Monday, October 10, 2022

Eighteen Former Jeopardy Contestants Are Getting A Second Chance. Do They Deserve It? Part 1: Tournament Introduction and Analysis of First Nine Players

 

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