I think this may be the first time we're getting a source from....twitter...but the Family Feud folk just tweeted the following.... (and, yes, its them)....

Some Feud scoop for 2009!!! Families will be able to win up to $30,000 per day!! Pretty snazzy..eh?

<insert a Richard Karn 1.5ing the values joke here>

If it were me, I'dve bumped it to $25K and made the losing money $10/point. It's been $5/pt for over 30 years...time for a boost.

It's obviously too late to do this. But I would've preferred one of two payoff systems...

\ Something akin to the Fast Money system used on "Bert's FF" in Australia. For us in the States, I would've started the value of the bonus round at $10,000. For each #1 answer the first of two players named, the stakes increase by $5000. If the first player names all five #1 answers, up the pot all the way to $50K.

\ Remember how the winner's big money game was oh-so-out of place in the latter years of "$ale of the Century"? The payoff system there would've been great for Feud. First visit to the bonus round would be worth $10,000. Regardless of success, if the champs win a second time, the value of Fast Money would be $20,000. Then $30K, $40K and $50K before retiring undefeated.

...glad they're upping the ante. $20K was "getting old". But they could've been a bit more creative.

Well, that change will increase the chances of the Cole Family's $61,755 five-day record on this version of the show being broken next season.

Up to $30,000? Does this mean that the Bullseye/Bankroll round comes back? How well did this work out for Feud last time?

I'm kinda thinking they are going the Aussie route, with a $5K base and another $5K for each #1. Convenient way to trim the budget while offering the bigger top prize. If that is the case, I wouldn't be surprised to see the $5/point fall by the wayside, either.

EDIT: Taking the optimist's route, perhaps it's $5K for winning the main game, and $25K for Fast Money. Hey, who knows?

I'm thinking it could be $20K still, but with a $10K bonus for all five top answers.


I'm probably in the minority, but I actually liked the Bullseye game.

On the contrary, sir. I was a mark for the Bullseye round myself. I thought itmade for a good warm-up to the Feud itself.

I like the Bullseye round; however, I didn't care for the scoring system of the main game necessitated by its addition.

I don't think the pacing of the show would be hurt if they added the Bullseye. The way it's set up now, the first segment is rounds one and two, second is double points round three, third is triple points round four and five, if needed and the fourth segment is Fast Money (which sometimes begins in segment three if the game is won in three rounds.) Make segment one Bullseye plus round one, segment two round two and segment three rounds three and four. Make sure the "only read once, three seconds" rule is always invoked in round four and try to use surveys with more points and fewer answers in that round to avoid going to a rushed round five.

Sodboy13 expressed my thoughts on the Bullseye round to a T.

I wouldn't mind a Bullseye format to start. In order for a family to play for the max $30K pot, start them with a bankroll of $15K. Each question adds money to the roll($1K, $2K,... up to $5K), As Chad mentioned, switch some of the rounds around & the pacing won't be adversely affected with some minor tweaks.

I think there would be a MAJOR issue with timing if they reintroduced the Bullseye game, and as it is, they barely have time to play 4 full rounds plus a quick "sudden death" round. If you notice in the early Karn eps. that introduced the 300 point format, there's a LOT of noticeable editing.

Having Bullseye means sacrificing one round of a regular game... on the Combs version and later Dawson version, they played single, double, triple, and one more triple. With today's timing, they'd probably play 3 rounds a la the "Celeb Family Feud", but with single, double, and triple to be sure that the game is decided on the 3rd round.

Maybe there considering $10/point as well.

I don't know, Chad gave a possible solution that could work where you have four maingame rounds and a Bullseye round. Perhaps instead of having it so that each family member faces off, just have the captains. Shaves a few seconds off.

/I watched Bert's Family Feud and thought the "How many #1 answers determined your Fast Money winnings" concept was dumb. If you get a putz up there who gets 36 points for the team, they're not gonna be happy campers when they find out they're only playing for $5,000.

That's kind of why I like the way the British version does it. One cash prize for getting to 200. A bigger cash prize for getting all five top answers between the two players.

So, exactly where's this assumption coming from that the $30,000 won't just be a direct "Score 200 points, win $30,000". I interpret the "up to" to simply mean that "If they do win they won't have won more, and if they don't win they'll have earned less". Seems that a direct prize bump is the simplest explanation.

Nowhere in particular. It's just fun to speculate.

I remember a thread on here about 2 years back when the show went on- that was one of the complaints, coupled with the fact that the way the $100,000 was earned was quite anticlimactic, A player who racks up 186 and has all top answers leaves their teammate simple work, and leaves the audience only wondering which answer they're gonna collect on. But yeah, the prize ladder on Bert's FF was fine- it was the execution that left the concept broken.

If they're implementing Bullseye, then they're going to have to eliminate a regular round, and eliminating the need for the sudden-death, not-always-used round five isn't going to save enough time. What format did they use on Celebrity Family Feud last year? Was it single-single-triple-sudden death? If it was, then I'd wager that that's what they'd do to accommodate Bullseye.

(Then again, I've seen a couple of episodes this season where the show ran short and they had to pad things out with thirty to sixty seconds of clips from previous episodes. So maybe they're not hurting for time.)

That's what I'm saying. I think my previous method would work just fine, as long as you make round four quick and painless.

But that's broken too. What if the second player doesn't need all five of their answers to cross 200, and one of the answers they didn't need was a #1? They would either need to jigger the game such that you can't win without all 5 #1's (which sucks), tell them in advance that they HAD all five #1's (which makes the reveal pretty much anticlimactic), or tell them after the fact "oh, by the way, that last answer you didn't need was also a #1, you've won eleventy billion dollars!" (Which is just as anticlimactic.)

Well, what they did on the most recent version of Family Fortunes would work- if the team goes over 200, they just reveal the rest of the unneeded answers with their survey tallies and go down the line for each set asking "Is that the number one answer?", followed by the appropriate sound effect.
Of course, when it does come down to that, you can build tension by going out of question order and starting with the answers that garnered 40-50 points.

Right. Considering they've already won *something*, anticlimactic.

And rearrange the questions from the order the first player had them revealed in? Yeah, that won't confuse the hell out of the home viewer or anything.

I don't think it would be that huge a problem. Just reveal the answers as normal. If they are close to 200, just say they need x points for $20K, but if they hear y sound, that means that they could still win the jackpot. Have the family celebrate winning the $20K regardless. If they are still eligible for the jackpot, have them gather center stage for any more reveals. If it doesn't pan out, remind them that they've won the $20K (cue audience cheers) and are coming back next time.

Which now makes winning $20K feel like a loss. Fail.

"The $30,000 Lollipop," anyone?

Part of me likes the idea a Bullseye round, with a $15,000 start up, then $1,000-5,000, thus allowing all five to play and win up to $30,000.

But then, I thought about it.

JOHN: Okay, Jackson family, you will play for $17,000!
JACK JACKSON: But last year, the families played for $20,000!
JOHN: Recession. Now shut up and get me two family members!

However, a $20,000 base bank, with $1,000-4,000 works, with just four players. Perhaps everyone but the captain, then when the first survey round starts, start with the captain?

I thought about this type of scenario back when "The New Family Feud"had Bullseye. The longtime prize for "Fast Money"was $10,000 but the bankrolls started at $5,000..

How about a base amount of $20,000, with all five questions worth a flat $2,000?

Oh, puh-leaze. Between the hyper contestants and the amped up audience, no one will tell the difference.

Can u explain that a bit? I don't understand.

I could not be less surprised to strongly disagree with you.

Yeah, it kinda reminds me of Wheel of Fortune. Contestants win the bonus round and take home $25K, yet they still never get really excited reactions because they feel like they could have won more. Same situation applies to FF.

What about the consolation money? I don't think upping it to $10 or even $20 a point is too outrageous.

Yep, we were considering that earlier, I think. $20 a point is a maximum consolation of $3,980 which is only $796 per family member. I think that's fine and dandy.

I could see that happening. Like mentioned earlier in the thread, it's been $5 since day one. $4,000 for one episode (when you don't award any other cash or prizes) won't break the bank.

How about the base win staying at $20,000 and then an extra $2,000 for each 10 points above that -- meaning you'd need 250 to get the $30K?

Or $5,000 at 225 and another $5,000 at 250?

I do agree the time is eons past to up the per-point payout from $5.

Unless they pay off in Subway foot-longs.

I think giving a team $4,000 for losing is simply ludicrous, but I suspect that opinion will be shouted down.

Yeah, but they just got done beating another family and they didn't get anything for that, either. It's not an example Mo' Money syndrome, it's a "We can beat 5 families in the main game and end up with less than $1,000 a piece" issue.

True. I still think it's idiotic.

Honestly? If they go to Fast Money and fail five consecutive times, that's pretty much what they deserve to go home with.

I could understand that for two-digit scores. But for scores consistently in the 170-199 region? I don't think so. (Especially when many a top answer ends up being only worth 25 or 30 points, unlike Dawson and Combs's versions where top answers were often worth 40 or 50 each time.)

Man, you seriously have a real problem with people disagreeing with you.

$4000 cut five ways in 2009 isn't really that extreme. It would at least cover the expenses for flying out to California.

Besides, it's a bonus round. There's no real "losing".

How many people go on Family Feud for the money? Among my choices today, just about every show out there gives me a better pay-to-work ratio than the Feud. If my family was to win five-times in a row, do decently at Fast Money, my cut turns out to be ten grand or so. If I'm looking to maximize my time, I'm trying out for Jeopardy!, Wheel or The Deal. I'm going to go on Family Feud because it's a fun game to play and a chance to share the experience with my entire family.

But that's just the way I look at things.

That's a writing issue, then, in my eyes. You should not have to go 1-2 in more than three of the five questions to win Fast Money. That was the goal I shot for when I would compile one one.

I really don't, actually. I just know that over the years, people around here have been passionate-to-the-point-of-religious-fervor over jacking up the consolation money in Fast Money, and that every time I try to argue otherwise, the dogpile begins. Which I'm fine with; I can handle a dogpile just fine. It just seems like everybody's mind is made up on this one.

Could not disagree more. If you did not win the top prize, you lost. Ask the folks who won two-four-fifty-five-six-seven hundred and fifty dollars if they felt like they won.

Well, when your argument is "Because it's dumb", can you blame them? I see the pro-"jacking up" people in this thread giving reasonable explanations why they'd like to see the consolation prize be updated to modern standards.

Don't get me wrong, if people were bouncing off their chairs going "OMG! MO'MONEH!!!" Bandit Bobby style, I'd be right there with you.


That is a fair point.

I'll have a go. If my concern is to Not Spend Money I Don't Have To, I'm going to look at the prizes on offer. How many people watch an episode of Feud where the family wins $985 and Cletus T. Viewer says "Wow, what a gyp! I'm not watching this ever again! What channel is Extra on?"

Viewers are not going to do that. Whether a Fast Money failure is "deserving" of $10 or $15 a point doesn't matter. If the production company thought it was a worthwhile thing to do, they would have done it by now, wouldn't they? Since I'm not on the production staff, I can't say with anything approaching authority as to the reason why, but there it is.

I've been wondering why they haven't went to $10 a point for a while now. It would be so simple....

"Well, you only scored 180 points in Fast Money, so we'll give you $10 a point by simply adding a zero to your score, you have $1800 and you'll come back tomorrow"

$10 is a nice round number to work with, it doesn't sound as cheap as $5, it gives them a little pocket change and then they have another chance at the big money on the next show.

With all due respect, Travis, considering that it took them...what, five years?...to reimplement the classic scoring format, it shouldn't surprise you that they've been dragging their feet on raising the Fast Money consolation stakes.