Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

WooWho?
Jeopardy! Almost-Champion
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:20 am

Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by WooWho? » Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:01 pm

Link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live- ... rs-1228533

Just announced to the staff this morning.
アタックチャンス!

Jeff-thecdboy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:34 am

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by Jeff-thecdboy » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:01 pm

I wonder if whoever becomes the new producer thinks about doing these things:

1. Bring back Teen Tournament winners getting a spot in the upcoming TOC

2. Bring back five time champions winning a car again, whether it's just a luxury car for winning only five games or something such as a Toyota Corolla for every five games won.

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by Robert K S » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:13 pm

Hot take, I wouldn't mind seeing Kids Week back. I find watching precocious kids more enjoyable than watching Washington "Power Players" or teachers who get their own tournament for some reason (sorry, teachers, love ya).

User avatar
xxaaaxx
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:29 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by xxaaaxx » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:37 pm

I'd love it they never did another Kids Week, Celeb, or "Power Players" Week ever again. The latter two are utterly unwatchable garbage 97% of the time, and Kids Week....just isn't enjoyable trivia (the Teen Tournament teeters right on the edge sometimes). If there's popular demand for them, eh whatever, watching 5 fewer episodes a season isn't a big deal.

User avatar
threearruda
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:02 pm
Location: Massachusetts, by way of Vermont!

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by threearruda » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:17 pm

Buy a Vowel forums have been interesting reads lately in regards to opinions on this news and other gameplay changes coming soon. I'd bet Mike Richards takes over Wheel in 2020, but I just hope whoever takes over J! (Richards or someone else), refrains from doing anything too drastic. The show is doing perfectly fine as it is, as far as I'm concerned.

xxaaaxx wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:37 pm
I'd love it they never did another Kids Week, Celeb, or "Power Players" Week ever again. The latter two are utterly unwatchable garbage 97% of the time, and Kids Week....just isn't enjoyable trivia (the Teen Tournament teeters right on the edge sometimes). If there's popular demand for them, eh whatever, watching 5 fewer episodes a season isn't a big deal.
Agreed, though not as passionately. :lol: I think there's evidence to support this too, which is good!

I think we're in the clear for Kids Week never returning based on the Sony leak stuff re: 2014 Kids Week and the poo-storm of 2013 Kids Week game 3. If that ever comes back, I'd bet it would be only after Trebek retires.

Trends show we're in line for a Power Players Week in S36 during the election year, but given the current political climate.. I could see how celeb weeks (power players in particular) might not be in the show's best interest either, at least right now. I'll be really curious to see what the sweeps schedule looks like this year.
Dumb college kid. Go BR!

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by opusthepenguin » Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:37 pm

I've said it before and I'll say it again regarding the best change that could be made. Play. Every. Clue. They have the ability to edit the result to fit their time constraints.

GoodStrategy
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by GoodStrategy » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:57 am

As for changes (or revivals), how about bringing back the Senior Tournament? Unlike the Teachers, there IS a reason for giving older people their own tournament. If ratings are a concern, then do like they did and have it on over the holidays and/or summer (with the baby boomers now in that demographic they could probably do two a season).

User avatar
cinemaniax7
Humble Pi
Posts: 1101
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Old Hickory, TN

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by cinemaniax7 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:38 am

xxaaaxx wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:37 pm
I'd love it they never did another Kids Week, Celeb, or "Power Players" Week ever again. The latter two are utterly unwatchable garbage 97% of the time, and Kids Week....just isn't enjoyable trivia (the Teen Tournament teeters right on the edge sometimes). If there's popular demand for them, eh whatever, watching 5 fewer episodes a season isn't a big deal.
I would be up for a one-day for-charity contest between Andy Richter, Cheech Marin, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 6673
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by Volante » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:58 am

opusthepenguin wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:37 pm
I've said it before and I'll say it again regarding the best change that could be made. Play. Every. Clue. They have the ability to edit the result to fit their time constraints.
Be careful what you ask for; they might decide to chop off one column and have 50 clues a game.

User avatar
triviawayne
Hoping I don’t drown in this contestant pool
Posts: 1523
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by triviawayne » Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:39 pm

cinemaniax7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:38 am
xxaaaxx wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:37 pm
I'd love it they never did another Kids Week, Celeb, or "Power Players" Week ever again. The latter two are utterly unwatchable garbage 97% of the time, and Kids Week....just isn't enjoyable trivia (the Teen Tournament teeters right on the edge sometimes). If there's popular demand for them, eh whatever, watching 5 fewer episodes a season isn't a big deal.
I would be up for a one-day for-charity contest between Andy Richter, Cheech Marin, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Only if they play as Rocky Richter, Chuy Castillos, and Roger Murdock
Total game show career losings = $171,522

TLEberle
Just Starting Out on JBoard
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:46 pm

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by TLEberle » Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:54 pm

Jeff-thecdboy wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:01 pm
I wonder if whoever becomes the new producer thinks about doing these things:

1. Bring back Teen Tournament winners getting a spot in the upcoming TOC

2. Bring back five time champions winning a car again, whether it's just a luxury car for winning only five games or something such as a Toyota Corolla for every five games won.
Wow, you couldn’t even give me attribution on this? I’m the same person here and at the Game Show Forum.

Jeff-thecdboy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:34 am

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by Jeff-thecdboy » Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:05 pm

Also, bring back tie games (that is, both contestants come back the next day whenever one occurs) as well.

User avatar
twelvefootboy
JBOARDIE OF THE MONTH!
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm
Location: Tornado Alley / Southwest Missouri

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by twelvefootboy » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:48 am

Jeff-thecdboy wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:05 pm
Also, bring back tie games (that is, both contestants come back the next day whenever one occurs) as well.
I think this is a good example of addition by subtraction. I get that they don't want leaders to play for a tie, but if both players were tied before FJ and shoot the moon and both get it, bring them both back! If they weren't tied beforehand and the leader didn't bet to win outright, send him/her home with the home version of the game.
Anything to get rid of the horrid tiebreaker single clue buzzer battle.
Disclaimer - repeated exposure to author's musings may cause befuddlement.

User avatar
OntarioQuizzer
Lots and Lots of Interviews
Posts: 1306
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by OntarioQuizzer » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:42 pm

twelvefootboy wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:48 am
Jeff-thecdboy wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:05 pm
Also, bring back tie games (that is, both contestants come back the next day whenever one occurs) as well.
I think this is a good example of addition by subtraction. I get that they don't want leaders to play for a tie, but if both players were tied before FJ and shoot the moon and both get it, bring them both back! If they weren't tied beforehand and the leader didn't bet to win outright, send him/her home with the home version of the game.
Anything to get rid of the horrid tiebreaker single clue buzzer battle.
Anything that invites even the possibility of collusion is a nonstarter and the fact that you don't see that concerns me.
Andy Saunders
Moderator, #JeopardyLivePanel
Host, Complete The List
J! Archive Founding Archivist
Site Admin - The Jeopardy! Fan

User avatar
twelvefootboy
JBOARDIE OF THE MONTH!
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm
Location: Tornado Alley / Southwest Missouri

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by twelvefootboy » Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:52 am

OntarioQuizzer wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:42 pm
twelvefootboy wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:48 am
Jeff-thecdboy wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:05 pm
Also, bring back tie games (that is, both contestants come back the next day whenever one occurs) as well.
I think this is a good example of addition by subtraction. I get that they don't want leaders to play for a tie, but if both players were tied before FJ and shoot the moon and both get it, bring them both back! If they weren't tied beforehand and the leader didn't bet to win outright, send him/her home with the home version of the game.
Anything to get rid of the horrid tiebreaker single clue buzzer battle.
Anything that invites even the possibility of collusion is a nonstarter and the fact that you don't see that concerns me.
???
Maybe my gift of befuddlement is in play?. Ties are now rare, and should stay that way. And that would not change if you just eliminate the tiebreaker but punish pre-FJ leaders who don't protect against ties.

My only scenario for two players to move through is IF they are tied at the end of FJ, And ahead of third place. If there is a solo leader after FJ that makes a potential tying cover wager, the leader goes home in case of a make/make.

I know there is another level(s) where third gets it right and a proper leader bet against second makes a 1-3 tie on a miss. Send 'em both through another day. The pool loses one of there 300-some slots but it is an exciting finish.

Therefore, the only prospect for a "deliberate" tie in regular play is for the two (or maybe even three) conspirators to predict and execute a very complicated endgame which may involve unusual clue calling and buzzer restraint. If S&P is worried about this really happening, then they must be the ones blaming Hillary and Bill for killing Jeff Epstein who is also living scot-free on a tropical island after faking his death :).

Still concerned? We're just hanging in Plato's cave here anyway 8-) .
Disclaimer - repeated exposure to author's musings may cause befuddlement.

User avatar
MollyQMurphy
Silver Medalist
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:01 pm

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by MollyQMurphy » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:05 am

GoodStrategy wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:57 am
As for changes (or revivals), how about bringing back the Senior Tournament? Unlike the Teachers, there IS a reason for giving older people their own tournament. If ratings are a concern, then do like they did and have it on over the holidays and/or summer (with the baby boomers now in that demographic they could probably do two a season).
I would love to see the Senior Tournament return. And I think the demographics have changed enough (though I'm not sure what killed it in the first place) that it would draw well enough.
Pending...

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by jeff6286 » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:29 am

OntarioQuizzer wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:42 pm
twelvefootboy wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:48 am
Jeff-thecdboy wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:05 pm
Also, bring back tie games (that is, both contestants come back the next day whenever one occurs) as well.
I think this is a good example of addition by subtraction. I get that they don't want leaders to play for a tie, but if both players were tied before FJ and shoot the moon and both get it, bring them both back! If they weren't tied beforehand and the leader didn't bet to win outright, send him/her home with the home version of the game.
Anything to get rid of the horrid tiebreaker single clue buzzer battle.
Anything that invites even the possibility of collusion is a nonstarter and the fact that you don't see that concerns me.
The show worked like this for 30 years, did that concern you?

mjhunt
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by mjhunt » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:33 am

twelvefootboy wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:52 am
OntarioQuizzer wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:42 pm
twelvefootboy wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:48 am
Jeff-thecdboy wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:05 pm
Also, bring back tie games (that is, both contestants come back the next day whenever one occurs) as well.
I think this is a good example of addition by subtraction. I get that they don't want leaders to play for a tie, but if both players were tied before FJ and shoot the moon and both get it, bring them both back! If they weren't tied beforehand and the leader didn't bet to win outright, send him/her home with the home version of the game.
Anything to get rid of the horrid tiebreaker single clue buzzer battle.
Anything that invites even the possibility of collusion is a nonstarter and the fact that you don't see that concerns me.
???
Maybe my gift of befuddlement is in play?. Ties are now rare, and should stay that way. And that would not change if you just eliminate the tiebreaker but punish pre-FJ leaders who don't protect against ties.

My only scenario for two players to move through is IF they are tied at the end of FJ, And ahead of third place. If there is a solo leader after FJ that makes a potential tying cover wager, the leader goes home in case of a make/make.

I know there is another level(s) where third gets it right and a proper leader bet against second makes a 1-3 tie on a miss. Send 'em both through another day. The pool loses one of there 300-some slots but it is an exciting finish.

Therefore, the only prospect for a "deliberate" tie in regular play is for the two (or maybe even three) conspirators to predict and execute a very complicated endgame which may involve unusual clue calling and buzzer restraint. If S&P is worried about this really happening, then they must be the ones blaming Hillary and Bill for killing Jeff Epstein who is also living scot-free on a tropical island after faking his death :).

Still concerned? We're just hanging in Plato's cave here anyway 8-) .
This. I especially do not want to see a repeat of the triple prisoner’s dilemma of 7/3/2000 (of course, with my luck, it will probably happen tomorrow). I find it rather negative that it can easily result in a triple loss, but not a triple win.
Would Jeek’s rule have even been named had the current rule been in effect then? After all, it would have made no sense to say “Darn Jeeks, I was hoping you’d bet it all too!”
Also, if I were ever on the show, I would really dread the possibility of being a “lock-tie” game leader (I use quotes, since the term is unfitting now). As many here know, Steve Stoffle (3/21/16), Todd Gonzalez (7/28/16), Roey Hadar (7/18/19) lost in these situations, the first two betting $1 and Roey risking and losing the tiebreaker. All faced endless second-guessing despite having made contradictory choices. What way is there to avoid that? I must admit I might feel some bitterness from having missed out on a payday and a chance to return due to a rule change so recent in the context of Jeopardy’s long history. But, having to deal with the endless second-guessing almost sounds worse.

mjhunt
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by mjhunt » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:06 am

OntarioQuizzer wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:42 pm
twelvefootboy wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:48 am
Jeff-thecdboy wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:05 pm
Also, bring back tie games (that is, both contestants come back the next day whenever one occurs) as well.
I think this is a good example of addition by subtraction. I get that they don't want leaders to play for a tie, but if both players were tied before FJ and shoot the moon and both get it, bring them both back! If they weren't tied beforehand and the leader didn't bet to win outright, send him/her home with the home version of the game.
Anything to get rid of the horrid tiebreaker single clue buzzer battle.
Anything that invites even the possibility of collusion is a nonstarter and the fact that you don't see that concerns me.
By that argument, Harry Friedman would be at risk of legal trouble regardless of Jeopardy rules about second and third keeping money or co-champions. Why?
Because Wheel of fortune allows second and third to keep money and by this reasoning, that could create the appearance of “collusion” because all players could possibly “collude” to guarantee themselves some money. Never mind that contestants are pretty consistent about trying to win all the money they can.
When two players each won $10,000 on the $25,000 pyramid on the same episode, both would return if they were within the five day limit. Both were certainly happy. But, does that mean each contestant aimed for that result again? No. Each would try to win both rounds the next day to have the chance to win $25,000.
Likewise, if two or three players tied for the lead going into FJ respond correctly, bet everything, end up tied, and receive only half or a third of their winnings, they would likely be happy to win a hopefully decent amount of money and a chance to return. But, does that mean each contestant would aim for that result again? No. Each would presumably try to win outright the next day for a full payday.
The typical Jeopardy contestant would have had internet access well before 2014. So, using your logic, Jeopardy could have been accused of promoting collusion for many years. But, the real reason it became such an issue for the show is the drastic increase in the frequency of ties.
If jeopardy had given tied players only half their winnings since 1984, I think there is a chance that rule would still be in place. I cannot be sure of course, but I think there is at least some chance the explosion of ties in early season 31 would not have happened.
If my post concerns you, so be it. If you want to falsely call me willfully ignorant, so be it.

talkingaway
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:59 am

Re: Harry Friedman stepping down after Season 36

Post by talkingaway » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:51 am

Not related to J! directly, but related to the whole concept of game show collusion - in the latest iteration of Pyramid (and I think a few iterations in the Dick Clark era?), players earn $50,000 for winning the first bonus round, while in the second round, it’s either $50,000 if there are two different winners, or $100,000 for a repeat winner. You could theoretically collude in highly detectable way by just agreeing to split all winnings and letting the winner of round 1 win round 2 - or, you could collude in an all-or-nothing way, having a gentleman’s agreement that whoever wins the first game will win the second game, and just keep all the money - although that’s relying on honestly.

Beat Shazam also has a variant of it - often, one team is so far ahead on the last question that they’re a lock to make the bonus round. The second team leaves with half their money. That means that if the last question is worth $20,000 to the first team, it’s automatically worth only $10,000 to the second team. Granted, I can’t say many people would be willing to give up $10,000 for a stranger to get $20,000, but maybe there’s someone out there who would.

My point is that just because collusion is possible doesn’t mean that a game show has to create every single tortuous rule to make sure collusion doesn’t happen. Even in Jeopardy, if the last clue is $2000, and all three places are sufficiently far apart that it’s a lock for all 3 prizes no matter who gets it right, the only person who should theoretically be buzzing in is the leader iff they knows it. But I don’t think that happens - partly due to the fast pace of play, and partly because the North American ethic/culture is to play to win.

Jeopardy only awards the first place prize because they were originally worried that players would be too conservative, opting to leave with a medium payday. As far as ties, I actually liked them, and don’t see any problem with splitting tie winnings between 2 or 3 players. I just think the producers think it makes for bad TV to end a game with three zero wagers.

Post Reply