Greetings friends! In case you didn't hear yesterday, we finally got the news we'd been waiting for: University Challenge is back on Monday the 12th of August!
And Only Connect as well! It had been delayed until after the Olympics, instead of the usual after Wimbledon start, so the two could start together. I strongly suspect the pair are now completely inseperable, especially after all the repeats we got last series so they'd keep airing together.
But not only that, Mastermind returns on the 12th as well, so we're having a full Quizzy Monday line-up right from the start! Perfect chance to see if my new blog format works.
But back to UC. Specifically, this article on the new series on the BBC Media Centre website, in which all the institutions that will be partaking in the new series are listed. As the list begins with the two teams competing in the series opener, Queen's Belfast and Liverpool, it makes me wonder if the rest of the teams are listed in competing order as well, thus giving us a full fixture list for the first round! (First time we've had that before the series even started since the Monkman and Seagull series of 2016-17)
If this is the case, then one particular fixture stands out to me in particular: Warwick vs UEA/East Anglia. This would be a rematch of a somewhat infamous second round match from the 2006-07 series, in which eventual champs Warwick trailed East Anglia throughout before overtaking them on the penultimate starter of the game.
While rewatching a YouTube upload of that game a short time ago, I spotted a comment from future UC winning captain James Devine-Stoneman, who revealed that Warwick only won this game because of a mistake on the host's part. With just minutes to go, Paxo asked a starter about a coastal city in the Basque Country; Warwick captain Daisy Christodoulou buzzed and incorrectly answered 'Bilbao', but, instead of throwing it over to UEA, Paxo, probably caught up in the excitement of the moment, accidentally said "No, it's San Sebastian" instead, much to the chagrin of UEA's Alex Fensome, who knew it and was about to buzz in and say it!
Paxo was willing to take his word for it, but TPTB refused and insisted the starter be dropped and another asked in its place. Warwick got that starter, all three resultant bonuses, and won by just five points as a result.
A quick search took me to an article by Mr Fensome in which he confirms the story to be true (not that I was doubting Mr Devine-Stoneman). It certainly explains why the end of that particular episode seemed a bit rushed and awkward, and puts Warwick's iconic celebrations at the gong in a slightly darker context.
Of course, if that little incident hadn't happened, Warwick would've gone out and not gone on to win the series. Instead, it would probably have been the Manchester team they defeated in the final as they were probably the next best team that series. Which would've made them the second institution to win two series in a row, and the second team to win after losing a game beforehand.
Assuming the rest of UC history goes the same, however, things could've gotten a bit tricky down the line, what with Manchester being awarded the 08-09 title retroactively, and then properly winning those two further series, which would've left a debate over whether they really are 'the most successful institution in UC history' hanging up in the air somewhat, and it wouldn't really have been resolved until Imperial won the last series.
In the long term, however, I suspect it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference to rest of UC history. Unlike a certain other Sliding Doors moment from a few series later, which was arguably a lot more seismic, yet doesn't get talked about anywhere near as much as it probably should be. (Even I've only given it a fleeting mention in a previous blog post nearly ten years ago)
It's the final first round match of the 2009-10 series. Alex Guttenplan's Emmanuel Cambridge team are in trouble; they trail Regent's Park Oxford 210-130 with barely two minutes to go, and are running out of time to secure the score of 160 or more they need to reach the repechage.
Then, this happens:
Paxo: Ten points for this: "The word 'butskellism', coined in the 1950s to refer to the perceived similarity of Labour and Conservative policies, is an amalgamation..."
Regent's Park Aber: Rab Butler and Hugh Gaitskell.
Paxo: No, that is wrong I'm afraid, you lose five points. "...is an amalgamation of the names of RA Butler and which Labour leader?"
Emmanuel Guttenplan: Hugh Gaitskell.
Paxo: Hugh Gaitskell is right. Yes, it seems harsh, but the question specifically asked for the name of the Labour leader.
Emmanuel go on to take all three resulting bonuses to take their score to 155 points, before the final starter of the game take them over the magic figure. Though they lose the game 205-165, they've done enough to make the play-offs.
The rest is history. Emmanuel would score 250+ points in all their subsequent games and become the first Cambridge champions since the Trinity team of Messrs Blanchflower, Kwarteng et al in the very first BBC series, Mr Guttenplan's spectacular individual performances, 11 and 13 starters in the semi-final and final respectively, capture the public's imagination, and the show's move from, in Weaver's Week's words, "schedule filler to cultural hit" is completely complete. The show has never looked back since.
But, let's face it, disallowing Mr Aber's answer was completely and utterly wrong. As a commenter on LAM pointed out at the time, he'd given the right answer, albeit in a fuller context than was required, so it really ought to have been accepted.
And had it been, then, not only would the rest of the series changed, but quite possibly the rest of the show's subsequent history could've too.
As far as the rest of the series is concerned, the team from UCLAN who scored 155 would've reached the play-offs and would've probably lost to the excellent UCL team (whose captain Olivia Woolley has since gone on to also be on The 3rd Degree, as a Don for my sort-of alma mater no less, and I think Brain of Britain as well, not totally sure on that one), who would have probably also beaten the winner of the all-Cambridge Christ's vs Clare contest to reach the QFs. What exactly would've happened there is anyone's guess in, what was, a very strong and closely matched field, but I suspect it would've, again, ended with RL's beaten finalists, St John's Oxford, winning the title.
As for the rest of the show's subsequent history, it's entirely possible, and pretty probable on balance, that the show would've become the phenomenon it is now without Mr Guttenplan's contribution anyway; after all, the social media boom was happening around the same time. But it certainly made a pretty hefty contribution to it. Let's not forget, the show wasn't exactly in people's good books going into that series following the controversial end to the previous one. Mr Guttenplan's performances went quite a big way towards bringing it back into favour.
So, to be honest, I do think the show would still be the big hit show it now is even if Emmanuel had gone out in the first round, in the same way that the Premier League would probably still be what it is now even if England had, as they nearly did, gone out of the 1990 World Cup sooner; a lot of people credit their performance in that particular tournament with the PL's current 'success'.
To be honest, I think the biggest impact on future series of losing Emmanuel's title win would probably be on subsequent Cambridge teams. As I mentioned before, Emmanuel's win was Cambridge's first in 15 years; during that time, Oxford had very much dominated the series, reaching ten finals and winning seven while Cambridge had reached two and lost two. In the years afterwards, while it took a few years to show, Cambridge teams began to claw back a lot of that ground and, indeed, won four titles in five series shortly afterwards. Without the precedent set by Emmanuel, might Oxford have continued to dominate on that front?
It does also make me wonder, which other first round drop-outs who barely missed out on the play-offs could've also gone on to great success if they'd made it through. One that comes to mind is the Exeter team of the 14-15 series (which included future Mastermind and OC finalist Harry Heath), who only just missed out on the repechage that series after losing five on the final starter of their game; they could well have won the resulting play-off against Open, albeit they'd have probably lost to the Magdalen team of Messrs Binnie and Quinn in R2.
If anyone else can think of any other big moments that could've changed the course of either UC history or just a single series, so let us know in the comments below or on X.
Anyway, spooling back to the new series of UC.
As you may recall, I announced at the end of my coverage of last series that I'm planning to try out a new format for my blogs this series. I'll still be largely focussing on UC, ie giving full team line-ups like I always have (albeit probably only for the first round), but I hope to give greater coverage and longer summaries of UC and Mastermind too (and Brain of Britain as well when it returns). The fact all three are starting at the same time should, as I said earlier, give me a good chance to try this when they all start a week on Monday.
So, I'll be back on the 12th as this blog enters a new era. Until then, sayonara...
I've encountered many individual quizzers from previous series who get knocked out in the first round but whom I know from personal experience to be very strong (from recent series, names that come to mind are Jacob Robertson from Merton, Oliver Hargrave from University College Oxford, and Abigail Tan from Caius), and especially for the latter two their first-round matches were both extremely close. And there have been tons of excellent quizzers and teams who were knocked out in Round 2. From the most recent series the individual names that come to mind are Omer Keskin, Mehmet Tatoglu, and Alexander Harrison.
ReplyDeleteBut for a whole team, I would have to suggest Warwick. As soon as we heard who the people on that team were I knew they would be extremely strong, and I think they would have very good odds against just about any team that series except probably Imperial. Also, if Amol hadn't specified in their final starter against us that the word was 7 letters "caramelisation" may have been accepted, and had they defeated us I think they would very likely appear in the semi-finals or even finals.
TL:DR – Emmanuel were themselves on the receiving end of an incorrect adjudication earlier in the match, when a starter (which they would probably have answered correctly) should have been passed over to them but wasn't. They could then have scored full points on the subsequent bonuses (which in reality weren't offered to them) and ended up on the same score which they achieved in reality, thus qualifying them for the repechage.
ReplyDeleteI instinctively very much agree with your take on the 'Butskellism' incident, and I remember shouting at the television in disbelief when it was broadcast. But, even though I'm actually working against my own interest in doing this, I feel I should report an earlier (unbroadcast) incident in the match which explains why Alex Guttenplan's Emmanuel team probably deserved to survive their first-round match.
(I say that I'm working against my own interest in doing this because the alternative history in which James Aber's 'Butler and Gaitskell' answer for Regent's Park was accepted, leading to Emmanuel failing to reach even the repechage, might have ended up with a series victory for the Manchester team which I [Stephen Pearson] organised that year. Manchester lost to Emmanuel in the semi-final, but against another opponent they might have reached the final, where they would have faced the St John's, Oxford team whom they had already faced in a quarter-final match which was decided on a tie-break.)
Since the full story of the Regent's Park v. Emmanuel match doesn't seem to be widely known, I should probably report what somebody who was in the studio audience for that told me about an earlier incident in that match which was edited out before the TV broadcast. That incident not only sheds some light on why Jeremy Paxman subsequently refused (wrongly) to accept 'Butler and Gaitskell' as an answer but also shows that Emmanuel had wrongly been denied a chance they should have received earlier in the match to gain some points, thus meaning that, if all adjudications in that match had been made fairly, Emmanuel might well have still qualified for the play-offs.
Since the earlier incident was edited out before the TV broadcast, I don't know the exact wording, but the gist was as follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paxman: And here's another starter. What name links a Russian-born philosopher and historian of ideas whose books include "Two Concepts of Liberty" and "The Hedgehog and the Fox" and ...
[buzz]
Voiceover: Regent's Park, Aber.
James Aber: Isaiah Berlin.
Paxman: Um ... no ... I can't let you have that. The question was going on to say '... and a Russian-born composer and lyricist whose songs include "Alexander's Ragtime Band" and "White Christmas"?' He was *Irving* Berlin, so the answer I wanted was just 'Berlin'. I won't pass it over to Emmanuel, so we'll just re-start filming with another starter. But, just to warn you, Regent's Park, if that kind of thing happens again I *will* pass the starter over to Emmanuel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the later Butler and Gaitskell question was not really 'that kind of thing', and James Aber should definitely have been given the points for that later answer. But, conversely, the correct (IMO) thing to do with the earlier (unbroadcast) starter would have been for Paxman to hand it over to Emmanuel rather than just 'killing' the starter. And so, if all adjudications in the match had been made correctly, Emmanuel would have stood at least a chance of getting, from the handed-over starter and the subsequent bonus set, the points which they needed to get into the repechage.
Bit late to the party, but one of my favourite and most memorable matches was Wolfson Cambridge vs Soas which is where Mr Monkman first graced our screens and before he or anyone knew that he would become such a meme or even minor celebrity. I think he was also at his most authentic too (then again even in later matches he still would not have known he was a Twitter sensation!). But it was a very strange match with many incorrect interruptions on both sides which is probably what made it so even in the end.
ReplyDeleteFrom memory, I don't think any of those were those irritating 'just about/technical' interruptions (which seem to have reduced in the Rajan era, though I'm not blaming Paxman either for obvious reasons and they were clearly editorial decisions) so they won fair and square, but say if any of those had just about gone another way, Soas may have won and Monkman may have lost the HSL/not got enough to come back and he would not have shot to fame. Soas losing to Emmanuel Cambridge was another shock in itself given their trouncing of Durham in their HSL and so again, if Soas kept up their form, Mr Seagull would also not have become the well-known figure he is now!
The opposite scenario to this as it were, speaking of 'just about' interruptions, was probably Wolfson Oxford, perhaps the luckiest team ever, a couple of years later who snuck through on a tie-breaker with a very hesitant answer (that Rajan probably would not have allowed, he seems quite strict on this) with Paxman glibly saying 'both teams are going to come back', well no, not automatically, and probably the unluckiest team ever, Sheffield, lost by 5 points in their HSL. Then, Wolfson cheated death again by winning on a 'technical' interruption by Manchester on a tie-break in the QFs before their luck finally ran out when they were thumped by Durham when their almost-sole player Jones ran out of steam.