I would guess that this taping would be dumped and they would use a different taping for that episode. They tape a lot more than they need to for a weeks worth of shows.
Not the same thing, but here’s one where all three finished with $0 after getting Final Jeopardy wrong. According to the article, since nobody finished with any money, nobody advanced in the tournament. Don’t know if the same rule applies to non-tourney games.
I remember this one. IIRC, the answer was about the location of Northern Ireland Peace Memorial, and the correct question was “What is Belfast?”
It wasn’t that long ago either.
It does. If all three end up with zero, there’s no returning champion in the next episode, just three new players. I have seen this happen, back in the '80s I think.
No. No more ties in the regular show. :eek:
Guess that could be the Arthur Chu rule? Because IIRC, he played for a tie several times during his reign as Champion.
Was there any benefit to not playing for a tie before? Why go for a dollar more and screw the other player out of their winnings?
From the point of view of the show, this leads to substantial unneccessary expenditures.
There’s a theory that if you have more than double your opponent’s score, you should play for the tie because that gives you an opponent the next day you know you can beat. There’s another theory that the opponent just got a bad run of categories and that playing for the tie gives you an opponent the next day who has had time to get used to the game and the buzzer and who may get categories more to their liking.
It’s also conceivable that you have no choice but to go for the tie. If two players are tied going into the final, they kinda both have to bet it all.
I think the reasoning behind the change is more because the audience wants to see a winner than the actual payouts involved.
This article about yesterday’s show claims " it was the first time in four years that one contestant made it to the final round."
Yeah, but then people would wonder what happened to the previous champion.
From my point of view, the best solution would be to reset everything to the start of Double Jeopardy and play through the second round with a new set of categories.
If they all still end up in the red after that, something screwy is going on!
What got me was the way both of the other players kept digging themselves farther and farther into the hole, and really in just the last two or three minutes of the second round. I felt especially sorry for Stephanie when she blew “What is figuratively?” and guaranteed she would finish in the red. She might have gotten out of the hole if she had gotten it and then one more question right. (I think there was one more question before the end of the round, wasn’t there?)
Minus $6800? My God, that’s even worse than how Wolf Blitzer did!
“Sausville didn’t end up winning, but she was able to walk away with more than $6,000.” Of course she won! Failing to get Final Jeopardy doesn’t necessarily mean you lose!
No, she wouldn’t have. It would have taken more than just one other question to erase the deficit, and it looks as though there wasn’t enough money left on the board anyway.
She at least wouldn’t have finished so far in the hole, though. That must really have been humiliating! 
I couldn’t figure out what you were saying until I read the article. Man, what a bunch of maroons! How could anyone be so stupid?
Then I read the comments! hoo boy, they make the article seems like Einstein’s paper on General Relativity. Oww, my head…