As much as I like John O'Hurley I've never become used how the show presents the 3rd. and usually final fourth round in two segements with a commercial in between. I'll always be used to seeing the final 2-3 rounds played in one segment with suspense gradually building up. Anyone think it makes a difference how the rounds are presented?

No.

Not really.

If it would get them to stop using 60-point boards in the third round, then yes.

--
Scott Robinson

As far as I could tell from a handful of O'Hurley shows, they largely stopped the practice of forcing the game to complete itself in round 4 or later. Teams have been able to theoretically win by question 3, and at least one family did so this season. I want to be an optimist and say it's because of a confidence in O'Hurley's ability to stretch, but it could be totally unrelated.

-Jason

If each team has earned some points in the first two rounds, then the third round will feature a question with a healthy board. But if one team wins the first two questions, it's still usually the case that the third question will have too few points for that family to win the game (a couple of times, I've noticed that they've gambled on a board in which the leading family could win the game, but only with a complete sweep). Whether they're more confident in O'Hurley's ability to ad-lib, I'm not sure, but it's my opinion that it's more related to the fact that playing Fast Money over the course of two acts feels too drawn-out.

--
Scott Robinson

That feels really ticky-tacky, almost to the point of an S&P violation. Jeopardy! doesn't change the categories of the Double round based on the amount of the lead, and Feud shouldn't be doing that. If they're worried about a game only taking three rounds, they should play single-single-single-double-breakneck speed triple like on the CBS show.

Alternatively, if there's ever been a show since Go that could have executed the Double Jackpot round, Family Feud is it. Out of all of the times I've seen the show, only once have I seen the Painfully Drawn Out Fast Money. I think the only pieces of scenery that did NOT have Karn's teeth-marks on it were the load-bearing walls.

I always thought the load on that show was Richard Karn. ;)

Brandon, I hope you don't mind.....I took one of your gold stars and gave it to Chris. :)

How is it any different than on Press Your Luck when the fourth question's difficulty was based how many spins were given in the first three questions? Not disagreeing, just giving another example of monkeying.


--Mike

I can see why some people would be uncomfortable with this, and it even bugs me a little, but technically it's not changing the outcome of the game, just the length of time it takes for that outcome to occur. It's sort of like the celebrity briefings on The Hollywood Squares. The celebs can be given the questions and answers if the producers so desire. It's still up to the contestants to determine whether the celebs' answers are right or wrong, which is what determines the outcome of the game.

But it is. If the Smiths are leading 199-0 after two rounds, their reward for kicking ass after that should be the chance to win the game with that next round. By reducing the amount of points possible, the producers are negating that advantage. The other team should have to fight back to win, and not just win two fluke rounds. If it's 89-85 after two rounds, it really doesn't matter whether the next question has 200 or 100 points, because there's no chance to win the game.

Nothing says that the producers can't adjust the material for general game situations (or for staying on budget, etc.). It's only when they're giving material in advance to contestants--or consciously preparing material to give specific contestants advantages or disadvantages, whether knowingly or unknowingly--that they can get into trouble.

But it isn't, since the Joneses (ostensibly; as others have said, if this isn't the case, then it's full-on tampering) would get the same treatment if THEY were up 199-0.

The overall effect is merely that a lead isn't as big as someone thinks it is, and a deficit isn't as hard to overcome. And on a game like Feud you should be trying like hell to win every question anyhow, so I'm just not sure who this hurts.

Does it make the production more disingenuous? To the viewer at home who doesn't know of this practice, absolutely. Welcome to game-show production in 2007. Is it patently unfair? No.

I've never understood the need to double YAY! or triple YIPPEE! the points anyway.
Why is it all the rounds can't be just for a maximum of 100 points?

Are you serious, or is this sarcasm? Genuinely. Because you have to know the answer to this question.

That's true. A 1250-0 lead is just as meaningful as 750-500 when going into round four on Go. If you think of winning the Feud as winning the last question, then your earlier point of trying to win every question is all the more important. And at that point it doesn't matter if the value is doubled, tripled, or bumped up to 300 points. Just win that last bank, and you'll win the game, and your record of the previous questions is made completely irrelevant, as if they were batting practice.

Be my guest. I actually got to the store this week. :-P

It can alter the game, because you may be changing the amount of spins players should have earned. I've also seen poorly created bluffs affect games on HS. Again, not trying to be overly picky here, but Feud is not alone in the guilt department.


--Mike

Going back to the FF situation, this is why I thought the 1-1-2-2-3 set-up from 1979-198(?) was ideal:

• It never felt rushed, even when they went to the triple.
• Dawson could stretch if a family was about to win in three.
• If the first two questions were split, by doubling rather than tripling the fourth question, they made sure that the third question wasn't just for show.