In the previous thirty-eight years of Jeopardy
history, the rules were simple. Win, you come back the next day. Lose, you
go home with the home game and twenty boxes of Rice-A-Roni. In the new
millennium, the show was willing to give more funds when you lost on the show -
$2,000 for finishing second, $1,000 for finishing third. And occasionally, when
the show thought they had made a mistake when you first appeared – usually an
error when it came to an incorrect response that might have changed the result
of the game – they would you invite you back. On verrry rare occasions,
this led to greater success for some Jeopardy players. In 1994, Tom Nichols
(now known as a political columnist) lost his fourth game due to an error, was
invited back and won his fifth game officially qualifying him for that year’s
Tournament of Champions. In 2018 Ryan Fenster won four games, lost his fifth to
a technical glitch, was invited back and won three more. (Neither player would
have much more success than that; both lost their quarterfinal match in their
respective tournaments of champions.)
But
other than that, it has been win or go home. Close might count in horseshoes
and hand grenades, but not on Jeopardy. Until…this year.
In
a move that even the show’s producers think may very well have ‘broken Jeopardy’, a tournament unlike any that has happened
in the history of the show - very likely
on any game show in their entire history –
will take place in less than a week. Eighteen contestants have been
invited back for the first-ever ‘Second Chance Tournament.’ There will be two sets of three semi-final
matches, which will lead to two two-game finals. At the end of the tournament,
there will be two finalists who will each receive $100,000 and a spot in the
2022 Tournament of Champions less than a month later.
I
can hear across the internet the screams: those on the political spectrum who
consider this another version of the participation trophy, sports fans who
can’t stand the idea of wild card races, and basically anyone who says winning
is everything in America, much less the world. In something that may shock
people who have read this column for years, I’m not entirely sure I disagree
with the trolls on this one. Since Jeopardy began, the lion’s share of the
matches in every game end with the winner winning by $1. Anyone who’s watched
the show for any period knows this is how Jeopardy works. If it’s
good enough for Ken Jennings (who will be hosting one of these tournaments) it
should be good enough for everybody else. Everything may not be about winning
or losing, but I’m relatively sure game shows are supposed to be. Is it
necessarily fair that it may have been your life’s ambition to appear on
Jeopardy and, after years of trying, James Holzhauer humiliated you? No.
But to paraphrase Will Rogers, we all can’t win on Jeopardy because there has
to be somebody in the podium next to us to defeat.
And
that’s before you consider that one of the rewards for winning in this
tournament is getting to play in the Tournament of Champions. I’ve looked at a
lot of the participants in this tournament (which took some work finding them
in the archives) and the idea that somehow their reward for losing to
some of the champions they will be playing against (I’m actually going to get
to the specifics a little later is that some of them might a chance to defeat
some of them in this tournament goes against everything I’ve believed about
Jeopardy. It’s one thing for a former champion to face off they might have
defeated in a previous match (Holzhauer was in fact very nearly beaten by Emma
Boettcher in the finals of the 2019 Tournament); it’s an entirely different
thing for a player who was not necessarily better or worse then, say, any of
the other eighty people who Amy Schneider beat in her forty game run to end up
in a situation where they might compete against her. Even the idea of it leaves a bitter taste in
my mouth, particularly because this scenario is now hypothetically possible.
But
all of that may not be as bad as it sounds. As someone who is both a chronicler
of Jeopardy and is aware of the possibility of the ‘what-if,’ whether or not
this tournament turns out to be a good idea comes down to the same thing all
Jeopardy tournaments do: the caliber of the players. Yes, none of the eighteen
competitors have won a single game. But as anyone who has watched the show for
any period, we all know there are ‘degrees’ of defeat. It comes down to whether
this player was routed in their competition or lost narrowly. Were they leading
in Final Jeopardy and then got the question wrong? Were their other factors
that are not apparent? In a sense, it is easier to consider this than it would
be to rank Jeopardy champions in anything else: there’s a much smaller sample
size to work with.
So,
with that in mind, here is a comprehensive description of all eighteen
participants: when they appeared, how they lost and more importantly whether
that is a qualification worthy of a follow up. I’ll deal with the first nine in
this entry.
Jeopardy Second Chance Tournament Participants
1.
Erica Weiner-Amachi (38)
Lost
Tie-breaker game to William Chou in Fifth regular season tiebreaker.
Game
Analysis: Both Erica and William were challenging Emily Fiasco, who’d won the
three previous games. Erica spent the Jeopardy round going back and forth with
Emily for the lead. Double Jeopardy was more evenly divided between the three
players, but Erica was in the lead at the end of it. In one of those quirks
that I’ve rarely seen both William and Erica wagered enough to beat Emily by
one dollar which ended the game in a tie. William got the tiebreaker correct
Conclusion:
Hard to argue against the logic here: Erica defeated the returning champion and
lost to the player who won in a tiebreaker.
I think this qualified.
2.
James Fraser (37)
Was originally scheduled to
appear on Jeopardy during James Holzhauer’s run, but due to the similarity in
their names and Fraser’s deployment, he appeared in 2021. Was leading going
into Final Jeopardy in March 2021. Got Answer wrong.
Analysis: I find this a questionable
choice at best. James Fraser did play well throughout his appearance, leading
the game pretty much from beginning to end, only losing in Final Jeopardy. But
that’s true of countless Jeopardy players who ended up losing and I wouldn’t
give them second chance. I am willing to allow that there are outside factors:
James was initially scheduled to play during James Holzhauer’s run, but because
of the collision of their identical first name, scheduling conflicts to his
deployment (he’s a naval aviator) and heaven knows what about the pandemic, he
didn’t appear for until nearly two years afterwards. Now I’m all for honoring
our men in uniform, but I can’t find a reason that anyone would consider that
Fraser was cheated.
Conclusion: I don’t think James
has a good case for being invited back.
3.
Sadie Goldberger (38)
Was ahead of Megan Wachpress
going into Final Jeopardy of fourth game. Wrote down most of correct response
but was ruled incorrect.
Analysis: Of all the players on
this list, Sadie has the most cut-and-dried argument for being here, because
she earned a second chance. Sadie
led for the entire Jeopardy round and all of Double Jeopardy. The correct
response for Final Jeopardy was: “Who is Harriet Tubman?” She wrote down: “Who
is Harriet Tubma?” but after consulting with the judges Mayim Bialik ruled her
incorrect.
Conclusion: This is the kind of
thing that Jeopardy would have brought a player back under ‘normal’
circumstances. Hard to fault the logic.
4.
Aaron Gulyas (38)
Was leading Ryan Long going into
Final Jeopardy in what would turn out to be Ryan’s eleventh win.
Analysis: Aaron lead Ryan for
the entirety of the Jeopardy round and all Double Jeopardy. Ryan was the only
player to get Final Jeopardy correct.
Conclusion: If the standard we
are using for a second chance is ‘someone who could have ended an extended
winning streak’, Aaron qualifies in that regard and is in fact more qualified
in that sense that many of the other people on this list.
5.
Molly Karol (38)
Finished with
exactly half Andrew He’s total in his fourth win. His wager of $1 defeated her.
Analysis: Molly was
going back and forth with Andrew for the lead in the Jeopardy round. She
wagered everything on a Daily Double on the second clue of that round to take a
huge lead. Andrew did the exact same thing much later in the round. Molly rang
in on the last clue of Double Jeopardy to get half of Andrew’s total preventing
him from locking up the game.
Conclusion: Well,
it’s hard to argue Molly didn’t earn her second chance. If Andrew had wagered
nothing and it had come down to a tiebreaker, he might not be in the Tournament
of Champions this year.
6.
Alicia O’Hare (38)
Appeared against Yungsheng Wang
in intense match. Which was back and forth throughout Double Jeopardy.
Analysis: I will admit that
Alicia played well in her appearance. She led at the end of the Jeopardy round
and went back and forth with Yungsheng throughout Double Jeopardy which ended
with him leading $19,200 to her $18,200. Beyond that, there doesn’t seem to be
much of an argument for her to appear: every player got Final Jeopardy correct
and Yungsheng didn’t exactly have a triumphant run on the show (he lost the next
day)
Conclusion: I can’t in good
conscience defend this choice.
7.
Do Park (38)
Challenged Amy Schneider in 14th Game of her
run.
Analysis: Do didn’t exactly seem
like he was a huge threat to Amy in the Jeopardy round. In Double Jeopardy he
proved he was willing to fight back. He found the first Daily Double on the
fourth clue of the round, bet everything, and considerably narrowed the gap
between them. Amy managed a significant jump ahead later in the round but Do
fought back later on, helped by him getting a $2000 clue correct that Amy
missed. He finished Double Jeopardy with $17,200 to Amy’s $23,800. He was the
only player to get Final Jeopardy wrong.
Conclusion: It’s harder to
defend Do’s selection than some of the previous players on this list, but
easier than some to come.
8.
Tom Philipose (38)
Challenged Ryan Long throughout
his fifteenth match until Final Jeopardy which no one got right, and he lost
everything.
Analysis: Tom went back and
forth with Ryan for the lead through the entirety of the Jeopardy round,
finally seizing it on the last clue of it. The battle was just as close
throughout Double Jeopardy with only a near sweep of the category THEATER by
Ryan at the end of the round giving him a reasonable margin: $22,800 to Tom’s
$18,800. The Final Jeopardy clue was one of the most difficult of the entire
season and no one got it right.
Conclusion: I’m less inclined to
argue for Tom than I was for Aaron Gulyas but by the standards that the show
seems to be setting he more than fits.
9.
Tracy Pitzel (38)
Challenged Matt Amodio on his
twenty-fourth appearance. Had enough money to defeat him on Final Jeopardy,
which he got wrong (but so did she).
Analysis: Matt was his usual
dominant self in the Jeopardy round. Matt played very hard in Double Jeopardy,
but Tracy did put up a fight and for the first time in a very long time, Matt
didn’t have a runaway at the end of Double Jeopardy. (He had $33,200 to Tracy’s
$17,000.) Matt did get Final Jeopardy did wrong, but so did Tracy.
Conclusion: I think they are stretching
this a little bit more than some of the others. That being said, Matt had far
fewer games than some of the super-winners where other players had even this
much of a chance to beat him (no one else would come this close until he lost)
so I’ll allow them to consider this.
Tomorrow, I’ll conclude with my
analyses of the last nine and my overall analysis of the competitors in this
tournament.
No comments:
Post a Comment