so of a rather easy mock board. (The players rotate so everyone gets a chance, no one gets too much of a chance, and the staff gets a chance to make sure the cameras are aimed properly and everything's okay technically.)

[Craig Karlberg]

Let me clarify the "dead air" thing here.  If you take the ammount of time from the last sylable of the clue to the first ring-in which is about .2 seconds on average & multiply that by a factor of 60, it accumatively ammounts to about 10-15 seconds of dead air.  Or if the "dead air" time was longer say, a mere second(which accumatively = a mere minute), then that tends to put a slight drag on a show designed for rapid fire pacing.  Jim Perry's $ake of the Century worked so well that it practically "reduced" the ammount of dead air during each game.  Maybe I'm overthinking it a bit, but the timing scheme is totally diffrent from the reflex action that it seems awkward to try to "fix" it so that Ken doesn't "master" his buzzer skills is basically bogus.  Anyone can win at J! as long as they know when to respond & how to react quickly to certain situations when called upon to do it.

[fsk]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Sep 7 2004, 04:54 AM\'] Jim Perry's $ake of the Century worked so well ... [/quote]
 $ake of the Century sounds like it would work well on the menu at a Japanese restaurant.