New tie-breaker rule: Yea or nay

[opusthepenguin]

I don't like ties at all. One of the reasons I can't get into soccer despite being a huge football, baseball, and basketball fan is too many freaking ties.

Yeah, but a tie in soccer has no satisfactory resolution. When there's a tie in Jeopardy!, they immediately schedule a rematch.

[alietr]

Since I seem to be in the minority, I will say that I'm not in favor of how they implemented the change, but that the change is OK if there was going to continue to be a lot of ties.

[Vermonter]

I think the best way they could handle tiebreaks, if they really feel they're necessary, is the same way they break ties between second and third: whoever had the higher pre-FJ! score wins. For simplicity's sake, I'd say they should still declare co-champs if they're tied both at the beginning and end of FJ!, or if they really can't ever have co-champs again no matter what, go to a tie-breaker question in that case only.

I think they should go to a judges' decision. "Well, John ran that biology category, but with one category to go and one Daily Double left, he went to the top of the board. I'll give him a 7 for the round."

[bpmod]

I think the best way they could handle tiebreaks, if they really feel they're necessary, is the same way they break ties between second and third: whoever had the higher pre-FJ! score wins. For simplicity's sake, I'd say they should still declare co-champs if they're tied both at the beginning and end of FJ!, or if they really can't ever have co-champs again no matter what, go to a tie-breaker question in that case only.

I think they should go to a judges' decision. "Well, John ran that biology category, but with one category to go and one Daily Double left, he went to the top of the board. I'll give him a 7 for the round."

Yes! And make it like an Olympic event where judges' decisions can be bought and sold, and where the outcome is decided before the match ever takes place.

Brian

[cinemaniax7]

We can hope that the new (if unnecessary) rule discourages wagering for the tie. I certainly don't like watching J! games decided by a "fastest finger" question. This ain't the Regis show.

[dhkendall]

We can hope that the new (if unnecessary) rule discourages wagering for the tie. I certainly don't like watching J! games decided by a "fastest finger" question. This ain't the Regis show.

Considering approximately 98.36% of the clues (60 out of 61) *are* decided by "fastest finger" - in several cases said contests making the remaining clue (FJ) moot because the fastest finger got in first too many times - you must not like a lot of episodes.

[silverscreentest]

I don't think there's going to be much difference in the show. Instead of offering ties, leaders will wager that extra dollar. Regular games will look much the same. I'd be surprised if there's a tiebreaker clue more than once a year.

[GoodStrategy]

Considering approximately 98.36% of the clues (60 out of 61) *are* decided by "fastest finger" - in several cases said contests making the remaining clue (FJ) moot because the fastest finger got in first too many times - you must not like a lot of episodes.

It's actually 93.44% (57 out of 61) - you forgot the Daily Doubles. (If there are unrevealed clues it may be even less.)

[kingskip]

I think they should keep the current co-champion rules in place until Alex retires. Then when the new host comes he can start doing tie breakers if he wants.

[alietr]

We can hope that the new (if unnecessary) rule discourages wagering for the tie. I certainly don't like watching J! games decided by a "fastest finger" question. This ain't the Regis show.

Considering approximately 98.36% of the clues (60 out of 61) *are* decided by "fastest finger" - in several cases said contests making the remaining clue (FJ) moot because the fastest finger got in first too many times - you must not like a lot of episodes.

Now that I'm thinking about it, how do you get that? Are you assuming at least two contestants buzz in on every clue? That's just plain false (even including the DD's, as mentioned above). I'd say that might be true for most of the top three rows, but not so much below those.

[opusthepenguin]

Considering approximately 98.36% of the clues (60 out of 61) *are* decided by "fastest finger" - in several cases said contests making the remaining clue (FJ) moot because the fastest finger got in first too many times - you must not like a lot of episodes.

It's actually 93.44% (57 out of 61) - you forgot the Daily Doubles. (If there are unrevealed clues it may be even less.)

Also stand-and-stares. And since triple stumpers happen in most games, it's reasonable to assume that double stumpers are even more common. We just don't know about them because only two contestants were standing and staring. The third one could well have the slowest finger, but it was the only one willing to twitch.

That makes 93.44% the theoretical maximum. It's probably incredibly rare for that to be the actual number.

[StrangerCoug]

I don't think there's going to be much difference in the show. Instead of offering ties, leaders will wager that extra dollar. Regular games will look much the same. I'd be surprised if there's a tiebreaker clue more than once a year.

This. I wish there was a third option of "Don't care either way".

[dhkendall]

I think they should keep the current co-champion rules in place until Alex retires. Then when the new host comes he can start doing tie breakers if he wants.

The host, whether it's Alex, Art Fleming, or whoever is next, doesn't decide the rules, that solely TPTB, and they won't be different (most likely) when the host changes. They could change a rule when the new host comes in purely due to perception, and marking a "new era"

[gnash]

Considering approximately 98.36% of the clues (60 out of 61) *are* decided by "fastest finger" - in several cases said contests making the remaining clue (FJ) moot because the fastest finger got in first too many times - you must not like a lot of episodes.

It's actually 93.44% (57 out of 61) - you forgot the Daily Doubles. (If there are unrevealed clues it may be even less.)

Also stand-and-stares. And since triple stumpers happen in most games, it's reasonable to assume that double stumpers are even more common. We just don't know about them because only two contestants were standing and staring. The third one could well have the slowest finger, but it was the only one willing to twitch.

That makes 93.44% the theoretical maximum. It's probably incredibly rare for that to be the actual number.

Not only that, but a lot of games are decided by fast fingers that backfire. Keeping that in mind, the "can't hurt to buzz in" tiebreaker is an abomination.

[mennoknight]

To me, it's just like the shootout in hockey. It's a crapshoot which isn't indictative of the team's (or individual's in this case) total skill.

[Vanya]

[seaborgium]

indictative

Emanciptation has a new friend!

[mennoknight]

indictative

Emanciptation has a new friend!

ha! And I typed that three different times.

*throws English degree in the garbage*

[Vermonter]

[Bamaman]

Is the new rule official yet? It seems odd they haven't announced it on air.