I read the link. I don't watch the show but I don't think the guy whose comments are quoted has any understanding of what's involved and what the objectives are.

What's at stake is something other than international rules and requirements of golf, or NCAA football or basketball rules that all have to comply with.

It's a TV show, an entertainment production. Those who control it will do whatever makes the show most successful and sustains audience levels. Long champion runs enhance buzz, audience share and coverage in the media, as yet again the most recent run apparently has demonstrated. Make a change to tamper with that? Don't fix what ain't broke.

Good article, quick read, interesting points I wouldn't have known. I didn't remember there used to be a mandatory retirement after 5 wins. I'd vote for a 10-game limit. Then every so often, bring back the 10-game winners and let them compete against each other -- that would be a more even playing field. And perhaps generate enough buzz to make up for the lack of unlimited winning streaks. Because I agree, the program has to make money :-)

I read an article on the NY Times today. One of the reasons for the winning streaks is the virus. Both Matt Amodio and Amy were notified a year ago that they were going to be contestants but then the taping was delayed. They were able to spend that year studying areas they were weak in. You can also access online all the prior questions going back years. So this problem may solve itself when the schedule gets back to normal.

nickel - that's a good idea. I don't mind the winning streaks so much but I do feel sorry for the new contestants. I usually root for the underdog anyway and sometimes they only answer a few questions.

Eileen, I hadn’t thought of the covid influence!

I said in another thread, that I’d like to see a 20-game limit.

Just out of curiosity, and laziness because I’ve had a glass of wine and just don’t aNt to look it up, I wonder how often someone who beats a 20+game winner, wins their second game?

From what I have seen bpath it is rare for the person who upsets a multigame winner who wins more than one or two games. Often it the luck of the game-who gets the doubles and the categories. I can personally run some and are totally clueless about others. I would never be able to study enough to know sports, TV and Movies. Give me history, words, geography, not modern literature.

"One of the reasons for the winning streaks is the virus. Both Matt Amodio and Amy were notified a year ago that they were going to be contestants but then the taping was delayed. They were able to spend that year studying areas they were weak in."

Eh, I don't buy that. One of my kid's college friends is a lifetime Jeopardy fan and I know a bit about his advance planning and experiences. He spent much of his spare time over the better part of 4 years preparing - reviewing past questions, studying a wide variety of topics that his penchant for learning trivia didn't cover (including the arts and several sports he didn't follow as a fan), watching shows, and the like. His reasoning was that he needed to be ready BEFORE applying to make the best possible impression for the screening process used for choosing contestants.

So pandemic or not, someone who wants to be on the show can prepare for as long as they want before they apply. If they're not at their best when the applicant screening starts, it's too late.

The young man did respectably well on the show, recorded as i recall in the summer of 2019. He won his first game and then two more before losing. He said it was fun, harder than he expected because of his own nerves, and exhausting. I don't remember if his episodes were recorded all in one day or not. At least two were because he said between each show there was a short break to freshen up and change clothes.

If they're not at their best when the applicant screening starts, it's too late.

Maybe things have changed, but in 2005 I took the test for Jeopardy without preparing in any way, and I certainly have major gaps in my knowledge. There was a written test and then those of us who passed that did a mock version of the game, with fake buzzers, etc.

A couple of months later I got a call to come on the show. However, they wanted me the week of a major family celebration and I couldn't go. Just as well, since I'm sure I would have been too nervous in front of the cameras to do well.

We watch Jeopardy every evening & were fans before Ken Jennings winning streak 17 yrs ago. The article does not change my thoughts on how the game is run. The article says that since Amy has been winning ratings have SURGED. It’s assinine to suggest that now is the time to tinker with the rules.

As an aside, I’ve seen some ignorant comments online with regards to Amy’s championship & her being forthright about being transgender.

It does sound like your experience was a bit different - I believe he went through several rounds of simulated matches at the audition and it was from those who did well (and also showed personality.) that the selection pool additions were made.

Elmer hit the nail on the head. People this is a FOR PROFIT SHOW....it should not make the major news sources that just veiled advertising!!!

Of course it's for profit. But.... to me there was something more to Jeopardy. I found the article interesting from the perspective of the player.

And as far as the advantage of being able to study during the covid shutdown, weren't all of Matt's and Amy's opponents also given that "advantage?

Of course. Whether they took advantage of the extra time is another story.

As Amy said, studying can't substitute for a lifelong curiosity.

I think these mega-winners' brains work differently than most of ours. They only need to hear or read something once and it gets locked into their memory.

I get a lot of answers because it triggers something I read decades ago and haven't thought of since.

I agree Eileen. The amount of knowledge already stored and the ability to quickly retrieve it sets those mega winners apart.

Then, they are also able to add to this by studying areas they feel weakest. To me, it's like a needle a haystack.

I imagine there are ways to figure the actual type of question that Jeopardy usually goes after. Beats me!

I don't know how much working the buzzer plays into it but I've seen contestants frantically jamming the buzzer, so I've wondered whether all three buzzers are responsive to touch exactly the same. Amy practiced on clicker pens and felt that helped her.

Every entertainment product is "for profit". Even "non-profit" ones like NPR or PBS. No one works for nothing.

As above, I don't watch the show regularly but I have at times in the past (as when my kid's friend was on). Frequently there's a clue, sometimes in the category title and sometimes in the brief words given, that provides a hint for what the answer is. The more successful contestants seem to be attentive to them. One example I've just made up might be in the category of Flowers, the question "Long Civil War in England" for which the response would be "What is War of the Roses". Answering the question successfully can be more a matter of solving the clue, not necessarily as in this case a mastery of English history. I recall several times seeing what appeared to be guesses offered in response that seemed like the contestant was acting on the clue, not a recollection of the subject matter.

Like many "contests", there's an element of gamesmanship that can contribute to doing well and I think careful attention to the clues is among the tactics that make a difference.

I agree the article made some good points--and I'm old enough to remember the 5-game limit. There are good arguments on both sides, and if they were to impose a limit I'm another one who would vote for 10 games. But I don't think it's going to happen, mostly because of those viewer surges, similar to the way more people buy lottery tickets when the prize money rises to outrageous levels.

I'm not sorry. When champions have a long run we get to know them and sometimes become their fans. Unlike being a fan of a favorite TV drama or comedy, we become attached, in a way, to the real person. Some of my favorites come to mind . . . Matt Amodio, looking so much like a boy next door that it was easy to forget he was a Ph.D. candidate at Yale . . . James Holzhauer, the professional gambler; devoted to his family and as generous with his money as he was bold in his wagers . . . Austin Rogers, the clever and oh so entertaining bartender . . . and Buzzy Cohen, so beautifully dressed in suits his father made for him.

Would I remember champions who lasted 10 games? Maybe. Would I remember a 5-game champion? Not likely.