Talk:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions

message: The article states that "The setup and timing of the tournament has resulted in much controversy." Are there any links or sources to show how much controversy there really is? The only one with evidence is the "Selection of Contestants". I know there are some people on the Jeopardy message boards that are complaining about various aspects of the UTOC, but these are hardcore fans, not average viewers. I suggest either trimming this section or adding sources to show that there's actually controversy. Carrp 18:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- It also would seem very difficult to have NPOV on a topic like that -- maybe it should be removed entirely? --OntarioQuizzer 23:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the Controversy section. As was said, the only one with evidence was "Selection of Contestants" - which is not true as the show's producers made the adjustments prior to making the invitations. --OntarioQuizzer 20:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: I really think that Ken Jennings should start in Round 2 because of the 2003 rule change. He should not get special treatment just because he won 74 games. Some former 5-time champs could have had a similar streak. In fact,neither Tom Walsh nor Sean Ryan should have been seeded to Round 2. Ken Jennings was special, but shouldn't be too special to only play 3 games and an assured $250,000.
--Hanfei 03:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I don't particularly think that this is the proper place for airing this sort of opinion. I mean, what on earth does this have to do with the article? --OntarioQuizzer 16:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Jennings' Placement 

message: I think we should put the schedule and results first as well as in the following order:
#Upcoming matches
#Round 2 Results
#Round 1 Results
then follow it with Format of the Tournament - 
We can switch it to the other way after the event is over - but since it is an ongoing event, seeing who is upcoming and the results from last night is the thing I most often come to look at - it is much more convient to have the information most people would wnat to access near the top.  Anyway, my 2 cents Trödel|talk 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections I am going to make the switch until the tournament is over. Trödel|talk 17:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming matches 

message: I'm not sure if we need a spoiler warning, but it seems to me that one might be necessary for the results -- for example, today's game has been updated, but it hasn't even aired yet in my part of the country. TheProject 00:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler? 

message: What do you guys think? (posted by GOYANKSGONJ)
: No.  The people who care about Podia order will go to J-Archive.  Most people want to see who won, got 2nd, got 3rd by going straight down the list.  It's also easier to do statistics this way, because you don't have to mess with the results. ral315 02:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
: I agree podia order has no real meaning - and people coming would prefer to see 1st, 2nd, 3rd order. Trödel|talk 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making champion clear with bold type, for instance, and putting the results on the respective tables in podia order (J-Archive has such accurate info) 

message: Where do you get this from? Removing from article until source is provided. --OntarioQuizzer 16:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeding is determined in order of prize money won in the previous round? 

message: Does anyone know how and when they filmed the tournament?  I'm under the assumption that every round has been filmed except the final one.  Does anyone have the approximate dates when each round was filmed? --Madchester 14:34, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
: I don't have the dates, but I know that starting with this round, there is no studio audience, so in actuality, the last round could have already been filmed.  ral315 19:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
::So they're using a staged audience?  Ha. --Madchester 19:15, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
:I was a contestant a few years ago, and the tape date was about two months in advance of the air date.  They taped five shows in one day.  However, I don't know if the schedule is different for the UTOC.  They're probably running on a tighter schedule. 152.163.100.5 00:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This week's games filmed on April 14th -- with a closed set. Round 5 has a top-secret tape date, as well as a closed set. --OntarioQuizzer 02:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Alex's conversation with Ken after the break in the first part of the finals, it was clear Ken knew who his opponents would be, so either round 5 was filmed after Friday's episode aired (very unlikely) or he was in the audience for the later rounds. I doubt they'd fly him in just to watch, unless he was going to be competing as well, so they probably filmed round 5 shortly after round 4. Maybe the following day. It's just a guess though. Or else they sent him tapes of the other rounds, which also seems unlikely. -R. fiend 18:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Filming

message: I am getting "The document contains no data" for any request to http://www.j-archive.com/. Is this a problem with my browser or is the site completely down? Trödel|talk 14:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on my end at the moment. --OntarioQuizzer 01:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear you are having problems - good luck on getting things up and thanks for the archive - it is a great resource. Trodel 03:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  J-Archive site down? 

message: Due to the article's length I've split it up into parts. The list of contestants will go on one page, and the results will go on another. The main page will contain a summary of the results as well as the tournament format. If you have any objections to this, please let me know.
* I have reverted, for many reasons:
** You made this revert without warning.
** You made this revert without any community support.
** The page looks like a stub the way you made it.
** You did it right as people are going to start viewing the page, and wishing to see results without having to follow a small link at the bottom of the page.
** The page isn't large.  2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake was probably as much as four times as large at times.  True, it's been broken down since, but not until the flurry of interest died down.
: I have no problem with this happening after the UToC is over, but it shouldn't be done right now.  And it certainly shouldn't be done until it's done right (i.e. Not such a small page, better sections, etc.)  Feel free to flame me on my talk page.  ral315 05:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that splitting the article now is premature (and may or may not be needed in the end). Trödel|talk 14:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: I assume that there was no Tournament of Champions in 2005, but the article does not state that expressly. If correct, I think it should. Other than Ken Jennings, was there anyone in the UTOC whose original run on Jeopardy! was after the 2004 TOC? If someone knows the answer to these questions it would be good to include that in the article.  --Mathew5000 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kermin Fleming; and he participated in the Season 22 Tournament as well as the UToC. Andy Saunders 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For your first question, Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions was created, but not by me. I formatted the list of winners that were provided. (I cannot claim these to be verifiable by myself.) There was no entry for 2005, so I made the same assumption as you did, which is reflected in that article and this one. Tinlinkin 04:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeopardy! canon is separated by Seasons, not years; there was a tournament held in the early weeks of Season 21. Andy Saunders 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was UTOC a replacement for the TOC? 

message: Rutter's earnings are cited as both $2,100,000 and $2,115,000 in various places. Jarchive distinctly lists him earning 15k as a nifty nine member. Is there any definative information on this? If not, both facts should be listed as I'm doing on rutter's page. I googled tons of sources that show both numbers. TheHYPO (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over bye earnings? 

message: I believe Sean Ryan (not particularly high 6-day winnings; especially early games), Brian Weikle (many people before him won more before him considering doubled clue values), and Chuck Forrest (he only got that recrord for an early appearance), did not deserve their byes. Jerome Vered, Bob Blake, and Bruce Seymour should have gotten them. Us441 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three of nine=bad