Jeopardy

[pg1067]

Mike Richards in talks to be permanent host.

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/mike-richards-jeopardy-host-alex-trebek-1235034673/?fbclid=IwAR06Zl31jTi0kRIIgE7fWuSqq6jO-uT2GoEJ6HHg8_ltdfHOPiLklV9kHmg

Intriguing.  Of course it also says, "A Sony Pictures spokesman said discussions were ongoing with several potential candidates.  He would not comment specifically on Richards’ status.  A source close to the situation cautioned that there’s no certainty that the sides will close a deal and that other candidates remain in the mix, although Richards is clearly the front-runner."

I wonder if the source was speaking out of turn or if it was an intentional release to gauge reaction to the possible hiring of Richards.  If what I've read is any indication, Richards would be a very popular choice.

I'm not thrilled with "Kramer" as host, but if the people want it...

It'd be cool to have a host who has hoisted Lord Stanley's Cup.

[Harmony]

I wonder if the source was speaking out of turn or if it was an intentional release to gauge reaction to the possible hiring of Richards.  If what I've read is any indication, Richards would be a very popular choice.

Well, Richards is also an executive producer so I wonder if he is interviewing himself or???

He might be a popular choice for some.  Not all though:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeopardy-host-frontrunner-mike-richards-alleged-history-of-harassment-discrimination

[pg1067]

I wonder if the source was speaking out of turn or if it was an intentional release to gauge reaction to the possible hiring of Richards.  If what I've read is any indication, Richards would be a very popular choice.

Well, Richards is also an executive producer so I wonder if he is interviewing himself or???

He might be a popular choice for some.  Not all though:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeopardy-host-frontrunner-mike-richards-alleged-history-of-harassment-discrimination

Three people sued.  None of them succeeded.  One "struggled to present sufficient evidence to support [her] claim in court," and another dismissed Richards and then settled with the remaining defendants.  Some Jeopardy fans on social media are whining.  It's unfortunate that this is what passes for journalism these days and that some folks inevitably will read little more than the headline and draw conclusions without knowing all the relevant facts.  And some Jeopardy fans on social media will whine no matter whom they choose.

[Cool Chris]

The rules (which are read to the contestants and discussed before they're played -- they're even discussed during contestant searches) expressly say that the specific question doesn't matter.

I've always wondered that.

I remember, I think it was Miguel Ferrer, some celebrity responded with something like "The <correct response>, what is it?"

[SoundscapeMN]

passing this week, not a fan of Joe Buck.

[DragonAttack]

As are we, though he isn't as obnoxious as we thought he would be.  Thought David Faber did a great job as guest host the prior week.

Plus, the current champion has made viewing unenjoyable.  It's like watching the UConn women in the first round of the NCAA tourney, only worse (no point spread to bet on).  We are not watching 'live' anymore, but tuning in 27 minutes into the recording.

A shame they don't let all of these contestants come back and give it another go.  It's why I always wished they would limit winners to ten appearances.

Matt Amodio has gotten a bit full of himself a couple of times by wagering over $30K on 'Final Jeopardy' (and losing).  The only pleasurable moments over these past three weeks. 

[Stadler]

As a Uconn alum, I don't understand that reference. 

I'm a fan of Joe Buck, so I will watch this.  He can veer into the snarky, which I'm not a huge fan of, so I hope he plays it straight.   

[pg1067]

Matt Amodio has gotten a bit full of himself a couple of times by wagering over $30K on 'Final Jeopardy' (and losing).

Meh...if you've got that kind of cushion and feel comfortable with the category, why not push it?  Seems like he's trying to surpass James Holzhauer.  Nothing wrong with that.

I never will understand all the hate that Joe Buck gets, but I'll watch his episodes with open mind, as I have done for all the other guest hosts.

[pg1067]

Interesting...if true:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeopardy-set-to-announce-mayim-bialik-and-mike-richards-splitting-host-duties?fbclid=IwAR1AKt_JwpPKzMZmjPWDRUAL1Wop_67GMYXPAtXFlJPWhbUvH-haaOH7EUg


Mike Richards will host the show, but Mayim Bialik "will host primetime and spin-off specials . . . the first of which will be the Jeopardy! National College Championship on ABC."

I'm completely fine with Richards getting the gig and having spin-offs with Bialik as the host.  I liked Rock & Roll Jeopardy (hosted by Jeff Probst) and Sports Jeopardy (hosted by Dan Patrick).

[hefdaddy42]

Interesting...if true:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeopardy-set-to-announce-mayim-bialik-and-mike-richards-splitting-host-duties?fbclid=IwAR1AKt_JwpPKzMZmjPWDRUAL1Wop_67GMYXPAtXFlJPWhbUvH-haaOH7EUg


Mike Richards will host the show, but Mayim Bialik "will host primetime and spin-off specials . . . the first of which will be the Jeopardy! National College Championship on ABC."

I'm completely fine with Richards getting the gig and having spin-offs with Bialik as the host.  I liked Rock & Roll Jeopardy (hosted by Jeff Probst) and Sports Jeopardy (hosted by Dan Patrick).

I've seen it from multiple outlets.

I'm fine with it too.

[crazy climber dude]

Couldn't understand Matt's logic last night. He was EXACTLY twice the amount of second place contestant going into Final Jeopardy. 27,200 to 13,600 if I recall correctly. So to wager $1 makes no sense!

If you're going for the win....why not bet more? The point being....he could have lost by $1 just as easily as 5,000. And sure enough, second place contestant (sorry, I forgot her name) wagered the full amount knowing that was her only chance to catch him if he bet NOTHING. If he bets nothing....he can't lose outright.

Fortunately for him, she got the answer (question) wrong, so it was a moot point. And he got it right, so still won 27,001. Still....puzzling.

[pg1067]

Well-established Jeopardy betting strategy is that, if you're in first place, you bet only as much as is needed to beat the second place contestant if he or she doubles his or her score.  The exception is that, if you're really confident in the category, then you can go for a big win.

[El Barto]

Couldn't understand Matt's logic last night. He was EXACTLY twice the amount of second place contestant going into Final Jeopardy. 27,200 to 13,600 if I recall correctly. So to wager $1 makes no sense!

If you're going for the win....why not bet more? The point being....he could have lost by $1 just as easily as 5,000. And sure enough, second place contestant (sorry, I forgot her name) wagered the full amount knowing that was her only chance to catch him if he bet NOTHING. If he bets nothing....he can't lose outright.

Fortunately for him, she got the answer (question) wrong, so it was a moot point. And he got it right, so still won 27,001. Still....puzzling.

It seems that in 2014 Jeopardy abolished the tie game ending and implemented a random tiebreaker question. I guess that means they just run another round of Double Jeopardy. The guy in first place had two choices. He could bet zero, in which case a correct answer from 2nd moves them to a tie-breaker, or he could bet a buck, and either win or lose. What it would come down to is how confident you are in the current category. If you know the category well then you bet your dollar and try to avoid the tiebreaker question. If you're hazy on the current category then you bet 0, and if there's a tie then maybe you'll know the next category better.

Your question still is valid, though. If you know that 2nd has to bet the farm to try and tie/win, then there's no real difference between betting a buck or betting it all. I suppose 3rd place has to factor into it at that point, too.

[crazy climber dude]

Couldn't understand Matt's logic last night. He was EXACTLY twice the amount of second place contestant going into Final Jeopardy. 27,200 to 13,600 if I recall correctly. So to wager $1 makes no sense!

If you're going for the win....why not bet more? The point being....he could have lost by $1 just as easily as 5,000. And sure enough, second place contestant (sorry, I forgot her name) wagered the full amount knowing that was her only chance to catch him if he bet NOTHING. If he bets nothing....he can't lose outright.

Fortunately for him, she got the answer (question) wrong, so it was a moot point. And he got it right, so still won 27,001. Still....puzzling.

It seems that in 2014 Jeopardy abolished the tie game ending and implemented a random tiebreaker question. I guess that means they just run another round of Double Jeopardy. The guy in first place had two choices. He could bet zero, in which case a correct answer from 2nd moves them to a tie-breaker, or he could bet a buck, and either win or lose. What it would come down to is how confident you are in the current category. If you know the category well then you bet your dollar and try to avoid the tiebreaker question. If you're hazy on the current category then you bet 0, and if there's a tie then maybe you'll know the next category better.

Your question still is valid, though. If you know that 2nd has to bet the farm to try and tie/win, then there's no real difference between betting a buck or betting it all. I suppose 3rd place has to factor into it at that point, too.

Bingo (wait....it's Jeopardy!). You understand the concept. Not even suggesting he bet a HUGE amount.....he got burned on that on a couple of Final Jeopardy by betting large and missing the question (but obviously still winning). But when you have some wiggle room....why not at least go for 5,000 or something like that? I know he has close to a half million dollars already, but when you consider that once your stint is over, you will NEVER get another chance to make "FREE" money that readily. As it turns out, he KNEW the topic enough to get the answer right. Seems he knows most things, on at least close to the same level as Ken/James.

That said, watched one of the classic Ken shows (not a Barbie induced striptease) from years ago (I guess they are featuring them all week in the transition to Richards?).....when he wagered on Double and Final he was pretty conservative. Makes you appreciate James and his take no prisoners approach.

[pg1067]

That said, watched one of the classic Ken shows (not a Barbie induced striptease) from years ago (I guess they are featuring them all week in the transition to Richards?).....when he wagered on Double and Final he was pretty conservative. Makes you appreciate James and his take no prisoners approach.

If I recall correctly, after they had aired the last of Alex's episodes, and before they had the guest host episodes in the can, they ran a couple weeks worth of "classic" episodes, including a couple of the Jennings episodes (and I believe they are re-airing those episodes before the new season starts in September).  Watching them, you wonder how the heck he lasted as long as he did.  He ran categories in order from top to bottom and bet quite conservatively.  I guess he just got very good with the buzzer (which, as I understand it, is half the battle) and, obviously, he had a wealth of knowledge.

[Cool Chris]

I liked Rock & Roll Jeopardy (hosted by Jeff Probst)

I remember watching, and enjoying, that!

Hilarious memory... Jane Weidlin was on, and one of the categories was "Heavy Metal" and all the responses in included a metal, such as "Tin Machine," and anytime she answered, she would add "that isn't heavy metal." At the end of the category, Jeff said "I don't know if you were kidding, Jane, but all the responses had a metal in it, they weren't necessarily related to the heavy metal genre." And she replied to the effect of "I wish I could say I was kidding, but I didn't get that till you pointed it out."

[DragonAttack]

The tiebreakers for 'Jeopardy' (if you can get through the ads).

And, I assume, if both are wrong, they continue on until a winner is determined.  I don't think they've ever run into that situation.

[crazy climber dude]

The tiebreakers for 'Jeopardy' (if you can get through the ads).

And, I assume, if both are wrong, they continue on until a winner is determined.  I don't think they've ever run into that situation.

Nothing here, man.

[DragonAttack]

I'll take 'Non Posted Attachments' for $600, Alex....

https://www.today.com/popculture/jeopardy-ends-rare-tie-watch-how-winner-was-chosen-t206812

 

[pg1067]

I'll take 'Non Posted Attachments' for $600, Alex....

https://www.today.com/popculture/jeopardy-ends-rare-tie-watch-how-winner-was-chosen-t206812

 

Jennings didn't say what happens if you ring in and are wrong.  On other shows that do a tiebreaker like that, if you ring in and are wrong, you lose the game (so, if you're going to ring in, you'd better be right).

The most interesting part of that was Jennings saying that, on the host's lectern, you can see the contestants' wager and answer screens.  I imagine that post-show stuff is usually pretty mundane, but that one was interesting.

[Harmony]

Mike Richards has resigned/stepped down as host of Jeopardy

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/20/1029650746/jeopardy-host-mike-richards-steps-down?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&fbclid=IwAR1rPG_lLKvTy9wKBMF1Y_lULmEA7eg8sHEehxD4jX0Z1ZkKs9XQWB_tuU0

[pg1067]

Mike Richards has resigned/stepped down as host of Jeopardy

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/20/1029650746/jeopardy-host-mike-richards-steps-down?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&fbclid=IwAR1rPG_lLKvTy9wKBMF1Y_lULmEA7eg8sHEehxD4jX0Z1ZkKs9XQWB_tuU0

Oh, FFS...

[Stadler]

Look, with the understanding that legitimate abuse is not to be excused or tolerated, but whenever I read something like this:

"Richards came under added scrutiny this week, when The Ringer reported that from 2013 to 2014, when Richards hosted a podcast called The Randumb Show, he "repeatedly used offensive language and disparaged women's bodies.""

I'm inclined to want to read/hear what was said to make that judgment for myself.  As much as I'm supportive of women - I have two daughters that I want to see achieve every one of their dreams free from the sort of nonsense we hear about too frequently - I hate that this stuff happens seemingly in a vacuum without any "due process" (in quotes because I don't mean it literally, just in the sense of there's unilateral decision-making and we either go along with it or are tarred by the same brush).   

[Harmony]

Oh the comments weren't just disparaging about women.  It was also disparaging against Jews and Haitians from what I've read.

But the actual show apparently has been "pulled."  I don't know how that came about but it sure seems fishy.

[pg1067]

Look, with the understanding that legitimate abuse is not to be excused or tolerated, but whenever I read something like this:

"Richards came under added scrutiny this week, when The Ringer reported that from 2013 to 2014, when Richards hosted a podcast called The Randumb Show, he "repeatedly used offensive language and disparaged women's bodies.""

I'm inclined to want to read/hear what was said to make that judgment for myself.

On top of that -- and without turning this into something for the political board -- I'd like to gain a clear understanding of what jobs are going to be available for people who have made these sorts of comments.  If we're just going to mindlessly force to resign or fire everyone who has made comments of this sort at some point in his/her life, aren't we going to end up with like a 90% unemployment rate?

from what I've read.

Four of the most dangerous words in the English language.

[Harmony]

from what I've read.

Four of the most dangerous words in the English language.

Really?  You don't believe in reading?  Huh.  That is a very foreign concept for me.  I have always been a voracious reader.

To each their own, I guess.  *shrug*

[pg1067]

from what I've read.

Four of the most dangerous words in the English language.

Really?  You don't believe in reading?  Huh.  That is a very foreign concept for me.  I have always been a voracious reader.

To each their own, I guess.  *shrug*

Reading is a wonderful thing.

"Here's what happened at last night's game (which I neither attended nor watched)...from what I've read."

"Here's what that guy said at that meeting (that I didn't attend)...from what I've read."

"From what I've heard" falls into the same category, but please don't (mis-)interpret that to mean that I think listening is a bad thing.

"That guy says some pretty awful things (although I've never heard him speak myself)...from what I've heard."

Get the point?

[Harmony]

Hey I'd love to listen to the podcast but it has been scrubbed so I guess that means I have to rely on what I'm reading from those who have heard it.  You know?

If you have the actual recording, please post it.  Or if you have some alternative to getting to the facts, please post it.

Get the point?

[Stadler]

Look, with the understanding that legitimate abuse is not to be excused or tolerated, but whenever I read something like this:

"Richards came under added scrutiny this week, when The Ringer reported that from 2013 to 2014, when Richards hosted a podcast called The Randumb Show, he "repeatedly used offensive language and disparaged women's bodies.""

I'm inclined to want to read/hear what was said to make that judgment for myself.

On top of that -- and without turning this into something for the political board -- I'd like to gain a clear understanding of what jobs are going to be available for people who have made these sorts of comments.  If we're just going to mindlessly force to resign or fire everyone who has made comments of this sort at some point in his/her life, aren't we going to end up with like a 90% unemployment rate?

It's a dangerous precedent when we're only ever as good as our worst moment.   

[Harmony]

Look, with the understanding that legitimate abuse is not to be excused or tolerated, but whenever I read something like this:

"Richards came under added scrutiny this week, when The Ringer reported that from 2013 to 2014, when Richards hosted a podcast called The Randumb Show, he "repeatedly used offensive language and disparaged women's bodies.""

I'm inclined to want to read/hear what was said to make that judgment for myself.

On top of that -- and without turning this into something for the political board -- I'd like to gain a clear understanding of what jobs are going to be available for people who have made these sorts of comments.  If we're just going to mindlessly force to resign or fire everyone who has made comments of this sort at some point in his/her life, aren't we going to end up with like a 90% unemployment rate?

It's a dangerous precedent when we're only ever as good as our worst moment.

But is that really what is happening here?  Look, I don't really have a dog in this hunt.  I know next to nothing about the Richards and when I watched him take his turn as host, I thought he did a fine job.  Sincerely.  I have only really ever felt passionate about what Alex would have wanted for the legacy and the integrity of the show.  Obviously Richards is smart enough to see that he isn't going to be that.  I thought he would persevere after the sexual harassment stuff came out (I mean, it's only women in the workplace and that shit has gone on for freaking ever).  But read his email.  I don't have any reason to believe he isn't sincere in what he is saying there.  None of us here can say whether or not those comments were his "worst moment" in his life or not.  But bottom line he is a businessman and a producer of a show with a precedent that needs to be upheld.  And he obviously felt that precent was worth more than his ego.  I think he is doing the right thing.  And if he thought it was a witch hunt, he wouldn't have so easily thrown in the towel.  Nor would he have deleted the podcast.

I don't know anyone who doesn't have something in their past that they would be ashamed to have see the light of day.  Literally last week my cousin posted one of those old-timey photos you get taken on vacation where everyone dresses up in period costumes.  This one happens to look like a group of white girls on a plantation with a young male cousin dressed as a confederate soldier 'defending' their honor from something.  My daughter and one of those girls - all of about 12 at the time - jokingly asked me if that means she could never run for political office now because that photo.  I have to think that it would definitely harm her chances with the way things are right now.

[pg1067]

Hey I'd love to listen to the podcast but it has been scrubbed so I guess that means I have to rely on what I'm reading from those who have heard it.  You know?

If you have the actual recording, please post it.  Or if you have some alternative to getting to the facts, please post it.

Get the point?

I do get the point, and I don't know anything about the podcast other than what you've conveyed, which is apparently two layers away from the podcast.  I'm therefore going to disregard it.  That's all I was ever saying here.

[orcus116]

from what I've read.

Four of the most dangerous words in the English language.

Really?  You don't believe in reading?  Huh.  That is a very foreign concept for me.  I have always been a voracious reader.

To each their own, I guess.  *shrug*

Speaking in generalities in terms of the times we're in and not relating to the matter at hand, since I have no knowledge of what was said, there is a tendency for quotes, especially in terms of podcasts, to be reported on in such an out of context manner that my immediate response is to question intent unless the actual quote itself is so egregious that perhaps context has left the building. The application of a black and white judgement from phrasing, words, etc. (literal transcriptions) from such a gray area (spoken/filmed media) without reference points seems far too common in today's day and age, especially when we're at this throwaway, sensationalist level of journalism in an era where media outlets are struggling to survive. It seems that everything at face value is the truth since it appears that the general public doesn't bother to dig any deeper and moves on to the next thing because perhaps the negativity is exciting in the moment and that we've all got this "watch the world burn" ember inside of us that keeps it going. My personal philosophy is we're all hypocrites to a degree and sometimes shun folks for things we do or think ourselves in private but put on a different face for the rest of the world. That's what makes me a skeptic when I see any articles regarding someone getting thrown to the wolves for something they have supposedly done, especially in the past.

That being said if clips or other things pop up that point someone more towards being guilty of an actual offense I'm more than happy to change my mind. I like to think of myself as practical and I've seen far too many kneejerky reactions to inconsequential things so I find myself more towards the skeptical camp than not, at least in today's climate.

[KevShmev]

It's a dangerous precedent when we're only ever as good as our worst moment.

Not for those perfect people out there in the world who scream and yell at every little thing someone did wrong 33 years ago.  I am envious of those people who are so perfect that they can call for the heads of those who made mistakes and have no fear of ever have the same happen to them because of how perfect they are.

And before anyone blows a gasket, I am not referring to anyone here.

[Cool Chris]

"Richards came under added scrutiny this week, when The Ringer reported that from 2013 to 2014, when Richards hosted a podcast called The Randumb Show, he "repeatedly used offensive language and disparaged women's bodies.""

I'm inclined to want to read/hear what was said to make that judgment for myself. 

Came in to complain about this. I hate when news articles write something about how someone used "offensive/disparaging language" and doesn't say what they actually said.

[Ben_Jamin]

From a show titled "RanDumb" I find it laughable those "righteous" people complained.

But it's also ironic how since they deleted the podcast no one will know unless it's archived, if what he said warranted the backlash.

I personally think Mayim Balik would do a great job as being a full-time host. Don't know why they're not just going with her.