Final Two versus Final Three

There are arguments as to what is better between a final two and a final three. Is it best to have two finalists on day 39 or is three better? You probably know that I prefer the final three. But there are clearly advantages and disadvantages to both. What are they? Well, I might as well mention them.

Pros of a final two: We get to see a decision made at the end regarding who should get to go to the final two and who should win. The decision is completely different with a final three. The winner of the final immunity challenge basically gets the sole decision in the end and decides who will join them in the final two. The final immunity winner ultimately decides if he or she wins or comes in second, although they won’t always know what decision they are making. A final two is also less confusing and more natural to the game play of Survivor. There’s no chance of a tie with a final two (unless there is an even numbered jury for some odd reason). The vote was closer at one point with final twos than it has been with most final three seasons.

Cons of a final two: It’s all too easy to bring a goat to the end by voting off a strong player at the final three. Landsides are quite common in final two seasons. There are less people who can win when there are only two finalists.

Pros of a final three: Three people face the vote instead of just two. It is hard to take two goats to the end, or at least harder than just one goat. Final threes can be more interesting. Alliances tend to make it to the end and stick together without having to worry about cutting someone off at the end.

Cons of a final three: There is always someone easily coasting to the end with a final three. In a final two you either have to win the last immunity challenge or be taken to the end over the other contestant. In a final three, someone doesn’t have to worry about being the target at that last tribal council before a vote to win. This puts the final immunity challenge at a disadvantage. There is the possibility of a tie in any and every final three scenario. There always tends to be a person without any jury votes in a final three. It’s harder to break-up a core alliance with this set-up.

Well, that’s all that I’m saying about the difference between the two different ways they do the end game. Maybe there’s more good about the final two than I normally think as I pointed out more good in it than in the final three. And it’s always possible that we see a final four in the future, although I doubt that they would actually do that. For now, this is Adam Decker, signing off.