Some 'Jeopardy!' fans, ex-champs tired of Ken show

A year ago, "Jeopardy!" dropped its 20-year policy of retiring undefeated champions after five games. The result was the invincible Ken Jennings, winner of 48 straight games and roughly $1.6 million as of Friday's broadcast. This is longer, according to the show's spokesman, than anyone has ever played any game show. Even Alex Trebek, the host, seems tired of him.

Nonetheless, the show's ratings are up, and in offices, bars and online, people are dissecting the pros and cons of Ken. Last week, Web sites tracking his exploits hummed with rumors that his winning streak had been snapped, though the proof would not be broadcast for six weeks.

But whether Jennings loses or plays until his buzzer thumb falls off, some fans are unhappy. They believe that when the show's format was changed, it was the end of "Jeopardy!" as it was known and loved. Perhaps the producers thought the occasional player would win 10 or 20 games before being toppled. Instead, they've turned "Jeopardy!" into a one-man show.

If I care a little too much about this, I have an excuse. In 1987, I won five times on "Jeopardy!" and then they sent me home. A couple of dozen people would have been "Jeopardy!" champions by now, a few of them even five-day champions, if Jennings had been forced to leave months ago. Instead, they went home losers, bit players in a tale all about him.

Each year has produced a dozen or so five- and four-time winners, who return for a Tournament of Champions, but that cannot happen when one player monopolizes half a season. Next year's tournament will look like Ken and a cast of extras.

No one doubts that Jennings is extraordinary. Most of his games have been wipeouts, and that's part of the problem. "Jeopardy!" gives nerds a chance to play swaggering gunslingers, shooting it out for a chance to fight another day. Jennings is like a marshal who shows up at high noon with a Gatling gun instead of a six-shooter.

I talked with several of the show's biggest former winners, and every one disliked the unlimited-tenure rule and questioned whether Jennings, great as he is, is any better than a number of past champions.

"People ask me, 'Do you think you could take him?' and I don't know," said Jerome Vered, a former champion. "But I think some people who've played before are in the same league."

The former champions all acknowledge that a defending champion becomes more confident, more at ease, more practiced as time goes on, while the challengers only grow more intimidated. Most felt, as I did, that they got better with each game.

"There's a serious psychological and practical edge, especially in the buzzer timing," said Leszek Pawlowicz, another former champion.

I've thought about that while watching the handful of challengers who did well against Jennings. They were great players. They would have made fine champions.

Copyright C 2004 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.