# Quick Recap & Final Jeopardy – February 8, 2016

Welcome back to another week of recaps here at The Jeopardy! Fan! This is Week 2 of the College Championship!

Today’s semifinalists:

 Emily Sun, a freshman at Columbia University from San Diego, CA Gus Woythaler, a senior at Stanford University from Encino, CA Niki Peters, a sophomore at the University of California, Berkeley from Boise, ID

Scores going into Final Jeopardy:
Niki \$14,800
Emily \$12,400
Gus \$11,400

Final Jeopardy! category: ROYALTY

Final Jeopardy! clue: In 1604, for a special project, he approved a list of scholars to work at Westminster, Cambridge & Oxford

Click/Tap Here for Correct Response

Who is King James?

[collapse]

Gus 11400 – 1001 = 10399 (Charles II)
Emily 12400 + 12400 = 24800 (James I)
Niki 14800 + 10100 = 24900 (King James)

(The project in question: translating the Bible into English.)

One thing I’ve found with this tournament: Generally, the wagering has been very strong!

Also – congratulations to Niki for making the final!

(contestant photo credit: jeopardy.com)

(When commenting, please note that first-time commenters may have their comments held in moderation by WordPress. Also, all comments should be either positive in nature or have to do with gameplay.)

#### 40 Commentson "Quick Recap & Final Jeopardy – February 8, 2016"

1. Why didn’t Niki Peters have to specify which King James was the correct answer? There is James I and James II and she just said James? I thought you had to be specific.

• Andy Saunders | February 8, 2016 at 7:35 pm |

Considering the fact that the project is known as the King James Version of the Bible, I think just James is OK (especially as he was the first English king of that name.)

• The final jeopardy answer should have specified James I because there was also a James II. The question did not name the project, although scholars know that The King James Version was commissioned by James I. The correct answer should have included the numeral.

2. It’s a James I, not just James.

E,ily was robbed.

3. The correct answer was King James I, and Niki did not give a full correct answer. James I and James II are two different people, as different as James I and Charles II. The rules should be applied consistently, Emily was indeed robbed.

4. I think they got this one right, although on Niki’s answer reveal, I was holding my breath thinking “are they gonna neg that?”

Another morsel of food for thought – the king in question had two different numbers himself. He was James VI of Scotland; recalling the timing of the Union of the Crowns was what got me the answer.

5. William Clark | February 8, 2016 at 9:12 pm |

Why was she allowed to give “King James” as her answer? There was more than one King James, and James II did not commission any version of the Bible. Just specifying King James was not a complete answer to the question, as it does not uniquely identify the sponsor of the Bible.

• Andy Saunders | February 8, 2016 at 9:13 pm |

The show’s rules allow for the omission of a number on the first king or queen.

• William Clark | February 8, 2016 at 9:18 pm |

Sorry, any such “rule” is complete nonsense. “King James” does not uniquely identify James I, and Niki surely did not know any such “rule”. If contestants are marked wrong for omitting an indefinite article, then failing to identify the appropriate king among more than one choice is also wrong.

• Andy Saunders | February 8, 2016 at 9:21 pm |

Contestants were marked wrong for adding an article where it does not exist, not the situation you described.

Contestants are also briefed on such matters prior to their appearance on the show, so it within the realm of possibility that Niki did know it. Or, the fact that it is simply called the King James Version of the Bible.

The show’s rules are backed up by 32 years of precedent and cover every possible nuance. By the show’s specific precedent here, Niki was correct and the judges made the right call.

• William Clark | February 8, 2016 at 10:34 pm |

I really don’t care what “rules” the judges came up with – Niki did not, to anyone watching the show, answer the question completely, whereas Gus did. They were asked who commissioned the work, and the answer to that is James I, period, not “King James”.

• Andy Saunders | February 8, 2016 at 10:46 pm |

William:

Rules are rules. They were followed. Niki answered the question to the judges’ satisfaction. Emily inquired afterwards and was informed of same.

6. wayne bertelsen | February 8, 2016 at 9:29 pm |

among british monarchs, king james 1 was not the first king of that name as he was the 6th of scotland. and the ‘special project’ was not specified. emily was robbed.

• Andy Saunders | February 8, 2016 at 9:44 pm |

He was certainly the first English monarch of that name!

• William Clark | February 8, 2016 at 10:36 pm |

Yes, but the category was “Royalty”, not “Ënglish Royalty”. James I was actually (officially) James I and VI, since he was the sixth King James of Scotland.

7. wayne bertelsen | February 8, 2016 at 9:44 pm |

one more thing: the ‘project’, so-called, was not the king james version; the ‘project’ was translating the bible.

8. When James I was King of England he also didn’t have a number after his name. You don’t use a regnal number until it’s needed. Although for some reason Pope John Paul I decided to put the numeral after his name. Pope Francis didn’t want to do that.

9. I know from first-hand experience that “Who was King James?” was not accepted as a Final Jeopardy response when I was a contestant in 1994.

• Andy Saunders | February 9, 2016 at 10:15 am |

Ed:

I’m going to need more specifics than this. I have a feeling that today’s ruling contained a significant amount of nuance to it, the fact significantly notwithstanding that the project being referred in the clue is known as just “the King James Bible”.

Also, there’s a chance that maybe your situation caused a rule change to the current one.

• Andy Saunders | February 9, 2016 at 10:24 am |

However, I do find this comment very intriguing and would love to hear more of this situation.

• Andy Saunders | February 9, 2016 at 11:02 am |

(Shea Zellweger contributed the following Final Jeopardy from October 14, 1994 – is this yours?)

IN THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT THIS KING WAS CALLED A “DREAD SOVEREIGN LORD”

(If that’s the case, my guess is that the fact that the work is known as the King James Version of the Bible played into yesterday’s ruling. Likewise, if there was a clue about the Gregorian Calendar, you would likely not need to know that the Gregory was Pope Gregory XIII that came up with it.)

• Yes, my episode was aired October 14, 1994. I had the lead going into FJ. I started with a wild guess of George I, thought about it, determined that James I was the monarch in 1620, crossed out my guess (completely!) and replaced it with “James”. Alex did not hesitate to rule it incorrect.

10. King James is correct. James I or King James I is not needed because it is understood when a Roman numeral is omitted he/she can only be the 1st. Was the movie titled Fast & The Furious I? No. King James would have been incorrect if the answer were King James II.

11. Billy Brown’s argument is a flawed analogy. Movies with sequels are never retrospectively referred to with a suffix of the Roman numeral “I,” whereas kings or queens ARE so referred to when a later monarch bore the same first name.

12. Popes’ numbers, with the exception of relatively recent pontiffs (e.g., John Paul II and John XXIII) are much more obscure than the regnal numbers of English kings, so I can understand why in the J! canon popes would not have to be identified with the same level of specificity as English monarchs. There are certainly examples in NON-FJ clues of names of English kings getting BMS instructions, such as the \$2,000 clue in column 5 of this game mentioned by Alex Jacob in the J! board thread. http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=235&highlight=Alex+which+one+King+Charles

• Andy Saunders | February 9, 2016 at 2:03 pm |

You’ve missed my point completely.

In both cases, we have a question about a major item named after a person (the Gregorian calendar vs the King James Bible), in which both people involved had a regnal number (Pope Gregory XIII vs King James I/VI) and the show accepted, in both cases, just a name without the number.

Also, what about the King Charles Spaniel Final Jeopardy from a few months back?

13. The (Cavalier) King Charles Spaniel FJ asked for the dog breed, not the specific king it was named after; so it is utterly inapposite to the clue under discussion here. This is similar to how “King James Bible” with no Roman numerals would have been correct if last night’s clue had asked for the name of the work rather than the name of the king.

14. Richard Thomson | February 13, 2016 at 7:43 pm |

From reading through the comments and the information regarding previous decisions on the show, it is clear that the decisions are at times arbitrary and cannot be said to follow precedent. Andy, I’m not sure if you represent Jeopardy in any official capacity, but if you do, can I suggest that you admit this fact? If you are familiar with soccer you will know that the referee’s decision is final, however unfair that decision may seem to the fans. So is it also with Jeopardy.

• Andy Saunders | February 14, 2016 at 3:44 pm |

Richard, if you read the disclaimer that appears on every single page of this website, it would be very apparent that I have absolutely no ties to the show.

15. Dan Coulter | August 16, 2016 at 11:18 pm |

This debate continues because of the rerun of the Jeopady College Tournament on August 15, 2016. I agree that the correct answer was not given by the “declared” winner. Alex has previously insisted that the 1 is necessary in the case of a Queen Elizabeth. He pauses when a contestant does not include the correct identity of the monarch. Shame for not following that precedent.

• Andy Saunders | August 17, 2016 at 10:12 am |

Dan:

The clue in question was about a work known worldwide as the King James version of the Bible.

Note that the Bible is not called the King James I version.

Based on this and this alone, the show is correct and bringing past precedents into play is incorrect and only serves to muddy the waters.

• Andy Saunders | August 17, 2016 at 10:13 am |

Also, Ed Hochuli would like to weigh in regarding the “I agree” and “The Debate Continues”: