Jeopardy watch....

[rsvman]

Thank you. That sounds like the show took it more seriously than I would have guessed. I'll have to look it up.

Section 15

The character's name is Jerry Espenson. In the second and especially the third seasons he gets a lot of air time. There are likely snippets on YouTube if you want to get a little glimpse of what they did.

[budwom]

The character's name is Jerry Espinsen. In the second and especially the third seasons he gets a lot of air time.

veteran character actor, he's really very good. Emmy award winning, went to Harvard, he's been in a lot of good stuff.

[aimo]

Boy did this thread go off the rail.

[Skydog]

Boy did this thread go off the rail.

If I were more adept at posting gifs there would be a Buster Keaton scene right here.

[Rich]

Check it out. Especially if neuro-atypical characters interest you. It's definitely not slapstick comedy, but it's a heartfelt show. Great cast - Michael Rappaport and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

FIFY

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

FIFY

Thx!

[rsvman]

Boy did this thread go off the rail.

Not our fault! No Matt, no Jeopardy,... the original premise of the thread has been on hiatus for a long time.

[budwom]

Not our fault! No Matt, no Jeopardy,... the original premise of the thread has been on hiatus for a long time.

yeah, we're on hold until further notice, unless we want to re-litigate BBT.

[Bluedog]

^Matt didn't lose, right? It's just that Jeopardy! is on hiatus I assume. Another thing that perhaps is especially impressive with his run is that he's done it with a bunch of different hosts. One could say the host doesn't matter, but I'd argue otherwise. They have different paces/styles/cadences, and contestants can get used to their habits which may help with timing and the like. If you are a returning champion, you can perhaps a tiny advantage in that regard. But if the host keeps changing, you do not.

I mean, that's not a huge factor as knowing the answers and being quick to buzz are far more important, but I think it's a variable that at least has a small impact and could throw somebody off if the host is different stylistically. Hasn't seemed to matter for Matt.

[Skydog]

One unusual aspect of Jeopardy is that it is a test of both mental abilities and the fairly random physical skill of winning buzzer battles. The latter is often the deciding factor - I’ve watched clearly bright contestants almost completely shut out because they were against a buzzer beast. Also I suspect testosterone helps reaction speed (true?) and if so then the format favors males and that could explain a lot of the preponderance of male champions.
What if buzzer skill were taken out of the game by distributing who gets a shot at each answer using another non-physical method? How would you do it? Would it make the game better because winning would be more knowledge based. Or make it worse bc the buzzer adds another interesting dimension to the game? Does the buzzer speed factor favor male physiology and if so isn’t that unfair? Any thoughts?

[rsvman]

^Matt didn't lose, right? It's just that Jeopardy! is on hiatus I assume. Another thing that perhaps is especially impressive with his run is that he's done it with a bunch of different hosts. One could say the host doesn't matter, but I'd argue otherwise. They have different paces/styles/cadences, and contestants can get used to their habits which may help with timing and the like. If you are a returning champion, you can perhaps a tiny advantage in that regard. But if the host keeps changing, you do not.

I mean, that's not a huge factor as knowing the answers and being quick to buzz are far more important, but I think it's a variable that at least has a small impact and could throw somebody off if the host is different stylistically. Hasn't seemed to matter for Matt.

This is an underrated point. Ken Jennings said he studied Alex's mannerisms and habits specifically to learn exactly when to buzz in.

I think Matt overcomes the issue by buzzing in even when he doesn't really have any idea what the answer is, but thinks he might be able to come up with it within the allotted time after he buzzes in. I think that's why he just says "What's..." and then pauses before finishing. During that pause he is finding the answer in his head. Sometimes he doesn't pause; I think in those cases he has the answer on the tip of his tongue. Most other contestants don't buzz in unless they have the answer on the tips of their tongues. This is a big advantage for Matt.

[rsvman]

One unusual aspect of Jeopardy is that it is a test of both mental abilities and the fairly random physical skill of winning buzzer battles. The latter is often the deciding factor - I’ve watched clearly bright contestants almost completely shut out because they were against a buzzer beast. Also I suspect testosterone helps reaction speed (true?) and if so then the format favors males and that could explain a lot of the preponderance of male champions.
What if buzzer skill were taken out of the game by distributing who gets a shot at each answer using another non-physical method? How would you do it? Would it make the game better because winning would be more knowledge based. Or make it worse bc the buzzer adds another interesting dimension to the game? Does the buzzer speed factor favor male physiology and if so isn’t that unfair? Any thoughts?

I don't know about testosterone or male physiology affected buzzer speed (if I had to bet, I'd bet there is no correlation and that women can be just as fast to the buzzer as men).

I see your point, however, about how the game really favors the perfectly timed buzzer more so than just the contestant that knows the most trivia. That problem could be solved by allowing everybody to answer every question. It would change the game entirely, though. Or maybe by ALLOWING but not FORCING them to answer every question. They would have to write their answers the way they do in Final Jeopardy, though, so it would slow the game down by a long ways. Or, they could all be in soundproof booths and each could buzz in if they wanted to and give an answer, then get the points added or subtracted.

In the current format, only one person can add $2000 to their total by getting a question correct; if they were all in soundproof booths and allowed to answer, all three could conceivably get $2000. They could show us all the answers and the running point totals, and they could show the contestants via a monitor what the running totals were. Again, it would change the game almost completely, but that's the only way I can think of that would allow the person with the best/broadest range of knowledge to win without any reliance on buzzer speed.

[Bluedog]

One unusual aspect of Jeopardy is that it is a test of both mental abilities and the fairly random physical skill of winning buzzer battles. The latter is often the deciding factor - I’ve watched clearly bright contestants almost completely shut out because they were against a buzzer beast. Also I suspect testosterone helps reaction speed (true?) and if so then the format favors males and that could explain a lot of the preponderance of male champions.
What if buzzer skill were taken out of the game by distributing who gets a shot at each answer using another non-physical method? How would you do it? Would it make the game better because winning would be more knowledge based. Or make it worse bc the buzzer adds another interesting dimension to the game? Does the buzzer speed factor favor male physiology and if so isn’t that unfair? Any thoughts?

To take buzzer speed out, you'd simply ask everyone to answer all the questions and see who has the most correct responses/most $. That wouldn't be as much fun to watch for a TV audience though.

Maybe there are other options/scenarios, but while the buzzer may not be totally egalitarian in crowning the knowledge champion, it makes for more interesting TV.

Edit: I see rsvman beat me by 1 min with the same idea...

[budwom]

Is there anything more annoying than the contestant who holds his or her buzzer thingy aloft and keeps clicking it for five seconds after someone else has answered first? OK, maybe Covid...

[Neals384]

I don't know about testosterone or male physiology affected buzzer speed (if I had to bet, I'd bet there is no correlation and that women can be just as fast to the buzzer as men).

I see your point, however, about how the game really favors the perfectly timed buzzer more so than just the contestant that knows the most trivia. That problem could be solved by allowing everybody to answer every question. It would change the game entirely, though. Or maybe by ALLOWING but not FORCING them to answer every question. They would have to write their answers the way they do in Final Jeopardy, though, so it would slow the game down by a long ways. Or, they could all be in soundproof booths and each could buzz in if they wanted to and give an answer, then get the points added or subtracted.

In the current format, only one person can add $2000 to their total by getting a question correct; if they were all in soundproof booths and allowed to answer, all three could conceivably get $2000. They could show us all the answers and the running point totals, and they could show the contestants via a monitor what the running totals were. Again, it would change the game almost completely, but that's the only way I can think of that would allow the person with the best/broadest range of knowledge to win without any reliance on buzzer speed.

As long as we're improving the game, how about adding a "Phone a Friend" option? Anything to slow the game down because, well, after so many years we're running out of clues.

[rsvman]

As long as we're improving the game, how about adding a "Phone a Friend" option? Anything to slow the game down because, well, after so many years we're running out of clues.

We will never run out of clues, my friend, just like comedians will never run out of jokes. Because the world keeps revolving, and stuff keeps happening. Every time the sun rises and sets things happen that can be made into a clue or made into a joke.

[Skydog]

My off the top of my head idea of a way to keep it interesting and get rid of buzzer speed factor would be: Person A picks question & would have 5 or 10 secs to answer (can’t pass). If he/she is right they get the points and the game moves on. But if A misses they lose the points and B has to instantly choose “answer” or “pass”. If B passes C has same choice. If all pass - next question. “Player A” rotates with each question.
There would still be strategy (players B & C choice to go for it or not, especially when it is daily double), pressure (person selecting question can’t pass, cant coast with a lead, as board gets emptier will have to answer Q’s outside of wheelhouse).
Voila, still fairly fast moving, some strategy and luck involved, and quick buzzers can’t dominate.
I will be sending this in tomorrow - think Jeopardy, Culver City will be sufficient address?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

One unusual aspect of Jeopardy is that it is a test of both mental abilities and the fairly random physical skill of winning buzzer battles. The latter is often the deciding factor - I’ve watched clearly bright contestants almost completely shut out because they were against a buzzer beast. Also I suspect testosterone helps reaction speed (true?) and if so then the format favors males and that could explain a lot of the preponderance of male champions.
What if buzzer skill were taken out of the game by distributing who gets a shot at each answer using another non-physical method? How would you do it? Would it make the game better because winning would be more knowledge based. Or make it worse bc the buzzer adds another interesting dimension to the game? Does the buzzer speed factor favor male physiology and if so isn’t that unfair? Any thoughts?

Mrs. CNC was on Jeopardy almost 20 years ago, before I knew her. She jokes that the reason she lost is that her mom did not let her play video games as a kid, so her buzzing skills were weak.

I think there is some combination of speed and timing. If I recall, someone releases the buzzers, so if you are too quick and try to buzz in before the release, you get locked out. So the point upthread about cadence and timing is very true.

[tommy]

Answer: This maxim applies to today’s discussion of Jeopardy.
“What is … if it ain’t broke don’t fix it?”

The game is fantastic just as is. Start changing basic rules and it’s a different game, a different show, and lots of viewers lose interest. I do believe the consistency in format and rules over the decades is part of the appeal of Jeopardy.

[Indoor66]

Answer: This maxim applies to today’s discussion of Jeopardy.
“What is … if it ain’t broke don’t fix it?”

The game is fantastic just as is. Start changing basic rules and it’s a different game, a different show, and lots of viewers lose interest. I do believe the consistency in format and rules over the decades is part of the appeal of Jeopardy.

And you get the Chicken Dinner.