Eighteen Jeopardy Players Are About To Get A Second Chance, Part 2
The Last Nine, Why This Tournament May Be A Bad Idea…Or A Great One
Now let’s finish with the remaining nine competitors.
Note: Have just learned that Isaac Applebaum will be playing in this tournament instead of Erica Weiner-Amani. Isaac Applebaum, for those of you who don’t know, was the one winner of a semi-final match in this February’s College Championship, who did not participate in the finals. Not only would I say he deserves a second chance, he’s actually more qualified than every single participant in this tournament because he actually won two games — both his quarterfinal and semi-final match.
1. Nikkee Porcaro (37)
Lost Game prior to Courtney Shah’s win (?)
Analysis: Nikkee appeared on Jeopardy in June of 2021. She played decently in the Jeopardy round and masterfully in Double Jeopardy. She went into Final Jeopardy with a considerable lead $19,500 to her opponents $13,600 and Arman’s $3200. All three players got Final Jeopardy wrong but one of her opponents wagered less which led to his victory. The next day, he was defeated by Courtney Shah who went on to win seven games.
Conclusion: I suppose the argument that the producers are trying to make with Nikkee’s appearance is that a victory by her the day before might have prevented Courtney Shah from ever beginning to run. But that leans far more into the possibility of alternate Jeopardy than a second chance, and that’s not supposed to be what this tournament about. It’s hard to defend this choice.
2. Renee Russell (38)
Went ahead of Mattea near the end of what would be her 18th appearance. Got Final Jeopardy wrong.
Analysis: This is a legitimate case. Renee put up a decent challenge to Mattea in the Jeopardy round and pursued her hotly in Double Jeopardy, pulling ahead of her on the second Daily Double near the end of the round. Mattea only regained the lead by getting the next two clues correct and the last two clues weren’t answered. Renee didn’t get Final Jeopardy right and Mattea did.
Analysis: The argument here is solid: Renee played well throughout and only lost because she was unable to get a very tough Final Jeopardy correct. This one makes sense.
3. Pam Schoenberg (38)
Was challenging Amy Schneider in what would turn out to be her tenth win but ended up getting Final Jeopardy wrong.
Analysis: For the first nine games of Amy Schneider’s run, you might well have thought her invincible. Pam was the first player to show that Amy might be mortal. She led the entire Jeopardy round, and not by a small margin: she finished it with $11,200 to Amy’s $3800. Amy would take the lead back in Double Jeopardy but could never fully shake Pam. Double Jeopardy ended with Amy ahead $25,600 to Pam’s $16,600, but that’s misleading: Amy had to get six of the last seven clues correct to make it seem like a commanding margin. She was the only one to get Final Jeopardy wrong but that doesn’t take away the fact she made Amy sweat most of the way.
Conclusion: I wouldn’t be wild about every serious challenger to an extended winning streak be included, but since it isn’t that big a sample size, I think Pam earned it.
4. Jeff Smith (37)
November 5th, 2021
Analysis: There are two players on this list that I have a lot of trouble understanding the logic behind their selection. Jeff is the first alphabetically (but chronologically, as you’ll see, he’s the second.) Playing against Sri Kompella and Kate Kohn, he led for the lion’s share of the Jeopardy round and all of Double Jeopardy. He finished ahead of Kate Kohn with $17,200 to her $14,200. Kate was the only one to get Final Jeopardy right.
Conclusion: There doesn’t seem to be a legitimate reason for Jeff to be given a second chance. Nothing in his original appearance demonstrates he didn’t get a fair shot in his first.
5. Sarah Snider (38)
Was leading Mattea Roach in what would be her 23rd Win but got Final Jeopardy wrong.
Analysis: Now this really qualifies for a second chance. Sarah had Mattea by the throat for the entire game. She led the entire way. She got both her Daily Doubles correct, and Mattea got hers wrong. Sarah went into Final Jeopardy with a margin of $22,600 to Mattea’s $13,000. Even Mattea went into Final Jeopardy thinking she was going to be defeated (she indicated as much in her response). Mattea was as shocked as anyone that she lived to fight another day.
Conclusion: Regardless of what I think about a player not knowing the answer to what seemed one of the most obvious of Final Jeopardys, it’s hard to argue that Sarah hasn’t done enough to earn her second chance. I hope she’s seen Citizen Kane by now.
6. Jessica Stephens (38)
Defeated Matt Amodio, lost to Jonathan Fisher.
Analysis: Jessica is technically the player this tournament was created for, according to the producers because she lost to one super champion and was defeated by another. And the argument is strong for her being included
considering just how close the game was. In fact, Jessica took the lead ahead of Matt first and held it for much of the game until Jonathan managed to get the second Daily Double in Double Jeopardy right after getting the first wrong. Considering that Jonathan only took the lead from Jessica on the penultimate clue of the round, that the margin was $14,200 for her to $14,400 for Jonathan, and that like Jonathan she also got Final Jeopardy correct, there’s an argument that for the turn of clue Jessica could have accomplished what Jonathan did or even better.
Conclusion: I might not agree with what the producers did because of Jessica’s finish, but I can’t argue with the reasoning at least in her case.
7. Rowan Ward (37)
As Nicolle Neulist lost last game of Season 37 against Matt Amodio in what would be a lock tie game. Got Final Jeopardy wrong.
Analysis: It took a while for me to track down Rowan as they were going by the name Nicole Neulist at the time of their original appearance. Having found her (them?) I get why they invited her back. As Nicole she had Matt in a position he almost never was in the Jeopardy round, trailing the entre way. She ended the Jeopardy round ahead with $7000 to his $6600. Matt leapt ahead by wagering everything on a Daily Double while Nicole would lose $5000 on the other one. The fact that she was able to cause him to have to wager something in Final Jeopardy was a true triumph. The fact she didn’t get Final Jeopardy correct doesn’t change. As much as she admonished herself online, she didn’t embarrass herself.
Conclusion: Given how much of a machine Matt was in his run and how it hard it was to get him even to this point, I think Rowan’s earned their spot here.
8. Jack Weller (37)
Lost Tiebreaker round to Brian Chang, eventual 7-game champion.
Analysis: This is a fairly good argument. Jack challenged Brian seriously the entire game. He was ahead for a while before Brian caught up him. Maggie Houska, the third competitor, got the last two correct answers: she finished with $10,000 while the two of them finished tied at $18,800. Both wagered everything in Final Jeopardy, and it did come down to a tiebreaker which Brian got right for his fourth win.
Conclusion: Just as with Erica at the top of this list, Brian deserved his second chance.
9. Cindy Zhang (38)
Time ran out before final clue in Double Jeopardy. Would result have ended up with her winning? November 4th, 2021.
Analysis: She appeared the day before Jeff did. Like him, she led most of the Jeopardy round. Unlike him, she fell behind after a late run by Sri Kompella near the end of the round. She got the last two clues right before time ran out, but the last clue remained unrevealed. She trailed Sri with $16,200 to his $16,400. Both got Final Jeopardy right, but Sri won.
Conclusion: There’s a slightly better argument for her than there is for Jeff, but as in his case, it’s hard to argue that she didn’t get a fair shake in her first appearance.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, whether this tournament is a promising idea is based on the concept that the players all deserve their second chance. And while I’m willing to concede that most of the players on this list do deserve to come back, there are five who I can’t in good conscience say have earned their spot. Much of it because while there are clear cut reasons, such as those who nearly defeated players with a major winning streak, those who were defeated in tie breakers and those who seem to have lost because of an error by the judges, for most of the players on this list, there are just too many whose selection are arbitrary.
The logic for Jeff Smith and Cindy Zhang is perhaps the clearest example of this. In order for a player to deserve a second chance, there should be a reason that something went wrong for them on their initial opportunity. There’s nothing at my look at the games themselves to indicate any sign that they were cheated or even treated unfairly. It looks purely like this is the decision the producers have made on a whim.
And the selection of some on the list somehow seems arbitrary compared to some of the choices that are on the list. Let’s say that Jessica Stephens deserves to be invited back for a second chance because she Matt Amadio but lost to Jonathan Fisher. Then why not invite Stephanie Garrison, who beat Ryan Long but lost to Eric Ahasic who went on to win six games. Why not invite back Max McDonald, whose was right between Andrew He’s the end Andrew He’s run and the start of Amy Schneider’s? At some point, you must draw a line and the producers have decided instead to keep drawing their lines in places that don’t make sense.
All of this could be avoided, of course, had the producers to give fewer players second chances. Every tournament to this point has had fifteen players invited back. There may not be clear cut cases for fifteen players, but there are strong ones for that many. To invite back eighteen seems arbitrary itself. The main reason seems to be so that can give two winners to have a second chance to compete in the Tournament of Champions immediately afterwards. Again, I fundamentally find this faulty logic. Couldn’t they have a traditional tournament with just one winner of the tournament getting their second chance? At the very least that player would have gone through the same process that the winner of every major Jeopardy tournament to this point must go through — playing at least four games, even though they may not necessarily win the first. To do so after having won only three is a little harder to accept. I admit considering that there have been several tournaments — including quite a few Tournaments of Champions — that have been won by players who only got to the semi-finals via the wild-card that there is precedent for this. I just find that for a tournament like this to justify its existence, the standard for both the competitor and the play must be higher or at the very least the equal of all other tournaments. The fact that the producers are willing to playing this loose with the rules strikes me as a little too hard to tolerate.
However, I think will admit that much of this criticism is purely speculative. Because as one can criticize the caliber of the contestant, right now there is the other key variable: the actual competition. As anyone who has watched Jeopardy Tournaments — or hell, read my writings about them at this column — is that when it comes to some tournaments, the past is prologue. Handicapping a Tournament of Champions has been an impossibility because players who should be unbeatable have in fact been proven very defeatable. Just last year, nineteen game winner Jason Zuffranieri did not even make it to the semi-finals.
And in that sense, every player in this tournament is starting on an equal footing. I may not agree that all these players deserve a second chance, but going over all their original appearances, I do agree that they all played at an elevated level in their first. And since none of them have a victory, it is impossible to determine who has an advantage in any of the initial semi-finals. That level of unpredictability is one reason to watch. The rest of whatever I may think about this tournament I shall refrain from commenting until the first group of semi-finals. Stay tuned next week for my commentary.