Survivor

[quote=jtrentvv1) The "winner" can't win by default by just dragging the most unlikeable #2 along with them.2) It gives the jury (typically) at least TWO valid contenders to choose between.3) It keeps us from getting a Brian/Clay F TC.4) Unlike the US Presidential Election, it is WAY more likely to give us someone to vote/root FOR, rather than vote AGAINST.5) Choice is GOOD.6) Terry Dietz vs. Danielle. 'Nuff said.So, are there any CONCRETE reasons you like F2, or is it just because you LIKE it? Your arguments are based to much on your own opinion of participants. First of all survivor is a risk/reward game so if everyone is betting on taking the most hated person to the finals then it is their own fault for allowing that to happen. This is a way to win, but it is a much bigger gamble than bringing your best buddy in the game. Also (even if you hate to admit it) every single participant has fans it just depends on whether you are one of them. So the whole argument of someone to root for is stupid. Also what is wrong with Danielle? She played a great game if you actually went back and looked at her choices and alliances.

You are right exept for the fact that Stephenie would have beaten Rafe.

mrsurvivor9 wrote: You are right exept for the fact that Stephenie would have beaten Rafe.

alkikodibear wrote: the 2 times there have been a final 3 it may has well have been final 2. ozzie and Yul were the only vote getters becky just looked ontodd & blondie (forgot name) only got votes with amanda just looking on. I wish it were a final 2 with susie and sugar. I would love to see who the jury hates more. I know I know petty of me.

i think they all deserve to be there. what a bunch of bitter ppl on the jury. it's like this every year ppl pissed off like they wouldn't have lied cheated backstabbed to get to the end.

Gross. Bob DID NOTHING.Sugar had a hand in EVERYTHING. He sat there and could't have an opinion.

Typically I don't like the jury voting at the end, Atleast with 3. But that's 'cause the best survivor doesn't usually win But in my opinion it worked out this time. Bob played a great game

He didn't play the game.....ha. Sugar got him there. Sugar voted for every single person that was out (except Marcus and a few before). None of her votes were throw a ways and no one ever voted for her....Bob lied at the end...big time. He said that he was an honorable person...but when he said he accepted the out he should have kept that true. He isn't honorable after that move.

I hate final 3!! Bob wouldn't have made the final two for sure if they had kept the final two format. Would have been between Suzie and Sugar.

hoping2swing wrote: I hate final 3!! Bob wouldn't have made the final two for sure if they had kept the final two format. Would have been between Suzie and Sugar.

Final 3 is better than a final 2 most of the time (but it depends on the season) for all the reasons jtrentvv gave. Sometimes Survivor chooses a final 3 even when the winner is a foregone conclusion because the audience would approve of the winner – Earl, but most of the time, it prevents the Yul-Ozzy-Becky scenario. There’s no way any one can argue F3 was worse there. Whether Yul or Ozzy won the final immunity in a F2, each would have taken Becky for an anticlimactic win whereas Yul vs. Ozzy head-to-head in the finals was one of the best finals ever. Even though you knew Becky wasn’t going to get a vote, a Yul vs. Ozzy final was not possible without her being there in a F3. For the people who keep saying the third person doesn’t matter, well, they matter because they put the two who do matter there. Otherwise the F2 would far more likely be the person who doesn’t matter anyway against only one who does matter instead of two.If tonight had been a F2 and say Susie won the last challenge like she did, it would have been Susie winning the whole thing against Sugar. Instead audience favorite Bob and Sugar got to be in the finals with one of them winning.Like jtrentvv said, in all the F2 seasons, whenever the #3 player would have been more interesting in the finals than (just) one of the final two, an F3 is better.

sadistikk wrote:

hoping2swing wrote: I hate final 3!! Bob wouldn't have made the final two for sure if they had kept the final two format. Would have been between Suzie and Sugar.

He wouldn't have made the final two "for sure"? How did you determine this, exactly? Considering the fact that the final immunity challenge in each season (aside from this one) is endurance-based, and considering how dominant Bob was in most physical challenges throughout the season, how can you be so sure he wouldn't have won final immunity?Honestly, if it'd been a final two Bob still probably would have won. He would've beaten Sugar or Susie in a final two.And if it had been a final two between Susie and Sugar, Susie would have won, most likely. Sugar was a decent strategist, but she had aroused so much anger from the jurors that there was no way she was going to win. And I, for one, prefer seeing a kind old dude with a great attitude and good physical abilities like Bob win over a complete do-nothing like Susie any day. At least Bob was entertaining.

zvelf wrote: Final 3 is better than a final 2 most of the time (but it depends on the season) for all the reasons jtrentvv gave. Sometimes Survivor chooses a final 3 even when the winner is a foregone conclusion because the audience would approve of the winner – Earl, but most of the time, it prevents the Yul-Ozzy-Becky scenario. There’s no way any one can argue F3 was worse there. Whether Yul or Ozzy won the final immunity in a F2, each would have taken Becky for an anticlimactic win whereas Yul vs. Ozzy head-to-head in the finals was one of the best finals ever. Even though you knew Becky wasn’t going to get a vote, a Yul vs. Ozzy final was not possible without her being there in a F3. For the people who keep saying the third person doesn’t matter, well, they matter because they put the two who do matter there. Otherwise the F2 would far more likely be the person who doesn’t matter anyway against only one who does matter instead of two.If tonight had been a F2 and say Susie won the last challenge like she did, it would have been Susie winning the whole thing against Sugar. Instead audience favorite Bob and Sugar got to be in the finals with one of them winning.Like jtrentvv said, in all the F2 seasons, whenever the #3 player would have been more interesting in the finals than (just) one of the final two, an F3 is better.

I wish there had been a final three in the Fans v. Favorites season--I think Cerie might have won.

j_jammer wrote: Bob didn't do any deciding. He blamed everyone for the votes and didn't take responsibility for what he had done....especially not owning up to his promise to Kenny. He should have said yes he lied and yes he didn't follow through.Pride he had more so than Sugar.