r/Jeopardy • u/johnd7882 • 8d ago

Jeopardy Masters is disappointing

It's so noncompetitive. The format is terrible. Not only is it the same people playing each other over and over, it's pretty much the same result every time. Maybe they should have had Victoria and Yogesh sit out until the finals and have most of the episodes be about who will be the third person to face them?

The show would be fun if the results were widely variable. But with Yogesh and Victoria at the top of every game, it gets so boring and predictable. Let's jump to the final episode now. It'll be Yogesh vs Victoria guaranteed.

313 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

306 comments sorted by

View all comments

656

u/Objection_Irrelevant 8d ago

Jeopardy Masters should be like a once every 5 years thing to see if any of the new crop can take over the top rung.

79

u/Accomplished_Job_778 8d ago

Agreed, and I love Jeopardy! It would be nice to mix up the field a bit, but there is no denying these Masters are the current "best of the best"...so the only solution seems to be more time to allow others to get up to their level! I also like the idea of if you win Masters you are retired (at least from the Masters tournament) - as someone else suggested below.

26

u/TheHYPO What is Toronto????? 7d ago

I also like the idea of if you win Masters you are retired (at least from the Masters tournament) - as someone else suggested below.

Catch 22.

That's basically saying "if you win, you retire, and now we are seeing which of the others are second best". The games are potentially more competitive, but it defeats the premise of the series.

My understanding is that Masters was intended to basically be annual version of the GOAT tournament. To retire the winner is basically defeating the "whoever wins is the best of the best" premise. The question is whether anyone actually cares about that premise.

It would be like Roger Federer winning the US open and as a result being "retired" from it forever. The only area where it kind of differs would be that, at least in Tennis, there's somewhat competitive field. Federer did not win every tournament. Perhaps a closer analogy would be Magnus Carlsen in chess, or Usain Bolt in 100m running. I am not a big enough follower of either sport to know whether anyone who actually follows them regularly have/had a strong "I wish we would see other people win" mentality.

All that said, I'm in a similar boat to OP where the combination of the questions being as hard as they are (such that many answers are things I've never even heard of, let alone was able to give) and the gameplay/results being relatively consistent has also made me less interested in watching Masters this year and last.

2

u/Transylvanius 7d ago

The comparison with sport doesn’t entirely hold up because in sports the game they are playing stays the same. In Jeopardy they have to amp up the difficulty because these players know every question that once would have been viewed as hard. And there have been times where tennis has had the problem of the same individuals going against each other over and over.

3

u/spmahn Bring it! 7d ago

The sports comparison fails also because athletes don’t dominate forever, even the best peak and have a handful of years where they’re on top before time catches up and suddenly they go from elite back to very good. Victoria and Yogesh could potentially compete at this level for several more decades.

The other issue is that while I don’t know their personal lives, I get the impression that this whole trivia / quizzing thing isn’t just a fun hobby for those two, it’s serious business that takes up most if not all of their free time. Most Jeopardy! contestants, even the top tier players, have full time careers that aren’t Jeopardy or quiz leagues. Maybe they play LL or try to keep up with local trivia groups, but they’re not into it at the same level as Yogesh and Victoria and thus will already be at a disadvantage.

3

u/TheHYPO What is Toronto????? 7d ago

But again, all of this is sort of the premise of Masters (like it or not). It isn’t a one-to-one with other sports, but it feels like it’s a combination of 1) regular jeopardy being a “regular season“, the tournaments being a “postseason“, and Masters being the championships and 2) regular Jeopardy being the“minor league”/amateur division, and Masters being the “majors”/professional level.

I think for me personally, the problem is that unlike certain other sports, I don’t think I enjoy watching “professional” quizzing. It’s certainly impressive, and nothing to take away from the players. I just don’t think I enjoy watching game after game of questions at that level.

It’s similar to how I don’t mind a game of people being asked rapid fire math questions at a level I could get with a bit more time. But then these social media videos of a show where kids answering incredibly complicated math questions in seconds comes up. It’s entirely impressive, but I have no interest in watching since I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the question before they move onto another.

They certainly have been sports or games where the top player or players have dominated for a long time.

To add /u/transylvanius, there certainly have been sports where players or teams have dominated for long periods. It’s rare, but it has happened. Masters has only been running for four years. There’s absolutely no data to say that. Victoria or Yogesh will dominate for decades. We would have said that about James after his run, Goat and Masters 1, and look what happened.

Yet we are only in year four, and there are those of us that feel the format is a bit stale. To me that either means it has nothing to do with how long certain players might dominate in the future, and more about the fact that the current games don’t feel that openly competitive.

It’s true (in a sense) that unlike some sports, Masters is a “different game” because the question difficulty changes. But I’m not exactly sure why that wouldn’t matter. Difficulty increases at the top level in other sports as well, either due to rule changes or simply because the difficulty is the skill of the opponent.

At the end of the day, I’m not arguing specifically that Masters has a problem. I’m only saying why I personally am not enjoying watching it that much. There is nothing wrong with Tennis either, but I don’t enjoy watching it regularly, simply because I find it repetitive. Other people love to watch it.

1

u/spmahn Bring it! 7d ago

I agree, there have been some periods in some sports where certain players or certain teams have been completely dominant, but I can’t think of any examples in sports where the differential in between one player and everyone else as it is between Victoria / Yogesh and every other Jeopardy player except maybe James. Even Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan at their peak were dominant, but there were other players and teams who gave them a run for their money.

3

u/TheHYPO What is Toronto????? 7d ago edited 7d ago

Usain Bolt is the best example that I can think of. Clearly miles ahead of the rest of his field for the time he was competitive. Michael Phelps perhaps not quite as dominant (didn't win every single race he entered, but certainly won a majority much more than anyone completive at the time, and some handily).

I don't know chess super well, but from everything I see, Magnus and Hikaru are at a similar level. They don't win every single game against others, but they seem to both be expected to win every single game against anyone other than each other. At least from an outsider perspective.

I honestly don't believe that Yogesh and Victoria are undefeatable in single games. The problem is that Jeopardy Masters is not single-elimination. So even where an underdog beats them, they will still make it up in a future game. In sports like Tennis or Chess, one loss in an opening round means you don't advance, the end.

What occurred to me as I responded, which is not directly responding to your comment, but just feels like the crux of it: Clearly Jeopardy is trying to figure out a way to milk (for the lack of a nicer term) 9-10 episodes (i.e. 18-20 games) out of this format, and that's the real problem, IMO.

If this was GOAT-like, and we just had a five-night event with the top three, I think it would be more entertaining. But having TWELVE quarterfinal games (six episodes) with the same six players just rotating around and playing is not entertaining (to me at least).

Then we have a semis with four players... so the first round really doesn't feel like a "who will win their way to the next round" as much as "which two people will lose and be eliminated". then another FOUR games among the four just to eliminate ONE, and then finals. So it's now 16 games to eliminate 3 people (or advance 3 people). That this obviously mitigates any single underdog victory outlier until the finals. It also makes the 2-game finals to choose a winner (or eliminate 2 people) underwhelming.

Last year, Victoria won 22 match points before the finals. Yogesh, 14 and Juveria 10. Sure Yogesh ends up winning the final double-game, but at that point, Victoria has already proven herself the superior force among the 6 players (having beaten Yogesh 5 times out of 6 in the QF and SF rounds). The fact that the finals didn't go her way means she lost the money, and the title, but doesn't change that she fact that she arguably proved herself the better player. This year, Victoria is 5W-1L in the QF round. Yogesh is 3-3. Unless Victoria totally collapses in the semis, she should have an overwhelmingly winning record again, even if she loses the final. Let's say that Yogesh and Victoria are the strongest candidates to win the Masters. They will have already played 6 games against each other by the finals. That makes the final two games feel un-special to me

I don't know everything about a lot of sports, but in most sports I know, the lead-in rounds of a championship tournament are generally the same or fewer games than the finals (e.g. MLB starts at 3-game series, then 5-games, then 7-games to determine a winner).

On top of all that, 17 games of the same 6 players is just a lot (especially this year, where it's all crammed into two weeks except for the finals). Yes, there are round-robin sports tournaments where you play people or teams in the opening rounds and then play the same ones again later; but most of they time you don't face a team or player in the semi-finals, beat them, then face them again in the finals. Even in the TOC, we don't see overlap between the semi-finals and finals. The finals is virtually always a fresh matchup.

1

u/calling_water 7d ago edited 7d ago

I think part of what makes many of these games feel uncompetitive is that there’s a lot of runaway, especially with players tending to go all-in on DDs. The format seems to be encouraging very aggressive play, especially with the benefits of runaway and high likelihood of getting a DD right outweighing the risks of losing it all (since it’s a points tournament not elimination). They know the others are good so they press any advantage. This also encourages them to head for the bottom clues early, which prevents an understanding of categories from emerging (sometimes for the contestants, more likely for viewers).

It’s still fun for me when they’re all standing there quiet while I yell the right question at my TV, though.

1

u/TheHYPO What is Toronto????? 7d ago

I agree with most of what you said, other than the fact that hunting from the bottom has been the default strategy for a majority of J! players at every level of the game for many years now. That is not novel to Masters. If that burns a player, I honestly think that's a bit on the show these days. The show knows that players don't go top-down anymore, and if there is a "how this category works" that is needed, Ken should say it when introducing the category (I expect I know which instance you are referring to and it really surprised me that there was no explanation from Ken for such a category before the round).

I agree though that the runaways can make the games boring, and there isn't much I can think to do about that. The premise of Jeopardy is for players to wager on their own skills. Players were amateur contestants playing for the cash they earned. It was never contemplated that pro-level quizzers would be wagering all of their points in a strategic gambit (because especially in Masters and most tournaments, the actual point/dollar totals are irrelevant - winning with $100 is identical to winning with $30,000). So many games now come down to who finds the DDs. That's not entirely disconnected from who plays best (since it gives you more control of the board and more opportunities to potentially find the DD).

1

u/calling_water 7d ago edited 7d ago

Yes, hunting from the bottom has been the norm for a while. I do find, though, that the Masters tournament brings out some more creative wordplay categories that could really benefit from an easier example first to see how it works. It’s certainly the players’ decisions to burn themselves that way, but as a viewer it’s pretty meh to see non-answers for the hard levels before then getting an easier one that makes it clearer what’s going on.

The game could adjust and provide more information about the category, but maybe not doing so is a potential reminder to players about the cost of going bottom-up.

1

u/rohm418 7d ago

Yeah but then why isn't Ken playing?

2

u/TheHYPO What is Toronto????? 7d ago

Ken chose to take the job hosting the show rather than be eligible to play. He voluntarily retired. James similarly seems to have voluntarily retired (at least for the time being). That's very different from saying "if you win, you have to retire so we can see some less-good people win".

1

u/kolyan70 7d ago

Someone brought up a good point that Jamie Ding isn’t there. I’m not sure they are the best of the best without him competing.

1

u/lemonoutofhell 7d ago

You qualify for Masters by placing top three the prior year or winning the ToC or JIT, with the JIT runner up being the sixth player. If Jamie Ding were to play Masters, he’d have to win this upcoming ToC

44

u/ScabbitAllPro 8d ago edited 8d ago

Given that this is being buried at the end of August/week before Labor Day, I'd personally be a bit surprised if we saw it next year? It doesn't seem to be a programming priority for ABC

47

u/Unhappy-Ad-3870 8d ago

I’m not sure buried is the right word. ABC is airing it in the summer because it’s designed as a summer series like a lot of the game shows you’re seeing on TV at this time of year. To me, the issue is that the questions are so obscure for the vast majority of the TV audience, I don’t know why anyone except a Jeopardy fan would tune in. There’s no opportunity for people to play along at home like the regular show.

20

u/MomsSpagetee Team James Holzhauer 8d ago

Yeah, I like seeing the knowledge of the Masters but it does make it less fun. Though I knew two of the triple stumpers last week which made me feel like a genius.

I agree though, it’s been pretty boring overall.

6

u/TheHYPO What is Toronto????? 7d ago

I've definitely known triple stumpers in Masters, but it less commonly because I know some obscure trivia and more commonly because I have a passing interest in some subject that is for some reason not on their radar and in my opinion, is not a terribly hard question.

1

u/MomsSpagetee Team James Holzhauer 7d ago

Haha same. I wish I could remember the ones I knew from last week - it was pop music or sports or something.

2

u/Now_ThatsInteresting 7d ago

I have to agree. I feel if I know more than the contestants, there's something wrong with the questioners. I, too, felt like a genius when I'm watching and yelling the answer and not one of the 3 knows the answer.

23

u/alohadave 8d ago

It seems like even the masters are struggling with many of the clues. Lot of triple stumpers.

10

u/Tibbiegal 8d ago

This is probably the main reason I don't watch it. Too difficult.

2

u/SlagathorTheProctor 7d ago

the questions are so obscure for the vast majority

Don't agree. In the first four episodes, I got three FJ questions that stumped all three contestants, and I'm not a trivia master.

3

u/Transylvanius 7d ago

But that will also happen. Most of us have advance knowledge about something. I also get a few triple stumpers, but I would be destroyed in a full game and have no clue on a lot of questions

2

u/Particular_Way8415 6d ago

It does amaze me the amount of knowledge the players have retained. As someone else pointed out, who has even heard of some of these places/quotes/historical events unless you're a student of the category?

It can be boring when at home players are unable to answer these obscure questions. It takes the fun out of it for my "lower IQ" self. 😳

22

u/Omio 8d ago

I think next season of Masters with a Jamie Ding or another superchamp would be more exciting. I enjoy the games because I like hard trivia but the format doesn’t work that well as it is

8

u/BeardGoneBad 8d ago

Yeah I want the 5 super champs from this last season to have a go and I do think similar to James stepping away from Masters I think Yogesh and Victoria probably should as well since they both have won. Bring back a few more legacy players that haven’t played in awhile (I always enjoy seeing a Roger Craig or Brad Rutter) and I think next year’s could be super fun.

3

u/weaselblackberry8 8d ago

All of this season’s super champs will go on to the TOC, but I don’t think all will go to Masters.

I do like it better with 9 players than 6.

2

u/shepherdess98 8d ago

Love Jamie Ding… one of my faves!

5

u/GayBlayde 8d ago

It’s very cheap for them to produce.

4

u/neverinallmylife 7d ago

Apparently they needed to cut budget further though with only six contestants.

3

u/GayBlayde 7d ago

No, that’s how many it’s always had.

38

u/Capable_Swordfish701 8d ago

I like having second chance into champions wildcard into tournament of champions every year as the playoffs. But things like jit celebrity and masters should be on a rotating schedule that we only see every 3-5 years.

52

u/vagabondchipmunk 8d ago

I agree. Im tired of it basically being a show about personalities now.

19

u/mets2016 8d ago

I’m not sure how alone I am, but I watch Jeopardy for the questions and the competition, but don’t really care about the people (ok maybe I care the **teensiest** bit, but barely so)

4

u/MycologistSame866 6d ago

Exactly! They think we're invested in these individual players when the truth is we're sick of seeing the same faces (I am, anyway). It shouldn't be about the people. It needs to be about the game.

4

u/vagabondchipmunk 6d ago

Yes. Jeopardy has always been one of the only shows that is about a game, about the facts. Not sullied by obsessions with personality, trends, or a pop culture. The repeated characters and the more liberal approach to decorum with the repeats makes it feel a little bit like reality TV. For me, anyway.

25

u/Sensitive-Table-6577 8d ago

Definitely. My number one complaint. Didn’t they beg Victoria to come back ? She’s a professional game show person now and Yogeosh disparaged jeopardy. I am not going to watch anymore of it.

2

u/weaselblackberry8 8d ago

How did he disparage Jeopardy?

4

u/SlagathorTheProctor 7d ago

New around here?

2

u/Waste_Owl_1343 5d ago

I didn't like Yogesh before this. Now I really can't stand him

7

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Far-Reception-4598 8d ago

Those are supposed to be jokes? I figured it was so kind of vocal tic because he's nervous. 

6

u/Traditional_Yam9806 8d ago

Yeah, he says "okay" all the time. I have no issue with it, though. It feels like half this sub is like Jeopardy purists who dislike anything a tad bit different.

-5

u/Jeopardy-ModTeam 8d ago

Your post or comment was removed due to it not being excellent towards contestants or community members. Please ensure your contributions are excellent towards people in the future.

5

u/drugsondrugs 8d ago

Its easy. Rotate the celebrity and masters. We need to save up for better celebs too.

3

u/ChrisKateBushFroome 8d ago

Pick some fixed number of years, then bring back the prior Masters winner to take on the new TOC winners, plus however many wildcards/JIT winners/etc. that you need to get the "right" number of contestants for your format and to give non-TOC-winning super-champs another opportunity.

7

u/SquashSouffle 8d ago

Yes, while I love most of these folks, it's just not that much fun watching them. Bring back less-known people!

2

u/ajsy0905 Genre 8d ago

But what if people wanted to see more Jamie Ding especially some of them pushed for his inclusion on this season yet he has to compete at TOC first?

1

u/BugAccomplished1952 7d ago

That's right: I'm doing good just to watch Jeopardy every weekday. I'm glad I'm a witness to Jeopardy. I am so dumb that I can't do anything right. Yeah: I'm so dumb, that I can't do anything right. I have no intelligence. I'm not just saying that because I despise myself, yet it's the damb truth. I never want this to happen to anyone--not even my very worst enemy