Mike Q.

P.S. I really just posted that to test out Linus's paragraph spacing tip. It works!

P.S. I really just posted that to test out Linus's paragraph spacing tip. It works!

@Scott - having acknowledged that the top 3 were all strong competitors, what was the thinking behind giving them this challenge at this point in the competition? I read and agreed with your explanation for why you thought the challenge was worthwhile, but having a challenge that handicaps a specific type of podcast more than others (sketch vs chat), it seemed like LHR had a higher hurdle to overcome this week. Down to the top 3, it didn't seem like an appropriate time to be throwing monkey wrenches at the gears of competition. Why not just let them wow you with their best stuff and compete in terms of who is most entertaining? Was it just to save that for the finale between the last two remaining podcasts next week? Having said that, as I mentioned in a post from yesterday's show, Dave and Matt were put in a tough position this week given the challenge that was handed to the contestants. As Besser indicated, I'm sure there was a long deliberation, but it couldn't have been an easy decision, especially given the hazy parameters with which they were working. I don't think it was the wrong decision, as LHR had for me the least entertaining submission; I just think it was the wrong challenge at the wrong time. @Left-Handed Radio guys and gal, you all went out on a really classy (not to mention funny) note. Keep up the great work, you've earned many a fan here.

@Scott - having acknowledged that the top 3 were all strong competitors, what was the thinking behind giving them this challenge at this point in the competition? I read and agreed with your explanation for why you thought the challenge was worthwhile, but having a challenge that handicaps a specific type of podcast more than others (sketch vs chat), it seemed like LHR had a higher hurdle to overcome this week. Down to the top 3, it didn't seem like an appropriate time to be throwing monkey wrenches at the gears of competition. Why not just let them wow you with their best stuff and compete in terms of who is most entertaining? Was it just to save that for the finale between the last two remaining podcasts next week? Having said that, as I mentioned in a post from yesterday's show, Dave and Matt were put in a tough position this week given the challenge that was handed to the contestants. As Besser indicated, I'm sure there was a long deliberation, but it couldn't have been an easy decision, especially given the hazy parameters with which they were working. I don't think it was the wrong decision, as LHR had for me the least entertaining submission; I just think it was the wrong challenge at the wrong time. @Left-Handed Radio guys and gal, you all went out on a really classy (not to mention funny) note. Keep up the great work, you've earned many a fan here.

Well it's clear that discussion is getting more heated since we're so close to the end, but it's unfortunate that instead of debating each show's merits, we're still debating the format and structure of the challenge itself. Rather than showcasing each show at its strength and letting them really display their best attributes, we get one last artificial challenge that handicaps one or another contestant. Matt Besser alluded to the fact that the remaining podcasts were the rightful top 3; why couldn't we just let 'em go and deliver the goods? I guess they're saving that for next week's finale, but this challenge just seems like a misstep. Maybe if it had appeared as an earlier challenge, it would've been received better. . By now, though, season-long listeners, as well as Matt and the producers, if not the guest judges, know the style and format of each remaining podcast. This week's challenge seems needlessly unfair, and, more importantly, very difficult to set parameters for judging. Several posts have criticized the harsh judging, but (aside from the unnecessarily mean "bullshit" comment) I think Matt and Dave were put in a very very precarious position as judges. Not only did they lack familiarity with the shows - which directly informs their ability to judge how LHR dealt with this particular challenge versus how LDDC or TLP - but they also weren't given any guidelines as to what terms they should judge the challenge. Maybe that's always been the case, but it was really glaring this week that there was no set criteria, as each podcast seemed to be discussed by different parameters. . With only 3 left, I think there's only 1 overriding factor that should be considered - how entertaining each podcast is. Obviously many factors contribute to it (including professionalism, audio quality, flow, etc.) but we have three distinct contestants and it's a shame that one is going home not because they aren't entertaining, but because they couldn't meet a very steep challenge. . I'd like to end on a positive note though, and say that as polarizing as this week has been, the Earwolf Challenge overall has been engrossing and entertaining. We wouldn't be so passionate if we didn't care, so kudos to everyone involved.

Well it's clear that discussion is getting more heated since we're so close to the end, but it's unfortunate that instead of debating each show's merits, we're still debating the format and structure of the challenge itself. Rather than showcasing each show at its strength and letting them really display their best attributes, we get one last artificial challenge that handicaps one or another contestant. Matt Besser alluded to the fact that the remaining podcasts were the rightful top 3; why couldn't we just let 'em go and deliver the goods? I guess they're saving that for next week's finale, but this challenge just seems like a misstep. Maybe if it had appeared as an earlier challenge, it would've been received better. . By now, though, season-long listeners, as well as Matt and the producers, if not the guest judges, know the style and format of each remaining podcast. This week's challenge seems needlessly unfair, and, more importantly, very difficult to set parameters for judging. Several posts have criticized the harsh judging, but (aside from the unnecessarily mean "bullshit" comment) I think Matt and Dave were put in a very very precarious position as judges. Not only did they lack familiarity with the shows - which directly informs their ability to judge how LHR dealt with this particular challenge versus how LDDC or TLP - but they also weren't given any guidelines as to what terms they should judge the challenge. Maybe that's always been the case, but it was really glaring this week that there was no set criteria, as each podcast seemed to be discussed by different parameters. . With only 3 left, I think there's only 1 overriding factor that should be considered - how entertaining each podcast is. Obviously many factors contribute to it (including professionalism, audio quality, flow, etc.) but we have three distinct contestants and it's a shame that one is going home not because they aren't entertaining, but because they couldn't meet a very steep challenge. . I'd like to end on a positive note though, and say that as polarizing as this week has been, the Earwolf Challenge overall has been engrossing and entertaining. We wouldn't be so passionate if we didn't care, so kudos to everyone involved.

That's the very one, Rach. Can I call you Rach? I just did so it's moot to ask for permission afterwards.

That's the very one, Rach. Can I call you Rach? I just did so it's moot to ask for permission afterwards.

You guys could have a crossover thing going when you have other Earwolf hosts as guests on Who Charted? Next time you had Hot Soccermom on, for example, you guys could count down the top 5 Comedy Bang Bang episodes. Alternatively, you could count down the top 5 favorite guests they've had on their show.

You guys could have a crossover thing going when you have other Earwolf hosts as guests on Who Charted? Next time you had Hot Soccermom on, for example, you guys could count down the top 5 Comedy Bang Bang episodes. Alternatively, you could count down the top 5 favorite guests they've had on their show.

Did I piss tears from my eyes from laughing so much? Maybe just a Wittels.

Did I piss tears from my eyes from laughing so much? Maybe just a Wittels.

Well it looks like I've provided another happy ending with one of my world famous ego massages!

I'm the one who suggested an "Everything's Coming Up Wheelhouse" shirt, but that was only in light jest. The abundance of wheelhouses don't bother me because Matt uses them in the proper context.

What about a Math Boy Band? Hm, edited to admit I don't know how to embed a video.

Hop Scotcherman, you and Gillian did an amazing job rolling with Andy's twists and turns. I feel like you sometimes don't get the credit for helping guide the improv to an increasingly absurd and funnier place, but often it's your questions and reactions that allow a performer like Andy Daly to really go balls out. Gillian was really game to come along for the ride, I hope she gets to come back as co-host!

I'm very interested to hear how LHR worked with Nick on the sketch, because like everyone else, they only had 10 minutes to collaborate on their segment. Given the time constraint and the fact that they had to prep and perform the sketch over the phone, they did a fantastic job. . Matt Little says we'll be hearing about how/why they decided to use Nick mostly by himself - hopefully it's because we're down to 4 contestants and they'll all be hearing notes from the judges, and not because they were relegated to bottom 3 this week. (And thanks to Caroline, btw, for plugging Matt's Tumblr, it was interesting to read some behind-the-scenes info from a contestant's perspective.)

I think it would have been interesting to get Nick Thune's take on how he felt as a guest on each of the contending podcasts. Maybe give him a call after the judges listened to the submissions and have a quick conversation about his perception of how he was used as a guest. . In any case, I don't think there was a perfect submission this week, but for sheer entertainment, I think LHR wins it. Played to Nick's strength, seemed to be well-written (even if Nick did a lot of improvising, LHR provided him with the script and premise from which to jump off), and showed off the possibilities of an audio sketch. I echo Harris, though, in wishing there was more interaction with the LHR members. . Nick Thune didn't sound very excited at the beginning of TL's segment... well, actually, he didn't sound that excited at the beginning of any of the chat show segments. TL and LDDC, however, found a way to segue into interesting bits, while BaDcast never really found a groove, probably because they asked standard interview questions. I wish they'd been able to stay true to their podcast, and incorporate Nick into their free-flowing conversation. . Btw, I disagreed with Doug that Elizabeth was inserting herself too much into the convo; I think part of TL's style is to have Elizabeth and Andy talk about themselves a bit in order to find something for the guest to latch onto or use as a jumping-off point. It's more friends hanging out shooting the shit than a strict interview chat show. Instead of relying on open-ended or hyper-specific questions (which they do sometimes, but not exclusively), telling personal anecdotes can lead to the guest opening up and riffing on a tangent. . By contrast, the LDDC found the game via open-ended questions. The first (wikipedia) didn't exactly hit, but they picked up on another open-ended question with Nick's story about the Bobby Slayton rumor. I can see how those types of questions are dangerous because it might lead to a dud, but Tommy and Karl have such natural charm and quick timing that they are often able to navigate their way through those.

I think this forum is more civil than most. I've definitely disagreed with some opinions, but for the most part, members lay out reasoning behind their opinions/reactions, and I always keep in mind that comedy taste is subjective. . I don't think the powers that be are aiming for an all-rah-rah-all-the-time message board; I think Matt and Scott and Jeff, et al, welcome criticism - they've even addressed some concerns we have on here and on the podcast. I do think, however, that there's a difference in healthy, constructive criticism and outright assholery, and it's a difference in tone and content. . We should feel free to say, "well I didn't like Podcast A because they didn't perform very well on the challenges for these reasons: X, Y, Z." We should even be free to say, "I just didn't get it, not for me." . And you know what? We're even free to say "Podcast A sucks, anyone that likes them sucks, we all know Podcast B is the tits. Oh and O'DOYLE RULES!" But should you resort to rude and thoughtless negativity? I think that offers nothing of value; it's hurtful just to be hurtful. You could argue that mindless cheerleading posts are equally meaningless. But as Matt Besser says, it's nice for performers to read such kudos because it's affirmation from the audience that they don't immediately get because of the nature of the medium. . In short, I think if you want to be critical, at least offer your thoughts/explanations for why you didn't like something. Don't be afraid to have a contrarian opinion, but don't be an asshole about it.

This episode had me straining to stifle my laughter at my cubicle at work, so, job well done, team! I liked how befuddled Chelsea was, especially when it dawned on her that the taping was almost done. You can practically hear her thinking "Wait, what? That's it, we recorded all this bantering bullshit and that's the show?" This is clearly Besser's influence on me from listening to the Earwolf Challenge, but it seems like it took longer for to "find the game" this episode. I think that's part of Harris's anti-comedy, but it seemed genuine for Chelsea, probably because she has more of a stand-up/comedy writer background than an improv background. That's probably the reason some people won't like this episode, but I thought Adam and Harris were fantastic, plus Chelsea now has the immortal line about eating a dick every time someone has sex with your butt.

When I downloaded this episode and saw that it was 1 hr+ I knew something was up since the previous coaching sessions have gotten shorter as the number of contestants dwindled. I think we're all lucky that Matt and co. take the time not only to respond to the listeners, specifically from this forum, but also to genuinely consider their suggestions. It's been a great listening experience to hear the podcast evolve as the competition goes along, and I think Matt and the producers are doing a bang-up job of fine-tuning the show. . Regarding the phenomenon of internet assholery, I liken it to experiencing road rage. Behind the wheel, clad in their car's steel armor, people can behave much differently than they do walking about face to face. Granted, jerks will be jerks, but that additional layer between driver and environment seems to grant this false belief that boorish behavior is acceptable. Even normally mild-mannered people can get heated and suffer from road rage. . Similarly, I think online anonymity grants this feeling of being allowed to let one's inner asshole out without fear of consequences. The thing to remember is that the majority of people actually are pretty civil and offer constructive commentary, but it's the negative comments that really sting and stick in the memory. Especially with a competition format, passions can get inflamed, and this sometimes results in taking potshots at the podcasts or at the judging/showrunning. For the most part, though, I think forum members have been pretty respectful in showing support and/or offering critical feedback.

By his government name, let's get to know him.... the mighty PAUL F. TOMPKINS!!! . MATH ROCK! Awww MATH ROCK! 2 plus 3 is 5! MATH ROCK! 7 minus 4 is 8! MATH ROCK! 2 times 2... Whatevahh!

3 words: Womp. It. Up.

Alternate road jerseys: "Everything's Coming Up Wheelhouse"

I want an Earwolf Challenge shirt that says "All Up In Your Wheelhouse."