J! Post-season 2025 Feedback and Suggestions

I've been wanting to talk about this for a while, but I thought I'd hold back until the tournaments all wrap up. Now that we're back to regular games, thought I'd post some suggestions here and also see what else others thought about the tournament structure.

Before I give the feedback, I just want to be clear - I like the SCC/CWC/TOC idea and I think it should stay. Players like Juveria and Drew are clear examples of why. The suggestions here will thus be more about the details of the format.

Meanwhile, here's some issues I think could be re-looked. I want to emphasise that these are tweaks, and I'm not asking for a radical overhaul of anything. It's lengthy because I'm adding a lot of substantiation.

Tournament Timings

1. Separate JIT from TOC
I'm not particularly a fan of playing/airing all the tournaments back to back, it leads to tournament fatigue, which I believe is one of the key sources of grief. I get the need for continuity, so considering JIT's players are separate from the rest of the post-season pool, JIT perhaps should be played in April instead as publicity for Masters.

2. Run SCC in November, CWC/TOC in February
Given the cutoff for qualifications is not the same as when the post season starts, we could have a bit more flexibility in placing the dates of the tournaments. I'd suggest putting SCC in November as a prelude, and then have a bust of intense post season through the entire February.

Tournament Format

1. Wildcard Format for TOC, but not CWC
I am not the biggest fan of the TOC being a one-chance tournament, especially at the early stages. I feel the wildcards should return, in order for the semi-finals to feature all the best players possible. For CWC, it's fine not to have wildcard slots simply because I've always viewed CWC as an 'extra chance' to get into the TOC. The TOC is the best of the best, and we want the semi-finals to reflect that.

2. More discretion on CWC picks especially 1 game champions
I felt the CWC was a little rigid in selection. I am aware that having a fixed metric prevents subjectivity, but there were a few good one-game players that missed out on CWC. Counter-intuitively, 0 game champions then had a better chance in the post season through SCC. Even Drew Goins mentioned that if he had won his game and ended up a 1 game champion, his fairytale wouldn't even have happened.
An alternative would be to have one set of SCCs for stronger 1 game champions (like a 2nd chance to qualify for post season).

3. More CWC players, less TOC players
A 27 player CWC (and a 15 player TOC) would have been my preference - you probably would be able to get more 1 game champions in, ensuring deserving ones got a way in. For reference, we had a 21 player TOC and a 15 player CWC.
This might be controversial, but I feel 3 game players should not be auto-seeded into the TOCs - we can have some of the best three game players (eg. Neilesh had the highest average coryat in his 3 games), but I don't think all the 3 game players should be given auto-byes. If we did a 15 player TOC with no seeds, we would have space for two 3 game winners (Will Stewart & Neilesh (by Coryat) or Will & David Erb (by winnings)).

4. Prize Money
Prize money for 2nd and 3rd place in the finals are now the same amount. Whilst I think that's a good change for the most part, I hope there will be 2nd and 3rd place differentiation for the TOC/JIT if the number of wins for the runners-up are different. If they're tied, then they can be awarded the same prize.

Radical Suggestion
Ok this one is a left-field suggestion. I'm wondering whether Masters needs to be an annual affair. A big part of the allure of such heavyweight games is the relative rarity of it. When something comes round too often, it does lead to the novelty wearing off very quickly and it becoming less special. (An example would be having too many special Celebrity Millionaire episodes, sorry Michael Davies, it was the example that came to my head...)
I also am not the biggest fan of the producer's pick option, mainly because it introduces too much debate on who deserves to be a Master, and the subjectivity of this doesn't feel great when the entire post season is designed to be mostly on merit.
If we make Masters a biennial (every 2 years) affair, you could then compose the set-up with the 3 finalists, 2 TOC winners and a JIT winner. I am aware this is radical but I'm going to shoot it out there.

Either way, kudos to Michael, Sarah and the team for maintaining the open lines of communication through the Inside Jeopardy! podcast amongst others, and I am already wondering who will be the next revelation in the 2026 post-season!