Did you hear me say that no one should use the rules to their best advantage, or not use an advantage within the rules that someone has discovered that will change the game?
I didn't think so. ....
You addressed a rule, available to all, that James uses to his advantage. So change it because he's good at it? OK, you're not saying James should not use that, but you want to change it because he does? If a baseball team manages to build and train a team of strong hitters, do we change the rules on home runs? l don't get it.
edit/add - now if ALL the teams developed exceptional hitting skills, such that the most games felt unbalanced in terms of offense/defense, I could see where that might need to be addressed by rules changes.
As I said earlier, whether someone enjoys seeing a "master" at work, or finds the domination by one player boring, is personal preference. I respect, and even understand your viewpoint on that. But since it happens fairly rarely, just a handful of players have dominated the game for a long streak in all these years, I enjoy watching a streak, and spectators that don't like the dominant player get to see more balanced games when these rare streaks aren't in play. Seems we all get some of what we want, I think that's a good thing.
...
I'm not saying "it isn't fair" and I'm not saying "he shouldn't play this way". He should do whatever he can within the rules to win. But when doing that makes the game boring and without any doubt as to the outcome in almost all cases, the rules may need re-examining. Of course, I already acknowledged that I might be in a minority here. I'm just saying what I would like to see personally. I hate the Daily Double fishing. I would prefer to see raw knowledge win, not analytics.
I guess I don't understand how "Daily Double fishing" makes the game boring? Since all players can do it, how does it change anything? Don't those other players just need to up their game?
Is running a category boring, or do we marvel at their skill? If some find it boring, should that be outlawed (ALEX: I'm sorry James, you answered 3 in a category correctly, the new rules say we move on to the the lowest score contestant).
This is starting to sound like socialism
As far as changing the rules, I could go along with that if the situation was that with well matched players, the one with a
slight advantage took the lead early, and just held it and grew it, such that few games ever had a Final that wasn't a run-away (one player with 2x the next, so that they can't be beat in Final). I could see where that meant there was a systemic problem with the rules, and they need to be modified for more even play.
But I can't see changing the rules just because a "Michael Jordan" comes along. The fact that these are as rare as they indicates to me that the rules are pretty well balanced. Just my view.
I wondered, so googled and found this, which unofficially shows that in 10 years (2005~2015), run-aways were ~ 22% (guestimate by eye) of the games. Is 22% too much? Maybe, I dunno:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Jeopardy/comments/3emcvv/runaways_by_year/
-ERD50
