SALE OF THE CENTURY 1983 TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS, EP. 2--MORT KAMINS

[@willdavid7794]

These uploads have been a real treat to see. Thank you Mort!

[@morgan8757]

thank you for putting up i remember ditching school to watch days 3 and 5

[@zachhoran]

11/16/1983 here

[@79centsoutofadollar]

You're good... you're smart, fast, and able to predict what the question might be... ....however, there is a bit of a flaw with the rules around this time I've noticed, one I disagree with and wish they didn't allow... namely it's the "fishing around for the answer" loophole they have going. It's a small loophole, but a loophole nonetheless. What I mean is, players seem to be allowed to keep talking (for their answer) as long as they don't say anything untrue. This has happened in a few minor ways in the 6-7 episodes before this, but once or three times in a major way---once done in the semi finals by you (Mort) at least once when they were asking about a march in DC. Mort wound up answering the name of the march first, but that wasn't the answer they were looking for, so he then answered "MLK", which is the one they wanted. They gave it to him. And earlier in the same episode (or maybe it was the one before) someone had answered first with the name of a book, when they wanted the author. Person rang in just with "this novel...." being said of the question....and then was allowed to give the (wrong) answer of the book and then the right answer of the author. IMO, answers like that shoulda been shot down upon the first reply. You guess the novel instead of author? Sorry, that's a wrong answer, five dollars off. It prevents people from fishing around for the answer, because technically, a person could just ring in early on every question and keep talking and giving random answers connected with the question until they hit upon the right one. Doesn't happen overly often, but I've seen it happen enough times now to feel it's a bit of an abuse system that shouldn't have been allowed. ---- Otherwise, good showing, very impressive... well deserved win every time. The few, couple times this loophole was exploited (not always by you either) wouldn't have made a difference in the long run anyways, you still would have won by a long shot, you were that good.

[@TLEberle]

It’s called blitzing in quiz bowl. How is it a loophole?

[@LogoMan7777]

Mort, before I explain what the Winners' Big Money Game is, did you watch $ale from 1987-89?

[@mitchellries256]

No matter how many times he warns "Quick Buzzer Cost You", they buzz in early anyway.

[@LogoMan7777]

Ya know, I've figured out a way to get the Tournament of Champions knocked out in a week. Why keep three sets of three in the same place for a week when you can do this? Monday - Wednesday: Tournament gameplay starts with 9 of the top-money winners. On the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday shows, three sets of three competitors compete (a different set for each day). The winners of those three shows pick up an extra prize and advance to the finals. Thursday - Friday: Two-legged tie final. Each leg is treated as a new match (players start with zero score, although the podia for the second leg will display a player's score from the first leg), with aggregate score determining final positions. Winner takes the Lot (in this case, over $108,000 in cash and prizes), second place wins lesser amount of money (i.e. $25,000), third place wins even lesser amount of money (i.e. $10,000). It saves on the budget. What do you think?

[@blozier2006]

"Saving on the budget" is never a good idea. It makes your show look cheap. And that drives viewers away like the plague.

[@LogoMan7777]

@@blozier2006 Well, perhaps that was poorly worded. Still, it condenses four weeks of tourney gameplay into one week, perfect for sweeps. Who wants to see a whole week of the same people?

[@LogoMan7777]

@@blozier2006 And $ale was already saving on the budget by bringing in the WBMG. That is why it ended in 1989.

[@TheEggplantThatAteChicago]

@@LogoMan7777 I want to see a whole week of the same people, if they're this amazing.