Is the final four tie-breaker irrelevant?

When you get to the finale and you get to the final four, there are sometimes when the vote is split between two people and a tie happens. This happened in the very first season, only it was resolved by a revote. In the fourth season, it was controversially resolved by a rock drawing tie-breaker that even Jeff himself says never should have happened. It was finally revealed in the tenth season that the proper way to resolve a tie at the final four was through a fire making challenge. But there are problems with this that I’m not sure if people have noticed.

One thing that I should add in this post before I get any further is that this only factors in seasons from before Heroes versus Healers versus Hustlers because of the twist that they used at the end. I will only be talking about the seasons that are mentioned that used it as a tie-breaker and not as a forced twist upon the rest of the players.

Survivor: Palau was the first season where this happened and the first time people knew that the twist involving the tie-breaker at the end was different. Jenn and Ian faced off in the tie-breaker. Ian won, only to get voted out last. This is the only season where the winner of the tie-breaker didn’t become a finalist in the end. It kind of makes you wonder what the point of the whole thing was.

Survivor: Panama had Cirie and Danielle tied at the final four. Cirie was eliminated at the tie-breaker. This was the only season besides Palau to have this challenge and have a final two happen. Danielle made it there by winning the final immunity challenge (although she would have made it there while losing it, due to the contempt of the remaining men against each other), but she didn’t win the game, although she might have by default since the remaining player was injured.

Survivor: Cook Island is the first example of this failing in a final three scenario as it is the first season to have one. The winner of this tie-breaker became the first person not to get a single jury vote at the end of the game. It is likely that if the challenge was won by the other player, this person also would have been ignored by the jury.

Survivor: Gabon might be the only time where the fire making tie-breaker actually mattered. When it was done this time, it would determine who would win the season. Indeed, Bob won the challenge and won the season as a result. Matty, who lost the challenge, would have probably won the season if he were the winner instead. But this season seems to be the only exception to the rule that it just doesn’t matter who wins the challenge.

Survivor: Worlds Apart was when the tie-breaker next appeared after a long absence from being needed in the game. This was the second worst version of it as, like Cook Islands, it took a while for either of the two players to do anything. There was a bit of a controversy regarding a broken flint that was replaced by one contestant and then given to the other when they ran out of time. Now it might be due to this poor performance that the winner of the challenge wasn’t treated nicely by the jury. But the tie wasn’t exactly something that was avoidable this time around. It never is when it happens. All that the winner of this challenge got was a single jury vote.

Survivor: Kaoh Rong is the most recent time where the tie-breaker appeared in a normal manner. Aubry and Cydney competed for a spot in the final three and Aubry won. She was controversially ignored by the majority of the jury, but I still love that she didn’t win as she seemed far too stuck up. This season had a good winner and I hope that people realize it at some point. Now I don’t know if the vote would have been for someone other than Michele if Cydney were there instead of Aubry. I wouldn’t think so, but I’ll never know for sure, will I?

Basically, only once has the winner of the final four tie-breaker actually won the game (not counting Borneo as it was solved by a revote). If the winner of the challenge was ever reversed, would that person have won instead of losing at the jury or getting voted out like Ian did? We’ll never know for sure about what could have happened. I do know that changing the tie-breaker method may not be that good a thing to do. I mean, it isn’t anyone’s fault that these people don’t win.

Of course, something to keep in mind is that different twists and changes in the game could bring forth a change into what could happen with this twist and if it is done away with our replaced in some way. In the 35^th and 36^th season, we saw or will see a twist that will pretty much force a tie between two players and force them into a fire-making challenge to stay in the game. They shouldn’t do sudden changes like this, but there could be changes in what happens and it could be more important. I don’t like that they would force something like this, but I’m already weary of how the next season will end.

That’s all for this blog post, outside of this paragraph. I have a landmark post coming up soon and hope that it will be a random post like this, although it could be about the next season. You’ll keep seeing these Wednesday posts in the meantime, but be prepared for potential changes. For now, this is Adam Decker, signing off.