Page 2 of 4

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:54 pm
by floridagator
Austin, since you know so much, can you tell me how the 2000-01 "Fugitive" revival was supposed to end? Last thing we saw, Lt. Girard was unconscious in his car, and an unsub pulled the trigger on either Dr. Kimble or the one-armed man. Then the screen went to black and the series was cancelled.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:56 pm
by mahatma
Woof wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:54 pm
Bamaman wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:45 pm
Spoiler
Kristen shot J.R..
Spoiler
Oswald shot JFK
Spoiler
Stanley Kubrick shot the moon landing.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:03 pm
by gnash
Spoiler
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:04 pm
by gnash
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:25 am
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:17 am
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.
Sure. But she certainly is capable of dividing $2 million+/30+games
Still, though. Emma has literally studied the game more than maybe three or four people here on JBoard. She knew what she was doing, James or no James.
This. The OP is absurd.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:08 pm
by Austin Powers
Spoiler
Snape killed Dumbledore

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:18 pm
by gnash
MarkBarrett wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:33 am Does anyone know the timing of calls vs. taping? Emma came in cold knowing nothing about James and his run, but what did the powers know? Emma got "The Call" prior to any of James's games being taped? Or did the CCs have an idea of just what James was capable of doing and there was the possibility for them to adjust their contestant selections?
I don't know, but can make educated guesses. It was James's 7th week/taping day, so 4th taping week. Unless there were off-weeks in the schedule, Emma probably got the call before James started taping. Even if there was one off-week, she maybe could have gotten the call after James had played at most 7 games. As good as he already proved to be, would this be the point they reach for secret weapons to deploy 25-30 games ahead? And how would they know who the secret weapons are?

Also, Emma said in an interview that she had auditioned 4 times. That means she was in the pool for like 6 years before getting the call. If they were aware of her strengths, why did they not call her before? They save top players for clashes of titans? There's no explanation that doesn't sound like a huge stretch.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:53 pm
by FS7
gnash wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:04 pm
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:25 am
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:17 am
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.
Sure. But she certainly is capable of dividing $2 million+/30+games
Still, though. Emma has literally studied the game more than maybe three or four people here on JBoard. She knew what she was doing, James or no James.
This. The OP is absurd.
It would have been extremely rare in the pre-James era for a contestant to bet all of that. She needed 5000 to tie, but in the end she needed every bit of that 7600 to win. Whether she knew anything at all about James prior to recording is irrelevant, and I think she's not the first to figure out what she needed to do quickly.

I still contend that if James is an ordinary $25K champ instead of more than three times that she bets $5K or less and almost certainly doesn't win. I don't know if you think I'm trying to minimize her win or something, but I'm merely stating that it seems like her aggressive betting is as large a part of her win as her knowledge and it stands to reason that she doesn't bet like that if she's not facing James.

It's of course possible that a longtime devotee and skilled player like Emma had that strategy on her own, but both Alex and I seemed to think otherwise.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:55 pm
by triviawayne
Bamaman wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:45 pm
Spoiler
Kristen shot J.R..
Spoiler
the first time

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:57 pm
by triviawayne
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.
How do we know she didn't come to the studio the week before to watch a taping?

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:04 pm
by MarkBarrett
gnash wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:18 pm
MarkBarrett wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:33 am Does anyone know the timing of calls vs. taping? Emma came in cold knowing nothing about James and his run, but what did the powers know? Emma got "The Call" prior to any of James's games being taped? Or did the CCs have an idea of just what James was capable of doing and there was the possibility for them to adjust their contestant selections?
I don't know, but can make educated guesses. It was James's 7th week/taping day, so 4th taping week. Unless there were off-weeks in the schedule, Emma probably got the call before James started taping. Even if there was one off-week, she maybe could have gotten the call after James had played at most 7 games. As good as he already proved to be, would this be the point they reach for secret weapons to deploy 25-30 games ahead? And how would they know who the secret weapons are?

Also, Emma said in an interview that she had auditioned 4 times. That means she was in the pool for like 6 years before getting the call. If they were aware of her strengths, why did they not call her before? They save top players for clashes of titans? There's no explanation that doesn't sound like a huge stretch.
Thanks for the response. I was just curious trying to figure out the timing. For James getting the call it took more than one try and with the ToC field filling up well ahead of November the powers needed to slow down the qualification pace. James certainly did the trick though is it enough?

The powers only needed to see 4 games for James hitting $110,000 and change so that would be enough for them to go all Joker, "Oh, we got a live one here!"

You are probably right that this week's pool of players were already set in motion before James played a game.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:13 pm
by Robert K S
triviawayne wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:57 pm
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.
How do we know she didn't come to the studio the week before to watch a taping?
Official Jeopardy! and press interviews?

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:20 pm
by CasketRomance
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am
JayK33 wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:39 am Shouldn't this thread be considered a spoiler since the mentioned game happened not long ago?
The game made the cover of major newspapers. It was on ESPN’s Bottom Line scroll. It was the highest rated episode in ten years.

Also Jon kills Dany.
who are they?

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:22 pm
by CasketRomance
Caboom wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:15 am
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am
Spoiler
Also Jon kills Dany.
Wow, what an asshole. I hope you're happy you ruined the ending for me. But then knowing how arrogant and condescending you regularly are, I'm 100 % sure you couldn't care less.
i see now it is that lame show game of thrones....that show ended the other week and you had been able to avoid spoilers until now?

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:33 pm
by TheSunWillComeOut
gnash wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:18 pm Also, Emma said in an interview that she had auditioned 4 times. That means she was in the pool for like 6 years before getting the call. If they were aware of her strengths, why did they not call her before? They save top players for clashes of titans? There's no explanation that doesn't sound like a huge stretch.
Plenty of future champs need multiple auditions to get on the show. Often, it's just a "too many teachers from Texas this year" situation, or being so nervous that you're having trouble speaking up, and freezing in the mock game. And presumably, Emma's a much stronger player in every way at 27 than she was when she first auditioned as a teenager (her first audition was in high school, according to press).

My guess is that the contestant coordinators keep notes about auditionees with potential who aren't quite ready for prime time yet, and sometimes wait out promising candidates with the hope that they'll come back in a couple years with some extra polish and poise.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:35 pm
by alietr
TheSunWillComeOut wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:33 pmMy guess is that the contestant coordinators keep notes about auditionees with potential who aren't quite ready for prime time yet, and sometimes wait out promising candidates with the hope that they'll come back in a couple years with some extra polish and poise.
Notes? Maggie remembers EVERYTHING and EVERYONE.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:35 pm
by Peter the accountant
These spoilers are getting out of hand. Next thing you know you're going to tell me something really crazy, like
Spoiler
Vader is Luke's father
or
Spoiler
the professor can do all kinds of science-y stuff on that island, but he can't fix a hole in the boat.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:47 pm
by squarekara
Off thread topic, but on the subject of spoilers--my husband recently scored some standardized math tests, and in the space where students are supposed to "show their work," one kid wrote out a bunch of spoilers for Avengers: Endgame. We're not really into the superhero stuff, but what a way to stick it to the man!

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:51 pm
by harrumph
Woof wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:54 pm
Bamaman wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:45 pm
Spoiler
Kristen shot J.R..
Spoiler
Oswald shot JFK
Spoiler
I shot the sheriff.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:59 pm
by hbomb1947
harrumph wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:51 pm
Woof wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:54 pm
Bamaman wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:45 pm
Spoiler
Kristen shot J.R..
Spoiler
Oswald shot JFK
Spoiler
I shot the sheriff.
Spoiler
But you did not shoot the deputy.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:20 pm
by RJRouge
It's my fault, really. I should have fully expected untagged spoilers from a completely unrelated topic that only happened a few weeks ago. Silly me, thinking trolling is limited to Facebook and Twitter.