Talk:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible contestants?[edit]

Someone needs to go through that list and purge those that weren't either 5-time champions or won a tournament. Frank Amanat didn't even qualify for a Tournament of Champions! --OntarioQuizzer 12:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I compiled those from tournaments and 50k winners. If you have a better idea, tell me, because I honestly don't have all the data. Did you ever get rmfromfla's list? Ral315 10:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remember, if you're moving somebody to "Confirmed", you need to source that confirmation by some sort of web link. Otherwise, we'll move the name back to "Possible". --OntarioQuizzer 19:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know if Bruce Ikawa is going to be in the tournament? He's a friend of mine that I've lost touch with. RickK 05:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

RTA. *wink* Yeah, he's in the article as being on the contestant list, so yeah - I'm guessing that he'll be in the tournament. --OntarioQuizzer 18:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All it says is that he has qualified. Is it confirmed that he WILL be a contestant? RickK 20:39, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
All qualified contestents will be in the tournament and seeded according to their qualifications 9 getting a bye in the first round and KJ not having to compete until the championships (unfair IMHO but probably ratings driven - since they are down so much since he lost). Trödel|talk 01:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The article states that "The setup and timing of the tournament has resulted in much controversy." Are there any links or sources to show how much controversy there really is? The only one with evidence is the "Selection of Contestants". I know there are some people on the Jeopardy message boards that are complaining about various aspects of the UTOC, but these are hardcore fans, not average viewers. I suggest either trimming this section or adding sources to show that there's actually controversy. Carrp 18:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- It also would seem very difficult to have NPOV on a topic like that -- maybe it should be removed entirely? --OntarioQuizzer 23:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed the Controversy section. As was said, the only one with evidence was "Selection of Contestants" - which is not true as the show's producers made the adjustments prior to making the invitations. --OntarioQuizzer 20:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Game-by-game updates?[edit]

Does someone want to set up a template so that game-by-game updates can be posted here? --OntarioQuizzer 00:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I've created a template for upcoming matches, and one for scores. I split up the games by round, so as to make it easier to navigate the results. The templates can be found here:

{{Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions Round 1 results}} (working link)
{{Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions Round 2 results}} (working link)
{{Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions Round 3 results}} (working link)
{{Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions Round 4 results}} (working link)
{{Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions Round 5 results}} (working link)

{{Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions upcoming matches}} (working link)

If I don't edit it when the episode's over in my area (0100 UTC - 8:00p EST), or you view it first, just edit the results using the working link for Round 1, and then add the Template link where I put "Episodes have not yet aired". I added a spoiler tag, so you shouldn't have to worry about that, either. ral315 06:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good - Do you think we should include links to the game summaries at every night? --OntarioQuizzer 15:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know if if those are actually appropriate for templates... templates are meant to be used for content that is going to be repeated. Isn't there a way to template include non-template articles, like how they do VFD now? I would expect to see these articles at Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Round 1 results, and the like, instead, and have them somehow included with the curly bracket notation like the have VFD set up. The other benefit that would give is after you edit the sub article, you could quickly jump back to the regular article with the link provided for sub-pages. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I asked around and the transclusion link for normal articles just requires a colon, so I recommend we move all of these templates, and have the inclusions look like this: {{Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Round 1 results}}. Any objections?
I agree - these are clearly a good use for sub-pages (which are generally discouraged) and no need for a template when this is the only page using them.
As original creator, I don't particularly mind. But if you move it, create a redirect for the time being. ral315 04:16, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, New links are:

{{:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Round 1 results}} (working link)
{{:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Round 2 results}} (working link)
{{:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Round 3 results}} (working link)
{{:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Round 4 results}} (working link)
{{:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Round 5 results}} (working link)
{{:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Upcoming matches}} (working link)

--DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Upcoming matches?[edit]

Should we remove players from the Upcoming Matches once their game has aired? After all, they're no longer upcoming if it's already happened. --OntarioQuizzer 20:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For any users who may be reading this, please do not edit the Upcoming Matches template until 0400 UTC (11:00pm EST). ral315 02:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted the Feb. 28 Game from Upcoming Matches.--Hanfei 23:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Hanfei, I wasn't on Wiki last night. ral315 01:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Jennings' Placement[edit]

I really think that Ken Jennings should start in Round 2 because of the 2003 rule change. He should not get special treatment just because he won 74 games. Some former 5-time champs could have had a similar streak. In fact,neither Tom Walsh nor Sean Ryan should have been seeded to Round 2. Ken Jennings was special, but shouldn't be too special to only play 3 games and an assured $250,000. --Hanfei 03:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I don't particularly think that this is the proper place for airing this sort of opinion. I mean, what on earth does this have to do with the article? --OntarioQuizzer 16:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Upcoming matches[edit]

I think we should put the schedule and results first as well as in the following order:

  1. Upcoming matches
  2. Round 2 Results
  3. Round 1 Results

then follow it with Format of the Tournament -

We can switch it to the other way after the event is over - but since it is an ongoing event, seeing who is upcoming and the results from last night is the thing I most often come to look at - it is much more convient to have the information most people would wnat to access near the top. Anyway, my 2 cents Trödel|talk 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections I am going to make the switch until the tournament is over. Trödel|talk 17:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure if we need a spoiler warning, but it seems to me that one might be necessary for the results -- for example, today's game has been updated, but it hasn't even aired yet in my part of the country. TheProject 00:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Making champion clear with bold type, for instance, and putting the results on the respective tables in podia order (J-Archive has such accurate info)[edit]

What do you guys think? (posted by GOYANKSGONJ)

No. The people who care about Podia order will go to J-Archive. Most people want to see who won, got 2nd, got 3rd by going straight down the list. It's also easier to do statistics this way, because you don't have to mess with the results. ral315 02:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I agree podia order has no real meaning - and people coming would prefer to see 1st, 2nd, 3rd order. Trödel|talk 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Results pages - DO NOT CHANGE THEIR NAMES[edit]

Their names should be transcribed as found on Jeopardy's website ( Do not abbreviate their name if Jeopardy! does not. ral315 02:33, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Seeding is determined in order of prize money won in the previous round?[edit]

Where do you get this from? Removing from article until source is provided. --OntarioQuizzer 16:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know how and when they filmed the tournament? I'm under the assumption that every round has been filmed except the final one. Does anyone have the approximate dates when each round was filmed? --Madchester 14:34, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I don't have the dates, but I know that starting with this round, there is no studio audience, so in actuality, the last round could have already been filmed. ral315 19:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
So they're using a staged audience? Ha. --Madchester 19:15, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
I was a contestant a few years ago, and the tape date was about two months in advance of the air date. They taped five shows in one day. However, I don't know if the schedule is different for the UTOC. They're probably running on a tighter schedule. 00:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This week's games filmed on April 14th -- with a closed set. Round 5 has a top-secret tape date, as well as a closed set. --OntarioQuizzer 02:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Alex's conversation with Ken after the break in the first part of the finals, it was clear Ken knew who his opponents would be, so either round 5 was filmed after Friday's episode aired (very unlikely) or he was in the audience for the later rounds. I doubt they'd fly him in just to watch, unless he was going to be competing as well, so they probably filmed round 5 shortly after round 4. Maybe the following day. It's just a guess though. Or else they sent him tapes of the other rounds, which also seems unlikely. -R. fiend 18:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update Time Revisited[edit]

All - some have requested no updates until after the likely viewing time on the West Coast of the United States (this being a US Show) - generally we have respected this. However, not being here during the Jennings updates what is the (or is there a) policy on current events - it seems that the polite thing to do would be to respect this request, which I have tried to do. I recently got a "Who died and made you king" accusation on my talk page so is there a concensus on this? Living on the east coast I would be happy to update earlier in the evening if that is what is wanted. Trödel|talk 05:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary? We don't have that policy over for the past few seasons of the Amazing Race.
By your logic, we should also wait for the show to be aired in other markets (like Europe) before results can be posted. The spoiler tag is sufficient enough.--Madchester 05:29, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary, but I do think that it is the polite or wikiloveful thing to do. However, I don't care that much Trödel|talk 05:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I always enjoyed since joining Wikipedia was how articles were updated immediately. It's up-to-date and it tends to reflect the latest piece of information. There's no delay like traditional media outlets; if some information is incorrect it's imply revised as more details sink in. Just my 2 cents. --Madchester 05:40, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
I have reverted this change based on consensus here and on Ken Jennings when his games aired. I will add a larger spoiler warning to accomodate for the change. ral315 18:44, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I maintain it would be the polite thing to do if requested, as opposed to deciding by consensus of 5 people :), but I am not going to change it back. Trodel 18:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nothing of the sort. You're the only one who supported changing the policy (see below). This policy has been around since Ken Jennings' games, and this policy has been the status quo ever since then. With all due respect, changing it, without warning, and without anyone else supporting this change, was the impolite thing to do. In any event, if such a decision WERE made consensus, it should NEVER be hinted toward on the page. HTML comments, like those on the Upcoming Matches template, would be the way to go, since a div class affects the people who read the page, rather than just those who edit it. ral315 03:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
And the request was made by me, but it was only about the UPCOMING MATCHES TEMPLATE. It had nothing to do with the Results. Like many other people who edit this page, I believe that information should be reported as soon as it becomes available. ral315 03:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
My bad - on a page like this (where the number of editors editing it is such that the change took 2 days for someone (other than an anon) to recognize, revert, and comment) it is hard to see what the consensus was - and there was no discussion that I could find on the talk page re the update time. So I have found the best thing to do is actually change the page and see if anyone comments on the change. I see your point re editors vs readers; however, I think you made a great change, and caught the essence of what I was trying to get out with the semi-finals and finals - most likely more people would be visiting the page and we shoudl clearly identify what spoilers mean, especially since in rounds 1 and 2 sometimes things weren't updated immediately. Trodel 13:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J-Archive site down?[edit]

I am getting "The document contains no data" for any request to Is this a problem with my browser or is the site completely down? Trödel|talk 14:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Working on my end at the moment. --OntarioQuizzer 01:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear you are having problems - good luck on getting things up and thanks for the archive - it is a great resource. Trodel 03:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New contestant information[edit]

As you might have noticed, I've added two columns to the contestant list tables: UToC Finish/Winnings and Career Winnings. The former mentions the round each player reached and the money he/she earned directly from the UToC; the latter is reserved for each player's career winnings (from all of his/her J! games to date). I understand that this may be difficult to calculate.

Any assistance on updating the list would be very much appreciated.

Article split[edit]

Due to the article's length I've split it up into parts. The list of contestants will go on one page, and the results will go on another. The main page will contain a summary of the results as well as the tournament format. If you have any objections to this, please let me know.

  • I have reverted, for many reasons:
    • You made this revert without warning.
    • You made this revert without any community support.
    • The page looks like a stub the way you made it.
    • You did it right as people are going to start viewing the page, and wishing to see results without having to follow a small link at the bottom of the page.
    • The page isn't large. 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake was probably as much as four times as large at times. True, it's been broken down since, but not until the flurry of interest died down.
I have no problem with this happening after the UToC is over, but it shouldn't be done right now. And it certainly shouldn't be done until it's done right (i.e. Not such a small page, better sections, etc.) Feel free to flame me on my talk page. ral315 05:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the article now is premature (and may or may not be needed in the end). Trödel|talk 14:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about keeping it the way it is for now -- at least until the finals are done and/or we have reached a community-wide consensus. However, at least revert it properly -- you just handily destroyed the work I put into the article this weekend. Where are the UToC finishes and career winnings for each player that I calculated and put up over the past three days? Take a look at the history and restore them as appropriate, please. Mwl 03:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing templates[edit]

I removed the templates, since the only use for them was to avoid having to search through the entire article to edit the results tables. Since the results tables won't be edited much (if at all) anymore, there's no need for them anymore. ral315 03:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the tables are somewhat broken[edit]

This is being worked on right now, and I'll have some new tables (in WikiTable format) up for the List of Contestants part. ral315 03:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the use of the prettytable template. What do you have against it? Mwl 08:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTable format is recommended. Using the td tag is highly discouraged. Besides, it's smaller as far as database size goes, and it's the one we've used for daily results during the entire tournament. I am working on standardizing all tables, including the ones at the bottom of the page. ral315 20:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I changed the tables, it actually decreased page size by a full 8 kb (about 17% smaller) ral315 00:05, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rutter's correct winnings amount[edit]

There seems to be a conflict of how much Brad Rutter's winnings are from the UTOC. Since he received a bye to the second round, he didn't get the $15,000 of those winners of the first round. Therefore, if you add it up, his winning total in the UTOC is $2,100,000 and his overall winnings is $3,255,102. If Jeopardy's web site has those figures, then it has to be right. If Ken Jennings didn't receive the money from all those rounds he received a bye, then neither did Brad. --Tubutler 02:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Rutter did not receive the $15K for his first round bye -- only the Nifty Nine members who LOST in the second round did. Mwl 08:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - check out the "Ken Jennings Express" blog - if one wants to change Rutter's amount to $3,255,102 because of the Jeopardy! website, then one might as well change Ken's amount to $2,520,700. --Metric1031 19:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it matter that Jeopardy was wrong about Ken Jennings' total? This is about Brad Rutter's total. Check out Brad Rutter's entry on his talk show ( If the talk show that Brad hosts gives that number, it has to be correct. BTW, where is your source of your total? --Tubutler 19:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete subpages[edit]

Now that the tournament is over - I am listing all of the subpages and templates that were used to host the results on Speedy delete using {{delete}}. We don't need these anymore - the content of the full results is now on the main page, etc. If you disagree, remove the delete marker on each page and please explain here or on my talk page. Trödel|talk 14:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The subpages you have marked for speedy delete have substantial edits, and may be part of the history of the main page. Under GFDL they cannot be deleted. --Henrygb 22:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch Henry. However, does anyone have any objections to me deleting the templated redirects, i.e. Template:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions Round 1 results? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Fine by me - they comprise an automatic move redirect and a delete tag. --Henrygb 22:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I didn't think about the GFDL issues. However, now that I have thought about it, I don't think we have copyright issues and the need to cover ourselves regarding the historical edits. The pages in question are reporting facts that are not subject to copyright law. This is similar to the reasons that scores of professional sports can't be copyrighted or that the phone book phone numbers can't be copyrighted. Let me know if you agree and I will remark them for speedy. Trödel|talk 00:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, they can't be deleted. Under the terms of the GFDL, the edit history, et al. has to be kept. In actuality, statistics are subject to copyright (try running a script that fetches scores from and see how long until you get sued). And, for what it's worth, it's not just the stats, it's the style of the template that I made, etc. Something with so many edits has to be kept (though if it were possible, I'd delete them). ral315 08:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep them then - as I don't care about it that much. Just to clarify, although ESPN and other groups claim a copyright in statistical information (and it violates the "Terms of use" to download quantities of information) they only get a copyright in the presentation not the information. I agree that the style of the template (design of the table, etc.) is a work subject to copyright. Trödel|talk 14:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New tables[edit]

Because of the way they were formatted, I had to re-input the data into the "List of contestants" tables to make them look like all the other tables. I'm pretty sure it's all the same, I have checked to try and make sure, but if you see something that just doesn't look right, don't hesitate to check it against prior versions of the page.

By the way, I did make one change; it appears that Graham Gilmer was in the Spring 2001 tournament according to This has been corrected on the new tables. ral315 00:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Was UTOC a replacement for the TOC?[edit]

I assume that there was no Tournament of Champions in 2005, but the article does not state that expressly. If correct, I think it should. Other than Ken Jennings, was there anyone in the UTOC whose original run on Jeopardy! was after the 2004 TOC? If someone knows the answer to these questions it would be good to include that in the article. --Mathew5000 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kermin Fleming; and he participated in the Season 22 Tournament as well as the UToC. Andy Saunders 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your first question, Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions was created, but not by me. I formatted the list of winners that were provided. (I cannot claim these to be verifiable by myself.) There was no entry for 2005, so I made the same assumption as you did, which is reflected in that article and this one. Tinlinkin 04:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeopardy! canon is separated by Seasons, not years; there was a tournament held in the early weeks of Season 21. Andy Saunders 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over bye earnings?[edit]

Rutter's earnings are cited as both $2,100,000 and $2,115,000 in various places. Jarchive distinctly lists him earning 15k as a nifty nine member. Is there any definative information on this? If not, both facts should be listed as I'm doing on rutter's page. I googled tons of sources that show both numbers. TheHYPO (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that on 5th grader, they specifically said Jennings needed more than 132k to regain his record. This SHOULD imply that neither Jennings nor Rutter got their bye round prizes. HOWEVER, 5th grader is not necessarily accurate. TheHYPO (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three of nine=bad[edit]

I believe Sean Ryan (not particularly high 6-day winnings; especially early games), Brian Weikle (many people before him won more before him considering doubled clue values), and Chuck Forrest (he only got that recrord for an early appearance), did not deserve their byes. Jerome Vered, Bob Blake, and Bruce Seymour should have gotten them. Us441 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]