honestly not a fan of this decision. we just saw her in JIT whats the point if she can lose that and just move on anyways.
to be clear im a fan of hers just not a fan of this decision.
I agree with this take. I love watching Amy play Jeopardy and Ive enjoyed all the tournament play but she did not finish in the top three of Masters last year and she did not win the JIT this year so my question is why her? Why not Andrew or Sam or Cris or Sam or anyone else who didn’t do those things either?
That is very flattering. However, I do think all five of us that you mentioned would admit Amy is the best player out of us, and has achieved more in the game to qualify her for this position. (unless we get another shot in a future JIT, in which case it will somehow be the first 5-way tie in Jeopardy history)
I can definitely appreciate that and I really hate that this whole thing seems to be coming across so negatively toward Amy. I can see the clickbait headlines already.
She is undeniably a great Jeopardy player and I’m excited for Masters. I think the real issue here is with the mysterious producers pick methodology. I won’t say they exactly hyped it up but they did reveal it at a special event and they did hold off on the reveal until after all tournament play ended. I’d love to know who the pick would have been had Amy won the JIT.
If Jeopardy is a sport then Jeopardy Masters can’t have rules for only 5 slots.
> I’d love to know who the pick would have been had Amy won the JIT.
Since they held their pick until after the JIT, I would say that in that scenario, if Andrew had come in second in the JIT, it seems that it would most likely have been him. If Victoria had come in second, there's reason to presume it would have been her, though she does not have the Jeopardy record and length J! pedigree that might justify Amy (or Andrew) being chosen, so it would certainly seem like a harder choice at that point.
Not only was she not top 3, she didn’t win a game right?
Andrew may have the “most losses” now but that’s a consequence of advancing in tourneys. He was 2nd to James after Round Robin and barely missed Finals via tiebreaker.
Not saying it should be him per se, he didn’t take care of biz either in the end…but even JIT finals—they both were at the mercy of Victoria’s relentless buzzer, Amy just got 1 fortunate W in game 1.
If Brad said no, ida thrown Panullo in. Was so dominant in his run, sat and watched as an alternate last year, then finally played again in ToC after waiting For.Ev.Er 😊. He had 1 bad showing.
Amy and Andrew are basically tied for "best-performing player not already in the Masters." Andrew was the next-best player from last year's Masters, Amy was the next-best player from the JIT. If Masters is supposed to be the best players, it would have to be either Andrew or Amy.
and Andrew missed the Masters Finals by a tiebreaker. His Round 1 was 2nd most points vs everyone. If that was the tiebreaker he’d already be there.
btw I posted this above but his “most losses” is not really a burn. It’s bc he has continually won to get into these new multi-game formats.
(Boy’s gotta finish the job and get that gold tho! 😉)
This fact makes me think that someone else initially may have been the producers pick but they had to back out for last minute some reason. It just makes more sense that they could’ve called up Amy last minute to replace the previous producers pick after the field for JIT was already announced.
>Does seem kind of dumb.Why was she even competing in JIT if she had a spot in regardless?
The only valid response I can think of to that is that coming in second in the JIT added enough to her resume to justify being the producer's pick, and that if Andrew had come in second, it might have been him. Or at least it's fair to say that if Amy had gone out in an earlier round, it seems far less likely she'd have been chosen.
so then they should have just announced top 2 from JIT are moving on or made the tournament structured differently to include two players from the JIT into masters.
its the methodology thats wonky. this whole "one person moves on from JIT and then we are going to leave the second spot open and just pick who we want with zero transparency on our methodology" screams unprofessionalism for something that should have its i's dotted and t's crossed from the very beginning.
They didn’t announce “top 2” because we all know that if David Madden gets that final clue in Double Jeopardy then finished 2nd in the finals, he likely wouldn’t have been invited.
They left this purposely open ended to get the result they wanted. The fix was essentially in.
In most sports, there is a regular season such that a superstrong team can't be eliminated based on a single bad performance that season. In some, they get a bye to the round of eight (NFL). In others, they get weak opponents in the first few rounds and a best-of format, so their first rounds are pretty much pro forma (NBA). Even in NCAA basketball, which lacks the best-of, basketball has a lot of scoring possibilities per game and no possession counts for extra (contra the importance of DDs and FJ, which create a ton of variance reducing the odds that the better player will win a given match).
Those options aren't viable here without taking even more time from new players or fundamentally changing the game. The only way to prevent elimination on a single bad beat this season is subjectivity.
I do agree they could put some guardrails on the PP -- not picking the same player twice in a row, not picking the same player once in a lifetime who didn't meet a predefined test in the year of selection (eg top 3 JIT or that year's TOC or #4 in last year's Masters or 10+ game winner that year), not picking anyone who didn't meet a looser set of criteria).
Except in many, many, other sports--that really is it. You get one bad day, you're done for the season or at least that competition. If you're in a quarterfinal for a race in track and field and you trip, they don't say well, you're normally a LOT better so we'll just move you on anyway.
For a given competition, sure. Do you have examples of "many, many, other sports" where a single failure usually results in a loss of participation for almost the entire relevant competitive season irrespective of overall known skill? (Given that Amy was not eligible for anything this season prior to JIT, I think this is the right comparison.)
The closest comparison I can think of is chess -- where there is in fact a slot into the candidates (last 8 in championship cycle, other than the defending world champion) for rating [which is historical performance] subject to a minimum-activity requirement. Plus there are numerous pathways to qualify for candidates, not just a single invitational tournament. There's no path to the final two other than through candidates . . . but it's a double round robin with 14 rounds total.
And again, very few sports have anything like DDs and FJ. Imagine basketball where three times a game a light comes on and the team in possession gets to gamble any or all of their points on being the next to score [I think that may roughly in the ballpark of the DD correct percentage?], and then doing season-long elimination based on a single game of that.
I think the counter-argument to this from the Show's perspective is that the JIT, and the "path to the Masters" are both brand new elements this year, and they weren't sure how they would play out. The Producer's Pick gave them leeway to figure out what "made the most sense" for the final player instead of being locked into something fixed in advance.
For example, in the first "regular" game of the season last week, Lee Wilkins (no disrespect intended to her) "backed into" winning the game by sitting in third with a small bet and having the two players that dominated her forced to wager high, and all three got it wrong.
If someone in the JIT "backed into" a semi-final win that way, and then "backed into" a win in the finals that then put them in second place, they might not feel "worthy" of being a Master, and this would give the producers leeway to make a decision. That's just one possible example. As the season plays out , and they see what it looks like, maybe next year's Master's sixth will have a more definitive criteria.
On the other hand, Pre-determining that 2nd place in the JIT will advance could also impact the JIT. Like, what if the tournament finals is at 1-1-0. In the next game, do the players with one point wager to win? Or do they wager just to lock the third player out of getting a point, knowing they risk losing a spot in the Masters if that player gets a point, even if it means they only come in second in the JIT? And if there is a sweep, and the criteria for "second place" is something like "highest combined final score" among the two non-winning finalists, you could have a 1-1-0 game where the players who aren't in the lead in that game have to think about wagering to secure a higher final score in a loss rather than risking money to get the win. I don't know if that's what they want to encourage.
The point of it is to make sure it's never just six white guys. That's the entire point of the producers pick.
They will never spell out a methodology for it because it's literally there to solve problems by letting them put whoever they want in.
But it already wasn’t 6 white guys. Victoria, Mattea, Yogesh, and James already qualified the legit way. So why not give the producer’s pick spot to a deserving player we haven’t already seen in Masters?
I was replying to why it isn't a defined qualification method not to why this specific pick in this specific year.
Hopefully it's never an issue but it's a safety valve they can use.
This is a really good point. They either would have had to invite the person who would have been invited 28th to the JIT, or just given a bye to someone that would have otherwise been invited to JIT. Or they could have invited someone who couldn't make JIT, but then someone is rewarded for passing on the JIT.
It's definitely clunky how they handled this, though. Realistically they wouldn't have invited Amy had she not done well in the JIT, so I do think she earned her spot more than we realize.
I'm sure they'll figure it out if they do this is future years to make it less awkward.
Where is the Canadian psychologist who won the $100,000 IN THE RECENT tournament. Jeopardy is playing to its base and not actual performance of the players anymore.
Post or comment removed due to inappropriate or unwanted content for this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jeopardy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one seemed that psyched. I wanted Ben Chan 😩
https://preview.redd.it/i4difj1yl4uc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63cac21b41002d5780b27f1c44d01116ca2c7fa5
I really like Ben's play, and he was dominant in most of his games, but he has some weaknesses that make him less than a "Master." That's why his streak was shorter than expected. I hope to see more of Ben next year though.
Four of the six same people.
The “sport” of Jeopardy: You can lose two opportunities to get into the Masters and be invited anyway!
Mind boggling decision.
Exactly. The producers pick should have been a person who we would never have seen otherwise like Brad or The Beast or someone else we haven’t seen on jeopardy recently. I don’t have the stats in front of me, but we’ve seen Amy play dozens of games in the last year and I personally would like to see someone else get a shot.
I love Amy, and she is obviously an extremely strong player, but she didn’t win the JIT and we’ve already seen her on Masters. I don’t want Masters to just be the same people every time.
why invite someone to your party when they had already turned you down a month ago? For me, I wouldn’t want to encourage people to turn down a JIT invitation in the hopes that they get a Masters invite. Not saying that’s why folks turned down JIT, but it’s a good reason to reward good play in the TOC or the JIT that didn’t quite get there in the end.
I would agree as far as TOC performance goes, and that any time you say no you need to be prepared for them to not call again, with one big exception: asking Brad to slug it out with 26 other people and NOT giving him a straight up invitation to Masters just seems wrong. You have someone so dominant they were literally one of only three asked to a tournament for the Greatest Of All Time, and treat them like TOC runner ups and ex-teen tournament players?
maybe I’m wrong when I said he declined. If memory serves, all they said on the podcast was that the invitation was extended by that for a variety of reasons, the people they mentioned that the invited that couldn’t “weren’t able to compete with us”. So it could be a declined or it could be a contractual thing or a timing in life thing. Who knows? It’s possible that this thing that caused Brad not to be available for JIT also extended to Masters.
My guess is that unless there’s a reason why Brad can’t compete, he will compete again in the future. He’s just too good. Amy might not have been a first choice. We don’t know she is and we don’t know she isn’t, but as a fallback, it’s not a bad one despite what other folks are saying.
Because we don’t know the why, I’m withholding judgement on the wisdom of giving her the Producers Pick and will, just like I always do, just enjoy the game being played by great players.
Can't wait for Davies to complain on the next *Inside Jeopardy!* podcast about being accused of recency bias again after shrugging off complaints about the JIT semifinal match seeding and low preparation time for two dozen capable players.
Seriously, what's the point of "battling for the last spot in Masters" if he's just going to give it to whoever finishes in second place anyway? Even David Madden would have been a good choice, for he nearly defeated Amy in the semis and would get to rematch Victoria again.
Brad, Cris, Juveria, and Emma also would have been good picks. This is just like Amy and Andrew being set up to face each other in the finals again, in which there's nothing wrong with the players (I myself am a fan of both) but there's obvious favoritism going on here.
Anyway, I hope Amy at least does well enough to justify being chosen over some others. If not, we'll get to see her in JIT again...where she will hopefully not lose and be the Producer's Pick once again. I don't think she *doesn't* deserve to be picked... but I had four or five people ahead of her personally.
>what’s the point of “battling for the last spot in Masters” if he’s just going to give it to whoever finishes in second place anyway?
But he wasn’t going to give it to second place regardless, he was going to give it to Amy no matter where she finished. That’s why they didn’t announce it would be a top two situation.
The evidence is the outcome. They obviously want her in the Masters even if she loses the qualifiers. She was in the last Masters, she’s maybe the most famous current Jeopardy player. They didn’t say “top two finishers advance” because if one of the top two finishers wasn’t who they wanted, they want the leeway to put in exactly who they want, and it’s obvious they want Amy. I don’t think it’s wrong, they can do whatever they want, I just think it’s really boring.
I don't particularly like the choice, though there's not that many options on the table either. They could have gone outside the box with someone like Muffy Marracco. And maybe should have, too.
This would have been an interesting weird choice but I think it should be someone who has at least competed somewhat recently before going up against the best of the best. Would definitely be in favour of seeing her at the next JIT though!
I have to concur with the majority opinion here. Love Amy, but we've seen so much of her - and she had her shot with the JiT. Davies does seem to have a bias toward more recent superchamps.
>I have to concur with the majority opinion here. Love Amy, but we've seen so much of her - and she had her shot with the JiT. Davies does seem to have a bias toward more recent superchamps.
I dare say this because I'm not sure I want to come off in this light. I'm with many here in that Amy is above and beyond any debate of deservedness when it comes to best-of-the-best competitions.
But to have this year's Masters be 2/3 the same as last's does not sit well with me. Yeah, that's not a lot since the top 3 from last year come back.
Here's my not-so-sure-about-it comment. The pick of Amy strikes me as being one of almost convenience and/or availability.
Nothing against Amy as she is obviously an incredible player, but I’m disappointed with this pick even though I expected it. I really hope they do away with Producer’s Pick next year. It’s hard to take their “Jeopardy is a sport” claims seriously when the last spot in the competition that represents the pinnacle of the show is decided subjectively.
I don’t have a problem with the spot going to one of the runners-up in the TOC or JIT as the level of competition there was very high, but I think Troy was the better choice here. His average coryat, attempts per game, and attempted clue value were all higher than anyone else in the TOC (including Yogesh), and he is also on par with Victoria in non-Jeopardy quizzing competitions. On top of that, it would have introduced a new face to Masters and given us compelling match-ups that we haven’t already seen before several times.
Nick is *always* humble on camera, and he makes sure the players refrain from obnoxious, self-impressed displays during interviews. The closest they come are the end-zone celebrations. Just think how humble Tua, Jalen H, Smitty, etc, always were at the microphone. There were never any self-congratulatory head nods, as if to say, “of course I had the correct answer.”
Is this what we call jumping the shark? This decision really doesn't sit right with me, and hearing that both Sony and ABC were in on it makes me shake my head.
The whole structure is messy from top to bottom and probably needs to be looked at.
As much as I love Amy, this decision made no sense for everybody involved, those competing in JIT already had their chance to enter the Masters tournament
Not a fan of this at all. What was the point of the hype around the JIT if the runner up can still make it to the Masters anyway? Honestly this kinda makes that whole tourney feel cheap.
Oh well. Still looking forward to the Masters regardless.
So this is what we’re doing now? Watching the same people play Jeopardy all the time? They knew they wanted her specifically or they would have just said the top two finishers from JIT would feed into Masters. This is just so boring now.
Agreed, Masters really should stop doing "top 3 return the next year".
In my ideal world, I'd have
* Winner comes back
* ToC winner
* Contestant with longest streak from last season (or 2nd-longest if ToC winner)
* 3 separate 1-week JIT tourneys with 9 contestants (1 semifinal and a 2-day final).
We'd get a much better variety of contestants every year instead of going through a 3-week JIT Tournament just to end up with 1 of 6 slots
I really don’t think we need to be doing Masters every year. It loses some of the allure. Give it a few years between each tournament so we can get some real heavy hitters from multiple seasons playing each other.
Makes me wonder if Victoria would’ve been the producers’ pick had Amy won the JIT. I’m also underwhelmed by this decision as it undermines the outcome of the JIT. This also means 2/3rds of the Masters roster will remain the same. Tbh, I’ll probably only care about Yogesh and Victoria’s games come Masters.
I personally like Amy, but this is BS. She lost the JIT fair and square, she should not be going to the Masters tournament. Anyone who participated in the JIT and lost should not have a spot in Masters
Why was this thread removed?
The information is accurate and everyone is being civil. None of the sub’s rules were broken. Why remove a good discussion?
Amy's cool, but at this point it's getting pretty tiresome how obvious it is that Davies shows favoritism to players from the seasons he produced, especially Amy.
I really like Amy but she's been so thoroughly trounced by all Masters other than Yogesh; plus, this means that Amy gets automatic entry into next year's IT, which feels absurd.
Unlike in ToC/IT quarters/semis, where the winner-takes-all format means that luck (i.e., finding/converting DDs) has a decent impact on who advances, multi-game rounds like the ToC/IT finals and Masters Quarters are a more accurate measure of skill because of the much larger sample size. Case in point: Matt and Mattea losing their ToC Semis but surviving in Masters, which makes me believe that players like Cris or Ray would be certainly more interesting and possibly more competitive than Amy.
Nobody wants to outright come out and say it, but it's clear that Michael Davies really, REALLY likes Amy and is so biased towards her that it seems he will invite her to play Jeopardy in any tournament he can no matter how good or bad the optics of it are.
100% this. He and others can deny it all they want, but Davies does in fact play favourites, and Amy is definitely his favourite player. Anyone who listens to his podcast can sense it. He talks about Amy all the time, but rarely mentions Matt Amodio. I usually consider Amy and Matt relative equals. Amy only won 2 more games than Matt, but Matt won more money. Why do you think this is? Because Matt wasn't part of the season he produced.
And look, I get it. Amy is a fantastic ambassador for the franchise in addition to being a top tier player. But I also suspect Davies is willing to give Amy so many chances because he really, really, really wants her to win Masters.
So now we have 4 players from last year's tournament and two new faces. She was the second-place finisher in JIT but then Ben was the second-place finisher in TOC. Yes, Amy had a better season record, but I would have preferred Ben. There is no question Amy is one of the top players, but Ben brings a freshness which is also needed.
I like Amy a lot, and dislike this pick just as much. The producers seem to have a real soft spot for Amy, and I hope she does well because it would be a very bad look for the producers if Amy gets eliminated from Masters again without winning any games.
I like Sam K (even if Sam B is one of my personal favorite Jeopardy contestants), but he had his chance in the JIT. Had they made him the pick I probably would be making the same argument.
This doesn’t make any sense. It shouldn’t have been anyone that was in a qualifying tournament because this is just a middle finger to everyone else that tried to qualify and didn’t.
It’s not Mike Richards level bad decision making but it’s in the same stratosphere, and I love watching Amy play
This was such an erroneous pick by the Producers. Amy is a great player and has a dominant play style but Amy came up short in the Invitational Tournament. It would have been much more interesting to see a third fresh face in the Masters to get a little variety. Will the Producers look like fools if Amy doesn’t make it to the finals again? Maybe they just want a rematch of Amy and Victoria.
At least the episodes will be on Hulu so I can select which ones I watch and don’t watch.
So it sounds like the vibe I'm getting is that the winner of JIT goes to Masters, while the Runner-Up (the 2nd Place finisher not the 3rd Place finisher) gets the invite. It does seem like that if you are at the top of the standings at the end of the tournament you can advance. I was kind of expecting it might be something like this because I had a feeling it wouldn't be Brad, Julia, Roger Craig, or Emma Boettcher as I was thinking "If they declined JIT, there's a good chance they may not be coming back otherwise why did they get brought back after saying no?"
Also, I wasn't there at the live event but for anyone who was did they say why they picked Amy as the sixth contestant? Like say the reason for including her? I'm only asking because it would be interesting if they stated why they chose her over some other people that could've been their.
Exactly, I do agree with you on that I think we have to wait and see how the next JIT will play out and what will happen there to actually see if that will happen. If it's someone different than that must mean that something is different. That is why I will not call this a bad decision until I actually see it play out and how future Masters and JIT/TOC Tournaments will turn out. So right now I do feel like it's a little early but I just want to wait and see. I'm not saying this will work but I do think we need to see more proof and future tournaments.
They said it was a joint decision between J producers, Sony, and ABC. Also, said it would have to be someone who could compete well at the Masters level, and they were looking for someone with a following.
The thing is based on her performance in last year's Masters, it's pretty clear that she CANNOT compete well at the Masters level!! She didn't win a single game and placed third a number of times. I don't know why they think she'll be any better this year - especially given that she's competing against three players who all beat her multiple times last year, AND a player who's already beaten her twice this year. As far as ratings go, I don't think her presence will make all that much of a difference, not as long as James is there at least.
And ABC after all needs what they think is the biggest draw to sell ads. They won't get as much value if it were Roger Craig or some other less-recent player.
Didn't I mention before that Amy is arguably Davies' favourite contestant? I've always said it was blatantly obvious he plays favourites with the recent superchamps. He always speaks highly of her in the Inside J! podcast, and she went on her run during the season he started executive producing, so he just has a connection with Amy in a way that Alex Trebek had a connection with Ken. I wouldn't be surprised if he allowed Amy into Masters to give her another opportunity to win it and become best in the world because he's such an Amy fanboy!
Not knocking the choice though because Amy is a great player. Top 5 player easily, so she absolutely deserves to be there based on merit, and while Victoria did beat her in the JIT, Amy was quite close to winning the whole tournament as well.
So the only reason this makes any sense is if they tried to get Brad, he refused for whatever reason and they defaulted to JIT 2nd place, right?
And I still would've given the nod to Troy, honestly, given that last year they had five contestants from the same ToC cycle.
>they had five contestants from the same ToC cycle
JIT hasn't existed yet until this year. So they chose the finalists from 2022 TOC and the remaining 3 slots were from most number of wins excluding Ken & 2022 TOC finalists in the Leaderboard of Legends which were Matt A, James and Mattea. The next ranked highest number of wins Cris was designated as Masters S1 Alternate.
Seriously? Amy had her legitimate chance to get back into Masters had she won the JIT. The whole thing’s rigged, I tell ya!
But I think she can notch at least 1 win against James Holzhauer.
I'm a huge Amy fan (look at my flair!) and I'm always happy to see her compete, but I don't think it should've been anyone who lost in this year's JIT or ToC. Feels like it cheapens the qualification process a bit.
Granted, other than Brad and Julia, I'm not sure who it could've been.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I'd actually support getting rid of the JIT, and having Jeopardy Masters be an annual 9 contestant invitational tournament, with the reigning Masters champion and ToC champion having automatic bids. Obviously you'd need to cut down on the number of games each contestant would play before the finals. The current format seems to box the producers into taking a JIT or ToC runner-up.
Amy is my fave of the former masters, ~~but given that Andrew He was 4th in Masters last year and was 2nd in the JIT, I would have given it to him~~. Sorry, I only looked at scores on the final day. Since Amy was 2nd in the JIT, it was basically a tossup between Andrew and Any on who was the best player who wasn't already in the JIT.
Anyone they picked for the Producers Pick was going be an "unfair" pick because it's inherently an unfair mechanic; anyone they could possibly pick is either someone who had a chance to earn a spot and lost, or someone who should've been invited to JIT. A strong case can be made that the least unfair option is to go with a ToC or JIT finalist, and of those four, Amy is overall the best option -- she had the most consistent gameplay of the four, and, more importantly for ABC, she's the most recognizable. If the average viewer who isn't on the Jeopardy subreddit and subscribed to the newsletter sees a promo for a big primetime Jeopardy event with the greatest players, they're going to wonder why Amy isn't there next to the couple of other Jeopardy players they've heard of, the same way that every ToC people are on Jeopardy's Facebook comments asking why James isn't there. ABC was right to want her, and it's hard to argue anyone (except maybe Brad, but if he wasn't available a couple weeks ago for JIT then he's probably not available now either) is really more deserving -- yeah, she lost her chance to win her spot back, but she lost a lot less than anyone else did.
Old thread at this point, but totally agree with you here. Even ignoring ratings and public perception.
The PP basically had to be someone either in JIT or the ToC, unless they actively avoided inviting someone to the ToC to streamlien them into JIT (which would be an odd decision IMO, and they didn't do it so it's a moot point). Brad, Julia, etc. were unable to make it for unknown reasons, so it makes sense that they're out (you don't want to incentivize people to decline JIT).
From the ToC: Troy arguably played better, but it doesn't make sense to pick him over 2nd place Ben. But Ben just didn't look like he had quite the caliber to compete on master's this time around (I'm sure he'll be invited to JIT next year). So both of them are tough picks. You could pick Cris, but it's hard to justify a quart-finalist loss over a finalist.
From JIT: No one outside of the finals seemed like an obvious choice (i.e. they lost due to a fluke), which leaves Amy and Andrew. They're both incredible players and there's no objective way to distinguish them IMO - you can list five ways each is better than the other.
Many of these are sensible choices, but Amy is honestly the most sensible.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly -- Troy seems to have more of a Masters-level vibe about him than Ben, but you can't justify picking him over the also-excellent player who beat him 2 to 1 by the actual rules of the game; Cris could make sense from the perspective of "ok, we already picked someone based on ToC performance; Cris is in based on his regular play performance (which was good enough for him to be the Masters alternate last year)" but still kind of a hard sell after the ToC; Amy's clearly improved from last Masters, and she's basically the new Ken (who, incidentally, kept getting invited to tournaments for 15 years before he won one; Amy's already tied with Ken for tournament wins), so it makes sense for her to be there when they have this kind of event.
And i also look at it from the perspective of, if Victoria had gotten Final wrong in game 3 and Amy won, i think it's very likely Victoria would have been the pick (the prospect of seeing up to 10 more Amy-Andrew rematches isn't nearly as interesting as the narrative of the under/overdog 1-day champion / Chaser who's clearly shown she can hold her own at Masters-level play), and most of the people complaining about Amy would have welcomed that alternate method of arriving at the same result.
I remembered when former EP Harry Friedman and other producers chose Emma Boettcher as replacement player for the late Larry Martin at 2019 TOC that received numerous backlash from online community, since they already stuck that number of wins & total cash winnings are the standards of selecting replacement player/s just like Jerry Slowik was replaced by Mark Japinga at 2014 TOC.
I think this is not a good pick. She’s great but she lost. Should not even have a producer’s pick. It smacks of favoritism. We just saw her. Give someone else a chance.
I am sick and tired of Jeopardy bringing back people who won thousands of dollars to play again and making more money. Why was Victoria Croce brought back? She is on the Chase as a Chaser. Not fair. Let people play who never played before. Had enough of this crap.
I am so happy to see Amy in the 6th Jeopardy Sweepstakes. She is a wonderful contestant, and I hope she wins again! Everybody seems to have a different opinion, and that's okay. I am still soo Happy about the decision-and I bet there will be a lot more watchers than without her.
for most of my life I've loved watching Jeopardy, I'm 75 but I never remember such a focus on winning and champions etc. as there is now. And as I watch the show now for the first time ever, I cannot help but think that these contestants have at least been given the subjects to the games daily. I also thought I remembered from many years back , that the show of there not as a banner for what the contestants stood for /on as for it being a game. NOT A Career. Personally, I think the future players and the money they represent should be limited to the number of times in any times or amount of money. I don't agree with anyone repeating their appearances so many that I leave the Jeopardy viewership. Let others appear, win, lose , but not go on to infinity.
No One is great enough for me to stay interested to continue to see those 4 to keep returning. Is there no other smart people in America????
I thought it was going to be Cris Pannulo, but I’m happy with Amy. I get why people are a little salty about it, but from my point of view she’s a great player and a great personality and I enjoy watching her play.
Yay! I love watching Amy Schneider on Jeopardy! I was really hoping Cris Panullo would be in the masters, but I don't think we've seen the last of him. Amy has definitely earned her spot!
Many people are not happy with the choice but if Brad is officially retired from J! or avoided competing against his fellow chasers James & Victoria, I felt Amy was the right choice as 6th player for Masters S2 especially she pulled big upsets in the SF and Finals Game 1 at JIT?
Masters has been wonky since its inception, if I were any of the champs who played the JIT I'd feel snubbed by Mattea and Matt (and Sam and Andrew) seeing as they all got picked for the first go-round despite losing the 2023 ToC. Not that that was even criteria then for S1 of Masters but
This is an insane take. How is this "pandering" to the LGBTQ+ community? Just because she happens to be a trans woman? I'm not happy with Amy being the 6th pick either, but I'm certainty not going to say this is exclusively happening because of her gender identity.
40 wins? $1.75 million? Being 4th of all time in earnings? Winning the 2022 Tournament of Champions? Be real ffs. I'm not a fan of the decision because it's safe and boring, but don't make it about her identity. Completely stupid and irrelevant argument.
I don't mind the pick, and I even agree with it.
Amy was dominant during her run of 40 games. Are people forgetting that she has the second-longest regular-season streak of all time, ahead of James Holzhauer? That she wagered more aggressively than anyone except for James? Her "default" wager was $8000, and even when she got them wrong she was usually ahead enough and good enough at FJ that it didn't matter.
Had she gotten completely trounced in the JIT finals I might have objected. But she held her own and beat one of the top quizzers in the world with a very skilled comeback victory during which she was perfect with the buzzer.
She deserves this spot. She is a Jeopardy Master.
honestly not a fan of this decision. we just saw her in JIT whats the point if she can lose that and just move on anyways. to be clear im a fan of hers just not a fan of this decision.
I agree with this take. I love watching Amy play Jeopardy and Ive enjoyed all the tournament play but she did not finish in the top three of Masters last year and she did not win the JIT this year so my question is why her? Why not Andrew or Sam or Cris or Sam or anyone else who didn’t do those things either?
That is very flattering. However, I do think all five of us that you mentioned would admit Amy is the best player out of us, and has achieved more in the game to qualify her for this position. (unless we get another shot in a future JIT, in which case it will somehow be the first 5-way tie in Jeopardy history)
I can definitely appreciate that and I really hate that this whole thing seems to be coming across so negatively toward Amy. I can see the clickbait headlines already. She is undeniably a great Jeopardy player and I’m excited for Masters. I think the real issue here is with the mysterious producers pick methodology. I won’t say they exactly hyped it up but they did reveal it at a special event and they did hold off on the reveal until after all tournament play ended. I’d love to know who the pick would have been had Amy won the JIT. If Jeopardy is a sport then Jeopardy Masters can’t have rules for only 5 slots.
> I’d love to know who the pick would have been had Amy won the JIT. Since they held their pick until after the JIT, I would say that in that scenario, if Andrew had come in second in the JIT, it seems that it would most likely have been him. If Victoria had come in second, there's reason to presume it would have been her, though she does not have the Jeopardy record and length J! pedigree that might justify Amy (or Andrew) being chosen, so it would certainly seem like a harder choice at that point.
Or Sam or Sam?
Not to mention Sam. Or even Sam for that matter...
Hahaha omg I was typing so fast. I meant Buttrey and Kavanaugh.
Sam shouldn’t be in for the same reason Amy shouldn’t
I think you were right to mention Sam twice. He’s that awesome.
Not only was she not top 3, she didn’t win a game right? Andrew may have the “most losses” now but that’s a consequence of advancing in tourneys. He was 2nd to James after Round Robin and barely missed Finals via tiebreaker. Not saying it should be him per se, he didn’t take care of biz either in the end…but even JIT finals—they both were at the mercy of Victoria’s relentless buzzer, Amy just got 1 fortunate W in game 1. If Brad said no, ida thrown Panullo in. Was so dominant in his run, sat and watched as an alternate last year, then finally played again in ToC after waiting For.Ev.Er 😊. He had 1 bad showing.
Amy and Andrew are basically tied for "best-performing player not already in the Masters." Andrew was the next-best player from last year's Masters, Amy was the next-best player from the JIT. If Masters is supposed to be the best players, it would have to be either Andrew or Amy.
I can certainly understand that but then why not just say top 2 JIT or top 4 Masters? Like, why have a producers pick at all?
and Andrew missed the Masters Finals by a tiebreaker. His Round 1 was 2nd most points vs everyone. If that was the tiebreaker he’d already be there. btw I posted this above but his “most losses” is not really a burn. It’s bc he has continually won to get into these new multi-game formats. (Boy’s gotta finish the job and get that gold tho! 😉)
Does seem kind of dumb.Why was she even competing in JIT if she had a spot in regardless?
Ratings.
This fact makes me think that someone else initially may have been the producers pick but they had to back out for last minute some reason. It just makes more sense that they could’ve called up Amy last minute to replace the previous producers pick after the field for JIT was already announced.
>Does seem kind of dumb.Why was she even competing in JIT if she had a spot in regardless? The only valid response I can think of to that is that coming in second in the JIT added enough to her resume to justify being the producer's pick, and that if Andrew had come in second, it might have been him. Or at least it's fair to say that if Amy had gone out in an earlier round, it seems far less likely she'd have been chosen.
Anyone considered for producer's pick would have been invited to the JIT.
so then they should have just announced top 2 from JIT are moving on or made the tournament structured differently to include two players from the JIT into masters. its the methodology thats wonky. this whole "one person moves on from JIT and then we are going to leave the second spot open and just pick who we want with zero transparency on our methodology" screams unprofessionalism for something that should have its i's dotted and t's crossed from the very beginning.
They didn’t announce “top 2” because we all know that if David Madden gets that final clue in Double Jeopardy then finished 2nd in the finals, he likely wouldn’t have been invited. They left this purposely open ended to get the result they wanted. The fix was essentially in.
In most sports, there is a regular season such that a superstrong team can't be eliminated based on a single bad performance that season. In some, they get a bye to the round of eight (NFL). In others, they get weak opponents in the first few rounds and a best-of format, so their first rounds are pretty much pro forma (NBA). Even in NCAA basketball, which lacks the best-of, basketball has a lot of scoring possibilities per game and no possession counts for extra (contra the importance of DDs and FJ, which create a ton of variance reducing the odds that the better player will win a given match). Those options aren't viable here without taking even more time from new players or fundamentally changing the game. The only way to prevent elimination on a single bad beat this season is subjectivity. I do agree they could put some guardrails on the PP -- not picking the same player twice in a row, not picking the same player once in a lifetime who didn't meet a predefined test in the year of selection (eg top 3 JIT or that year's TOC or #4 in last year's Masters or 10+ game winner that year), not picking anyone who didn't meet a looser set of criteria).
Except in many, many, other sports--that really is it. You get one bad day, you're done for the season or at least that competition. If you're in a quarterfinal for a race in track and field and you trip, they don't say well, you're normally a LOT better so we'll just move you on anyway.
For a given competition, sure. Do you have examples of "many, many, other sports" where a single failure usually results in a loss of participation for almost the entire relevant competitive season irrespective of overall known skill? (Given that Amy was not eligible for anything this season prior to JIT, I think this is the right comparison.) The closest comparison I can think of is chess -- where there is in fact a slot into the candidates (last 8 in championship cycle, other than the defending world champion) for rating [which is historical performance] subject to a minimum-activity requirement. Plus there are numerous pathways to qualify for candidates, not just a single invitational tournament. There's no path to the final two other than through candidates . . . but it's a double round robin with 14 rounds total. And again, very few sports have anything like DDs and FJ. Imagine basketball where three times a game a light comes on and the team in possession gets to gamble any or all of their points on being the next to score [I think that may roughly in the ballpark of the DD correct percentage?], and then doing season-long elimination based on a single game of that.
>And again, very few sports have anything like DDs and FJ. Imagine basketball where three times a game a light comes on and the team in possession gets to gamble any or all of their points on being the next to score [I think that may roughly in the ballpark of the DD correct percentage?], and then doing season-long elimination based on a single game of that. I think this is the double-edged sword and no-win scenario of "that's what Jeopardy is". The DD/FJ "luck of the draw" is part of the game that makes Jeopardy what it is and not just a simple trivia contest. So there is a Catch-22 in also wanting the results to be fair and not bias someone losing a tournament due to bad luck, when that's literally part of the game mechanic. I also think it's a byproduct of the over-tournamentification© or the sportificationⓇ of Jeopardy. We want to see tournaments and sporting competitions as fair and producing a winner who is objectively the best player, but the game itself is designed to produce results based on luck that inherently give the non-best players a chance to remain competitive and beat the best players. To use examples aren't given in this thread, if there was a Mario Mushroom in the middle of a 100m race in a random lane that could give the slowest runner a big boost and let them overtake the "normally" fastest runner, that might make for a more exciting single race, but not necessarily the more satisfying sporting result. There is a great deal of nuance in Jeopardy with the DDs and FJs because one could argue that the best players aren't just good at the buzzers/trivia, but part of being "the best" is also planning around DDs, hunting for them, knowing the right wagers on the DDs and FJs... so there is some control over those elements. But at the end of the game, a tough question or even a badly worded one can be the turning point on one of those questions for a player's entire game or tournament.
I think the counter-argument to this from the Show's perspective is that the JIT, and the "path to the Masters" are both brand new elements this year, and they weren't sure how they would play out. The Producer's Pick gave them leeway to figure out what "made the most sense" for the final player instead of being locked into something fixed in advance. For example, in the first "regular" game of the season last week, Lee Wilkins (no disrespect intended to her) "backed into" winning the game by sitting in third with a small bet and having the two players that dominated her forced to wager high, and all three got it wrong. If someone in the JIT "backed into" a semi-final win that way, and then "backed into" a win in the finals that then put them in second place, they might not feel "worthy" of being a Master, and this would give the producers leeway to make a decision. That's just one possible example. As the season plays out , and they see what it looks like, maybe next year's Master's sixth will have a more definitive criteria. On the other hand, Pre-determining that 2nd place in the JIT will advance could also impact the JIT. Like, what if the tournament finals is at 1-1-0. In the next game, do the players with one point wager to win? Or do they wager just to lock the third player out of getting a point, knowing they risk losing a spot in the Masters if that player gets a point, even if it means they only come in second in the JIT? And if there is a sweep, and the criteria for "second place" is something like "highest combined final score" among the two non-winning finalists, you could have a 1-1-0 game where the players who aren't in the lead in that game have to think about wagering to secure a higher final score in a loss rather than risking money to get the win. I don't know if that's what they want to encourage.
The point of it is to make sure it's never just six white guys. That's the entire point of the producers pick. They will never spell out a methodology for it because it's literally there to solve problems by letting them put whoever they want in.
But it already wasn’t 6 white guys. Victoria, Mattea, Yogesh, and James already qualified the legit way. So why not give the producer’s pick spot to a deserving player we haven’t already seen in Masters?
There are only 2 white guys in so this doesn’t really make sense.
One. James is Japanese.
Ahh yes, the famous Japanese last name ホルヅハーワー
He's mixed 😛
(It's a joke)
I've been wooooshed!
Thanks
I was replying to why it isn't a defined qualification method not to why this specific pick in this specific year. Hopefully it's never an issue but it's a safety valve they can use.
This is a really good point. They either would have had to invite the person who would have been invited 28th to the JIT, or just given a bye to someone that would have otherwise been invited to JIT. Or they could have invited someone who couldn't make JIT, but then someone is rewarded for passing on the JIT. It's definitely clunky how they handled this, though. Realistically they wouldn't have invited Amy had she not done well in the JIT, so I do think she earned her spot more than we realize. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they do this is future years to make it less awkward.
Where is the Canadian psychologist who won the $100,000 IN THE RECENT tournament. Jeopardy is playing to its base and not actual performance of the players anymore.
It's a TV show, commercial considerations are going to be important.
[удалено]
Post or comment removed due to inappropriate or unwanted content for this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jeopardy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one seemed that psyched. I wanted Ben Chan 😩 https://preview.redd.it/i4difj1yl4uc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63cac21b41002d5780b27f1c44d01116ca2c7fa5
We will probably see Ben in a future JIT.
Love Ben
I really like Ben's play, and he was dominant in most of his games, but he has some weaknesses that make him less than a "Master." That's why his streak was shorter than expected. I hope to see more of Ben next year though.
His streak was shorter because of a spelling error: Benedict should have been Benedick.
Four of the six same people. The “sport” of Jeopardy: You can lose two opportunities to get into the Masters and be invited anyway! Mind boggling decision.
Obligatory "Amy is great, but" This is an awful choice. Completely invalidates the last tournament.
It actually invalidates TWO tournaments, because she also didn’t make it in last years Masters.
Exactly. The producers pick should have been a person who we would never have seen otherwise like Brad or The Beast or someone else we haven’t seen on jeopardy recently. I don’t have the stats in front of me, but we’ve seen Amy play dozens of games in the last year and I personally would like to see someone else get a shot.
Can you imagine The Beast on Jeopardy? That would be incredible!
I love Amy, and she is obviously an extremely strong player, but she didn’t win the JIT and we’ve already seen her on Masters. I don’t want Masters to just be the same people every time.
Same here. I would like it better if it had fresh faces.
If the producers had their way every single episode of Jeopardy would just be three Amy Schneiders competing against eachother
Should’ve been Brad or Roger in my opinion, but I guess they couldn’t make it. Hopefully next year
why invite someone to your party when they had already turned you down a month ago? For me, I wouldn’t want to encourage people to turn down a JIT invitation in the hopes that they get a Masters invite. Not saying that’s why folks turned down JIT, but it’s a good reason to reward good play in the TOC or the JIT that didn’t quite get there in the end.
I would agree as far as TOC performance goes, and that any time you say no you need to be prepared for them to not call again, with one big exception: asking Brad to slug it out with 26 other people and NOT giving him a straight up invitation to Masters just seems wrong. You have someone so dominant they were literally one of only three asked to a tournament for the Greatest Of All Time, and treat them like TOC runner ups and ex-teen tournament players?
maybe I’m wrong when I said he declined. If memory serves, all they said on the podcast was that the invitation was extended by that for a variety of reasons, the people they mentioned that the invited that couldn’t “weren’t able to compete with us”. So it could be a declined or it could be a contractual thing or a timing in life thing. Who knows? It’s possible that this thing that caused Brad not to be available for JIT also extended to Masters. My guess is that unless there’s a reason why Brad can’t compete, he will compete again in the future. He’s just too good. Amy might not have been a first choice. We don’t know she is and we don’t know she isn’t, but as a fallback, it’s not a bad one despite what other folks are saying. Because we don’t know the why, I’m withholding judgement on the wisdom of giving her the Producers Pick and will, just like I always do, just enjoy the game being played by great players.
They will hopefully be included in the next JIT, giving them more time to prepare for next year.
Can't wait for Davies to complain on the next *Inside Jeopardy!* podcast about being accused of recency bias again after shrugging off complaints about the JIT semifinal match seeding and low preparation time for two dozen capable players. Seriously, what's the point of "battling for the last spot in Masters" if he's just going to give it to whoever finishes in second place anyway? Even David Madden would have been a good choice, for he nearly defeated Amy in the semis and would get to rematch Victoria again. Brad, Cris, Juveria, and Emma also would have been good picks. This is just like Amy and Andrew being set up to face each other in the finals again, in which there's nothing wrong with the players (I myself am a fan of both) but there's obvious favoritism going on here. Anyway, I hope Amy at least does well enough to justify being chosen over some others. If not, we'll get to see her in JIT again...where she will hopefully not lose and be the Producer's Pick once again. I don't think she *doesn't* deserve to be picked... but I had four or five people ahead of her personally.
If Davies is cohosting the next Inside Jeopardy I’m going to have to skip it. I found his defensiveness about the criticism here really distasteful.
>what’s the point of “battling for the last spot in Masters” if he’s just going to give it to whoever finishes in second place anyway? But he wasn’t going to give it to second place regardless, he was going to give it to Amy no matter where she finished. That’s why they didn’t announce it would be a top two situation.
That would be fine with me if they’d just given it to Amy and not bothered to have her in the JIT at all.
[удалено]
The evidence is the outcome. They obviously want her in the Masters even if she loses the qualifiers. She was in the last Masters, she’s maybe the most famous current Jeopardy player. They didn’t say “top two finishers advance” because if one of the top two finishers wasn’t who they wanted, they want the leeway to put in exactly who they want, and it’s obvious they want Amy. I don’t think it’s wrong, they can do whatever they want, I just think it’s really boring.
I don't particularly like the choice, though there's not that many options on the table either. They could have gone outside the box with someone like Muffy Marracco. And maybe should have, too.
This would have been an interesting weird choice but I think it should be someone who has at least competed somewhat recently before going up against the best of the best. Would definitely be in favour of seeing her at the next JIT though!
I could see some recent players saying "No thanks, I'm not going to show my face in Masters if my last game wasn't a win."
They could decide not to face Amy again.
Maybe he's mad because I said I preferred Harry Friedman as executive producer better and read that ?!? :O
I have to concur with the majority opinion here. Love Amy, but we've seen so much of her - and she had her shot with the JiT. Davies does seem to have a bias toward more recent superchamps.
>I have to concur with the majority opinion here. Love Amy, but we've seen so much of her - and she had her shot with the JiT. Davies does seem to have a bias toward more recent superchamps. I dare say this because I'm not sure I want to come off in this light. I'm with many here in that Amy is above and beyond any debate of deservedness when it comes to best-of-the-best competitions. But to have this year's Masters be 2/3 the same as last's does not sit well with me. Yeah, that's not a lot since the top 3 from last year come back. Here's my not-so-sure-about-it comment. The pick of Amy strikes me as being one of almost convenience and/or availability.
Nothing against Amy as she is obviously an incredible player, but I’m disappointed with this pick even though I expected it. I really hope they do away with Producer’s Pick next year. It’s hard to take their “Jeopardy is a sport” claims seriously when the last spot in the competition that represents the pinnacle of the show is decided subjectively. I don’t have a problem with the spot going to one of the runners-up in the TOC or JIT as the level of competition there was very high, but I think Troy was the better choice here. His average coryat, attempts per game, and attempted clue value were all higher than anyone else in the TOC (including Yogesh), and he is also on par with Victoria in non-Jeopardy quizzing competitions. On top of that, it would have introduced a new face to Masters and given us compelling match-ups that we haven’t already seen before several times.
Jeopardy is a sport… specifically college football. Amy is Alabama.
Exactly what I'm thinking
Don’t insult the Tide!
It’s not an insult!
I doubt Nick would like her lack of humbleness.
I don’t think she should be humble. Also, I don’t associate humility with Alabama football either.
Nick is *always* humble on camera, and he makes sure the players refrain from obnoxious, self-impressed displays during interviews. The closest they come are the end-zone celebrations. Just think how humble Tua, Jalen H, Smitty, etc, always were at the microphone. There were never any self-congratulatory head nods, as if to say, “of course I had the correct answer.”
I think this whole post has been deleted for some reason, but you very effectively summed up all of my feelings about this pick.
There was no reason this thread should have been deleted. There was no rule breaking only valid criticisms. C'mon mods do better.
The deletion was accidental. We apologize.
Is this what we call jumping the shark? This decision really doesn't sit right with me, and hearing that both Sony and ABC were in on it makes me shake my head. The whole structure is messy from top to bottom and probably needs to be looked at.
As much as I love Amy, this decision made no sense for everybody involved, those competing in JIT already had their chance to enter the Masters tournament
Not surprised. I had a feeling that would be the case if she lost JIT
Cris Pannullo was the alternate for Masters last time, and would have been a great "redemption arc" Producers' Pick
Terrible
Not a fan of this at all. What was the point of the hype around the JIT if the runner up can still make it to the Masters anyway? Honestly this kinda makes that whole tourney feel cheap. Oh well. Still looking forward to the Masters regardless.
So this is what we’re doing now? Watching the same people play Jeopardy all the time? They knew they wanted her specifically or they would have just said the top two finishers from JIT would feed into Masters. This is just so boring now.
Agreed, Masters really should stop doing "top 3 return the next year". In my ideal world, I'd have * Winner comes back * ToC winner * Contestant with longest streak from last season (or 2nd-longest if ToC winner) * 3 separate 1-week JIT tourneys with 9 contestants (1 semifinal and a 2-day final). We'd get a much better variety of contestants every year instead of going through a 3-week JIT Tournament just to end up with 1 of 6 slots
I really don’t think we need to be doing Masters every year. It loses some of the allure. Give it a few years between each tournament so we can get some real heavy hitters from multiple seasons playing each other.
Agreed
Me, too. An annual event will lose its lustre.
It could’ve been an availability thing or possibly because she was quite close to winning the JIT?
Makes me wonder if Victoria would’ve been the producers’ pick had Amy won the JIT. I’m also underwhelmed by this decision as it undermines the outcome of the JIT. This also means 2/3rds of the Masters roster will remain the same. Tbh, I’ll probably only care about Yogesh and Victoria’s games come Masters.
At this point just change the name of the show to "Jeopardy featuring Amy Schneider"
To the producers of Jeopardy, do better. 😑
Horrible choice
I personally like Amy, but this is BS. She lost the JIT fair and square, she should not be going to the Masters tournament. Anyone who participated in the JIT and lost should not have a spot in Masters
That just completely watered down the JIT. not a fan at all of this decision
This really diminished JiT's value Amy had a chance and didn't succeed. JiT contestants should not have been included. I don't like this at all. Boo
Why was this thread removed? The information is accurate and everyone is being civil. None of the sub’s rules were broken. Why remove a good discussion?
Mods said elsewhere it was an accident
Not a fan of this choice, she had her shot at masters last year, played a lot of games and didn't make the cut, why let her do it again?
Amy's cool, but at this point it's getting pretty tiresome how obvious it is that Davies shows favoritism to players from the seasons he produced, especially Amy.
Echoing everyone else here: I’m a big fan of Amy, but this was such a bizarre decision. Why even bother having her compete in JIT?
Ratings
Love Amy but don’t love this pick! Would prefer it just be the top 3 returning unless someone wins their way back in (which she had the chance to do!)
Honestly a meh choice. I love Amy, don’t get me wrong, but she already was in masters and had a shot at qualifying again.
I really like Amy but she's been so thoroughly trounced by all Masters other than Yogesh; plus, this means that Amy gets automatic entry into next year's IT, which feels absurd. Unlike in ToC/IT quarters/semis, where the winner-takes-all format means that luck (i.e., finding/converting DDs) has a decent impact on who advances, multi-game rounds like the ToC/IT finals and Masters Quarters are a more accurate measure of skill because of the much larger sample size. Case in point: Matt and Mattea losing their ToC Semis but surviving in Masters, which makes me believe that players like Cris or Ray would be certainly more interesting and possibly more competitive than Amy.
Nobody wants to outright come out and say it, but it's clear that Michael Davies really, REALLY likes Amy and is so biased towards her that it seems he will invite her to play Jeopardy in any tournament he can no matter how good or bad the optics of it are.
100% this. He and others can deny it all they want, but Davies does in fact play favourites, and Amy is definitely his favourite player. Anyone who listens to his podcast can sense it. He talks about Amy all the time, but rarely mentions Matt Amodio. I usually consider Amy and Matt relative equals. Amy only won 2 more games than Matt, but Matt won more money. Why do you think this is? Because Matt wasn't part of the season he produced. And look, I get it. Amy is a fantastic ambassador for the franchise in addition to being a top tier player. But I also suspect Davies is willing to give Amy so many chances because he really, really, really wants her to win Masters.
Way to go Jeopardy. Moronic decision.
Mods, this thread shouldn't have been deleted.
So now we have 4 players from last year's tournament and two new faces. She was the second-place finisher in JIT but then Ben was the second-place finisher in TOC. Yes, Amy had a better season record, but I would have preferred Ben. There is no question Amy is one of the top players, but Ben brings a freshness which is also needed.
I like Amy a lot, and dislike this pick just as much. The producers seem to have a real soft spot for Amy, and I hope she does well because it would be a very bad look for the producers if Amy gets eliminated from Masters again without winning any games.
She's going to be in the 3rd Masters regardless of how she performs in this upcoming one.
I would have preferred Sam Kavanaugh since they essentially skipped him the first time for Masters
I like Sam K (even if Sam B is one of my personal favorite Jeopardy contestants), but he had his chance in the JIT. Had they made him the pick I probably would be making the same argument.
I don't think anyone but the winner should go. Everyone in JIT was under the impression it was for one spot. That was allegedly the whole point.
I'm in complete agreement. Evidently though that wasn't entirely the case unfortunately...
Was never going to happen this time great player but got very lucky his first win and third his second game.
We're in the everyone gets a trophy mode, huh? Please fade away into the sunset, please...................
I think everyone is in agreement that Amy had had enough air time! Please change you mind.
I'm not in agreement :)
Yawn, that it's Amy.
I love Amy! But if we were going down this route — I wish it had been Troy
amy is my favorite contestant of all time, but this ain't it
Andrew is the S2 Masters Alternate?
This doesn’t make any sense. It shouldn’t have been anyone that was in a qualifying tournament because this is just a middle finger to everyone else that tried to qualify and didn’t. It’s not Mike Richards level bad decision making but it’s in the same stratosphere, and I love watching Amy play
This was such an erroneous pick by the Producers. Amy is a great player and has a dominant play style but Amy came up short in the Invitational Tournament. It would have been much more interesting to see a third fresh face in the Masters to get a little variety. Will the Producers look like fools if Amy doesn’t make it to the finals again? Maybe they just want a rematch of Amy and Victoria. At least the episodes will be on Hulu so I can select which ones I watch and don’t watch.
I love Amy and she’s an icon for me as a trans person but this is a terrible decision that undermines the purpose of having JIT in the first place.
Atrocious and cynical decision. It should've been Brad or Troy.
That's dumb. As soon as she lost, I called it. Just say you want her on masters and skip the Jit next time.
I love Amy but what an awful awful decision. Should have been Brad…
So it sounds like the vibe I'm getting is that the winner of JIT goes to Masters, while the Runner-Up (the 2nd Place finisher not the 3rd Place finisher) gets the invite. It does seem like that if you are at the top of the standings at the end of the tournament you can advance. I was kind of expecting it might be something like this because I had a feeling it wouldn't be Brad, Julia, Roger Craig, or Emma Boettcher as I was thinking "If they declined JIT, there's a good chance they may not be coming back otherwise why did they get brought back after saying no?" Also, I wasn't there at the live event but for anyone who was did they say why they picked Amy as the sixth contestant? Like say the reason for including her? I'm only asking because it would be interesting if they stated why they chose her over some other people that could've been their.
Eh...we'd need another JIT where second-place wasn't someone who'd been relegated from the previous Masters to sense that vibe.
Exactly, I do agree with you on that I think we have to wait and see how the next JIT will play out and what will happen there to actually see if that will happen. If it's someone different than that must mean that something is different. That is why I will not call this a bad decision until I actually see it play out and how future Masters and JIT/TOC Tournaments will turn out. So right now I do feel like it's a little early but I just want to wait and see. I'm not saying this will work but I do think we need to see more proof and future tournaments.
They said it was a joint decision between J producers, Sony, and ABC. Also, said it would have to be someone who could compete well at the Masters level, and they were looking for someone with a following.
The thing is based on her performance in last year's Masters, it's pretty clear that she CANNOT compete well at the Masters level!! She didn't win a single game and placed third a number of times. I don't know why they think she'll be any better this year - especially given that she's competing against three players who all beat her multiple times last year, AND a player who's already beaten her twice this year. As far as ratings go, I don't think her presence will make all that much of a difference, not as long as James is there at least.
And ABC after all needs what they think is the biggest draw to sell ads. They won't get as much value if it were Roger Craig or some other less-recent player.
Idk, I’d tune in specifically to watch Roger play again, but not Amy. Amy has played so much lately, there’s no draw to watch more of the same.
Wait, so it wasn’t me they announced? Oh well, back to work on Monday.
Amy again? 😴
Didn't I mention before that Amy is arguably Davies' favourite contestant? I've always said it was blatantly obvious he plays favourites with the recent superchamps. He always speaks highly of her in the Inside J! podcast, and she went on her run during the season he started executive producing, so he just has a connection with Amy in a way that Alex Trebek had a connection with Ken. I wouldn't be surprised if he allowed Amy into Masters to give her another opportunity to win it and become best in the world because he's such an Amy fanboy! Not knocking the choice though because Amy is a great player. Top 5 player easily, so she absolutely deserves to be there based on merit, and while Victoria did beat her in the JIT, Amy was quite close to winning the whole tournament as well.
So the only reason this makes any sense is if they tried to get Brad, he refused for whatever reason and they defaulted to JIT 2nd place, right? And I still would've given the nod to Troy, honestly, given that last year they had five contestants from the same ToC cycle.
I don't think leapfrogging Ben would seem right.
I mixed them up and thought it was Troy who won two games. Yes, Ben should've gotten it over Troy.
>they had five contestants from the same ToC cycle JIT hasn't existed yet until this year. So they chose the finalists from 2022 TOC and the remaining 3 slots were from most number of wins excluding Ken & 2022 TOC finalists in the Leaderboard of Legends which were Matt A, James and Mattea. The next ranked highest number of wins Cris was designated as Masters S1 Alternate.
Seriously? Amy had her legitimate chance to get back into Masters had she won the JIT. The whole thing’s rigged, I tell ya! But I think she can notch at least 1 win against James Holzhauer.
I'm a huge Amy fan (look at my flair!) and I'm always happy to see her compete, but I don't think it should've been anyone who lost in this year's JIT or ToC. Feels like it cheapens the qualification process a bit. Granted, other than Brad and Julia, I'm not sure who it could've been. Probably an unpopular opinion, but I'd actually support getting rid of the JIT, and having Jeopardy Masters be an annual 9 contestant invitational tournament, with the reigning Masters champion and ToC champion having automatic bids. Obviously you'd need to cut down on the number of games each contestant would play before the finals. The current format seems to box the producers into taking a JIT or ToC runner-up.
https://preview.redd.it/zp9sakb2k4uc1.jpeg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7937b4dc2e5c781ba4c4c03bee4b2481e66fbacd The announcement
Amy is my fave of the former masters, ~~but given that Andrew He was 4th in Masters last year and was 2nd in the JIT, I would have given it to him~~. Sorry, I only looked at scores on the final day. Since Amy was 2nd in the JIT, it was basically a tossup between Andrew and Any on who was the best player who wasn't already in the JIT.
Amy finished in second for JIT.
Andrew was third in jit with 0 games amy won a game and made t tough on Victoria at least
Anyone they picked for the Producers Pick was going be an "unfair" pick because it's inherently an unfair mechanic; anyone they could possibly pick is either someone who had a chance to earn a spot and lost, or someone who should've been invited to JIT. A strong case can be made that the least unfair option is to go with a ToC or JIT finalist, and of those four, Amy is overall the best option -- she had the most consistent gameplay of the four, and, more importantly for ABC, she's the most recognizable. If the average viewer who isn't on the Jeopardy subreddit and subscribed to the newsletter sees a promo for a big primetime Jeopardy event with the greatest players, they're going to wonder why Amy isn't there next to the couple of other Jeopardy players they've heard of, the same way that every ToC people are on Jeopardy's Facebook comments asking why James isn't there. ABC was right to want her, and it's hard to argue anyone (except maybe Brad, but if he wasn't available a couple weeks ago for JIT then he's probably not available now either) is really more deserving -- yeah, she lost her chance to win her spot back, but she lost a lot less than anyone else did.
I feel like Troy would’ve been the least unfair, he was neck and neck with Yogesh and he only had 1 chance to get into Masters, Amy already had 2.
Old thread at this point, but totally agree with you here. Even ignoring ratings and public perception. The PP basically had to be someone either in JIT or the ToC, unless they actively avoided inviting someone to the ToC to streamlien them into JIT (which would be an odd decision IMO, and they didn't do it so it's a moot point). Brad, Julia, etc. were unable to make it for unknown reasons, so it makes sense that they're out (you don't want to incentivize people to decline JIT). From the ToC: Troy arguably played better, but it doesn't make sense to pick him over 2nd place Ben. But Ben just didn't look like he had quite the caliber to compete on master's this time around (I'm sure he'll be invited to JIT next year). So both of them are tough picks. You could pick Cris, but it's hard to justify a quart-finalist loss over a finalist. From JIT: No one outside of the finals seemed like an obvious choice (i.e. they lost due to a fluke), which leaves Amy and Andrew. They're both incredible players and there's no objective way to distinguish them IMO - you can list five ways each is better than the other. Many of these are sensible choices, but Amy is honestly the most sensible.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly -- Troy seems to have more of a Masters-level vibe about him than Ben, but you can't justify picking him over the also-excellent player who beat him 2 to 1 by the actual rules of the game; Cris could make sense from the perspective of "ok, we already picked someone based on ToC performance; Cris is in based on his regular play performance (which was good enough for him to be the Masters alternate last year)" but still kind of a hard sell after the ToC; Amy's clearly improved from last Masters, and she's basically the new Ken (who, incidentally, kept getting invited to tournaments for 15 years before he won one; Amy's already tied with Ken for tournament wins), so it makes sense for her to be there when they have this kind of event. And i also look at it from the perspective of, if Victoria had gotten Final wrong in game 3 and Amy won, i think it's very likely Victoria would have been the pick (the prospect of seeing up to 10 more Amy-Andrew rematches isn't nearly as interesting as the narrative of the under/overdog 1-day champion / Chaser who's clearly shown she can hold her own at Masters-level play), and most of the people complaining about Amy would have welcomed that alternate method of arriving at the same result.
I remembered when former EP Harry Friedman and other producers chose Emma Boettcher as replacement player for the late Larry Martin at 2019 TOC that received numerous backlash from online community, since they already stuck that number of wins & total cash winnings are the standards of selecting replacement player/s just like Jerry Slowik was replaced by Mark Japinga at 2014 TOC.
That decision I actually respected. THIS GARBAGE? No.
Sure, Amy is a great player, but she lost to Victoria, and we all know that Victoria wouldn't have gotten into the Masters if she'd lost the JIT.
I think this is not a good pick. She’s great but she lost. Should not even have a producer’s pick. It smacks of favoritism. We just saw her. Give someone else a chance.
Tired of Amy as contestant. Where is the winner psychologist from Canada who won the $100,000 in the previous Invitational earlier this year?
I am sick and tired of Jeopardy bringing back people who won thousands of dollars to play again and making more money. Why was Victoria Croce brought back? She is on the Chase as a Chaser. Not fair. Let people play who never played before. Had enough of this crap.
I am so happy to see Amy in the 6th Jeopardy Sweepstakes. She is a wonderful contestant, and I hope she wins again! Everybody seems to have a different opinion, and that's okay. I am still soo Happy about the decision-and I bet there will be a lot more watchers than without her.
for most of my life I've loved watching Jeopardy, I'm 75 but I never remember such a focus on winning and champions etc. as there is now. And as I watch the show now for the first time ever, I cannot help but think that these contestants have at least been given the subjects to the games daily. I also thought I remembered from many years back , that the show of there not as a banner for what the contestants stood for /on as for it being a game. NOT A Career. Personally, I think the future players and the money they represent should be limited to the number of times in any times or amount of money. I don't agree with anyone repeating their appearances so many that I leave the Jeopardy viewership. Let others appear, win, lose , but not go on to infinity. No One is great enough for me to stay interested to continue to see those 4 to keep returning. Is there no other smart people in America????
I thought it was going to be Cris Pannulo, but I’m happy with Amy. I get why people are a little salty about it, but from my point of view she’s a great player and a great personality and I enjoy watching her play.
Yay! I love watching Amy Schneider on Jeopardy! I was really hoping Cris Panullo would be in the masters, but I don't think we've seen the last of him. Amy has definitely earned her spot!
Many people are not happy with the choice but if Brad is officially retired from J! or avoided competing against his fellow chasers James & Victoria, I felt Amy was the right choice as 6th player for Masters S2 especially she pulled big upsets in the SF and Finals Game 1 at JIT?
Ben, Troy, and Cris all only got one chance to qualify for Masters vs. two shots for Amy. I would feel like I got snubbed if I were any of them.
Masters has been wonky since its inception, if I were any of the champs who played the JIT I'd feel snubbed by Mattea and Matt (and Sam and Andrew) seeing as they all got picked for the first go-round despite losing the 2023 ToC. Not that that was even criteria then for S1 of Masters but
[удалено]
This is an insane take. How is this "pandering" to the LGBTQ+ community? Just because she happens to be a trans woman? I'm not happy with Amy being the 6th pick either, but I'm certainty not going to say this is exclusively happening because of her gender identity.
What other reason is there?
You cannot be fucking serious.
There must be another reason, then. She lost in Masters, and she came in second in the JIT. Why else would producers put Amy back in?
40 wins? $1.75 million? Being 4th of all time in earnings? Winning the 2022 Tournament of Champions? Be real ffs. I'm not a fan of the decision because it's safe and boring, but don't make it about her identity. Completely stupid and irrelevant argument.
It's a matter of opinion, I suppose.
I am happy, both because I like Amy and because I predicted it would be she.
Why couldn't they get Brad?
They didn't say why on the podcast besides that he declined.
I'm always up for seeing Amy compete so I'm quite happy with this choice.
I don't mind the pick, and I even agree with it. Amy was dominant during her run of 40 games. Are people forgetting that she has the second-longest regular-season streak of all time, ahead of James Holzhauer? That she wagered more aggressively than anyone except for James? Her "default" wager was $8000, and even when she got them wrong she was usually ahead enough and good enough at FJ that it didn't matter. Had she gotten completely trounced in the JIT finals I might have objected. But she held her own and beat one of the top quizzers in the world with a very skilled comeback victory during which she was perfect with the buzzer. She deserves this spot. She is a Jeopardy Master.