Jeff Probst says future Survivor juries might watch challenges

With juries paying so little attention to the outplay portion of the game, should they be allowed to watch the challenges? The host says it may happen..

By Dalton Ross April 25, 2023 at 10:30 AM EDT

Winning challenges does not matter on Survivor. Well, that's not entirely true. Many a player has saved themself from certain elimination by claiming a super-fashionable immunity necklace after pulling out a big win.

But why don't challenge wins matter when it comes to Survivor juries voting for a winner? Time and time again we have seen juries petty much totally discount challenge wins as a factor in selecting who should take home $1 million and the title of Sole Survivor. Look no further than just last season on Survivor 43, when Cassidy Clark and Owen Knight combined for six individual immunity victories yet could only muster up a single jury vote between them, compared to Mike Gabler's seven.

Why are challenge victories constantly swept aside by juries when deciding on a winner? One theory I've floated for years is that the jury members are not there to watch the challenges as spectators, so their dramatic impact is severely watered down.

Consider the first member of the jury: They only see one individual contest, and that is as a competitor, not a spectator, so they never get to watch a player hang on for dear life and gut out an impressive victory, or watch someone stage an incredible comeback in a puzzle, or come up big with a game-saving win when everyone wants them out. All that jury member sees is someone walking into Tribal Council wearing a necklace. And jury members who follow may be there competing in some of those follow-up immunity contests, but they are often solely focused on their own performance, not watching others.

Compare that to hidden immunity idols and advantages, which are played to great fanfare and dramatic effect at Tribal Council. An illustration showing the gap between challenge and idol impact can be seen in season 35, Survivor: Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers. In that season, Chrissy Hofbeck tied a Survivor record for most immunity wins by a woman by nabbing four individual victories — an impressive feat for a 46-year-old competing against a much younger cast. However, the jury was far more swayed by the super-dramatic "Ben Bombs" that kept being detonated right in front of their face by eventual winner Ben Driebergen, who scored five jury votes after playing three immunity idols in a row at Tribal Council. Chrissy — who won her challenges without an audience — got just two.

With all that mind, would Jeff Probst and the producing team ever consider allowing jury members to actually watch the challenges? If the jury is trying to make a well-rounded decision on all three aspects of the game — outwit, outplay, outlast — wouldn't watching the physical element of the game play out with their own eyes aid in that endeavor? There's even a past model on the show to go by.

Three different times, Survivor has used the Redemption Island twist, where players were voted off their tribe and then had to compete in duel against other voted-off players to stay in the game. In all three of those seasons, the players still on the tribes would watch those duels as spectators in a space called Redemption Arena. Couldn't producers arrange a seating area for current jurors to watch challenges? If they have a sit-out bench, they could certainly have a jury bench as well.

We went straight to the source and asked Probst if he would consider letting Survivor juries watch challenges. "You want to come join our team?" responds Probst. "You have great ideas. Yes, we have considered letting the jury watch the challenges, and we've almost done it a couple of times in the past. Maybe your suggestion will be what tilts the scale, or maybe we've already got it planned for a future season!"

Probst agrees that giving the jury more information can only be a good thing, especially with the rash of landslide 7-1-0 blowouts in the past three seasons. "It's a valid point that it might influence their decision," he says." If we do end up doing it, you can take partial credit for helping sway us."

If it leads to another "F--- you, Brad Culpepper!" moment, we will consider the swaying well worth it.

Source: https://ew.com/tv/survivor-jeff-probst-juries-watch-challenges/

--
Brian

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 1:31:40 PM UTC-6, Brian Smith wrote:
> Jeff Probst says future Survivor juries might watch challenges
>
> With juries paying so little attention to the outplay portion of the game, should they be allowed to watch the challenges? The host says it may happen.
>
> By Dalton Ross April 25, 2023 at 10:30 AM EDT
>
> Winning challenges does not matter on Survivor. Well, that's not entirely true. Many a player has saved themself from certain elimination by claiming a super-fashionable immunity necklace after pulling out a big win.
>
> But why don't challenge wins matter when it comes to Survivor juries voting for a winner? Time and time again we have seen juries petty much totally discount challenge wins as a factor in selecting who should take home $1 million and the title of Sole Survivor. Look no further than just last season on Survivor 43, when Cassidy Clark and Owen Knight combined for six individual immunity victories yet could only muster up a single jury vote between them, compared to Mike Gabler's seven.
>
> Why are challenge victories constantly swept aside by juries when deciding on a winner? One theory I've floated for years is that the jury members are not there to watch the challenges as spectators, so their dramatic impact is severely watered down.
>
> Consider the first member of the jury: They only see one individual contest, and that is as a competitor, not a spectator, so they never get to watch a player hang on for dear life and gut out an impressive victory, or watch someone stage an incredible comeback in a puzzle, or come up big with a game-saving win when everyone wants them out. All that jury member sees is someone walking into Tribal Council wearing a necklace. And jury members who follow may be there competing in some of those follow-up immunity contests, but they are often solely focused on their own performance, not watching others.
>
> Compare that to hidden immunity idols and advantages, which are played to great fanfare and dramatic effect at Tribal Council. An illustration showing the gap between challenge and idol impact can be seen in season 35, Survivor: Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers. In that season, Chrissy Hofbeck tied a Survivor record for most immunity wins by a woman by nabbing four individual victories — an impressive feat for a 46-year-old competing against a much younger cast. However, the jury was far more swayed by the super-dramatic "Ben Bombs" that kept being detonated right in front of their face by eventual winner Ben Driebergen, who scored five jury votes after playing three immunity idols in a row at Tribal Council. Chrissy — who won her challenges without an audience — got just two.
>
> With all that mind, would Jeff Probst and the producing team ever consider allowing jury members to actually watch the challenges? If the jury is trying to make a well-rounded decision on all three aspects of the game — outwit, outplay, outlast — wouldn't watching the physical element of the game play out with their own eyes aid in that endeavor? There's even a past model on the show to go by.
>
> Three different times, Survivor has used the Redemption Island twist, where players were voted off their tribe and then had to compete in duel against other voted-off players to stay in the game. In all three of those seasons, the players still on the tribes would watch those duels as spectators in a space called Redemption Arena. Couldn't producers arrange a seating area for current jurors to watch challenges? If they have a sit-out bench, they could certainly have a jury bench as well.
>
> We went straight to the source and asked Probst if he would consider letting Survivor juries watch challenges. "You want to come join our team?" responds Probst. "You have great ideas. Yes, we have considered letting the jury watch the challenges, and we've almost done it a couple of times in the past. Maybe your suggestion will be what tilts the scale, or maybe we've already got it planned for a future season!"
>
> Probst agrees that giving the jury more information can only be a good thing, especially with the rash of landslide 7-1-0 blowouts in the past three seasons. "It's a valid point that it might influence their decision," he says." If we do end up doing it, you can take partial credit for helping sway us."
>
> If it leads to another "F--- you, Brad Culpepper!" moment, we will consider the swaying well worth it.
>
> Source: https://ew.com/tv/survivor-jeff-probst-juries-watch-challenges/
>
> --
> Brian

Eliza's not a fan of this idea!

https://twitter.com/elizaorlins/status/1650912786791165957

--
Brian

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:31:40 PM UTC-7, Brian Smith quoted Dalton Ross:

> "Probst agrees that giving the jury more information can only be a good thing, especially with the rash of landslide 7-1-0 blowouts in the past three seasons."

IMO, Ross goes on way too much about the alleged "rash" of blowout jury votes since S40. There were also plenty of one-sided votes prior to S40 including
four in a row from S25-28 (Denise Stapley 6-1-1; John Cochran 8-0-0; Tyson Apostol 7-1-0; Tony Vlachos 8-1). There were even landslide votes in the "old school"
seasons eg. S6 (Jenna Morasca 6-1); S7 (Sandra Diaz 6-1); S10 (Tom Westman 6-1); S11 (Danni Boatwright 6-1). If a "blowout" is defined as a FTC in which the
losing player(s) were either shut out or received only one vote, then there were 14 of them between S1 and S40. My point is that sometimes juries vote this way,
and when they do it doesn't mean that the game is broken and needs to be messed with.

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:00:48 PM UTC-6, zeppo wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:31:40 PM UTC-7, Brian Smith quoted Dalton Ross:
> > "Probst agrees that giving the jury more information can only be a good thing, especially with the rash of landslide 7-1-0 blowouts in the past three seasons."
> IMO, Ross goes on way too much about the alleged "rash" of blowout jury votes since S40. There were also plenty of one-sided votes prior to S40 including
> four in a row from S25-28 (Denise Stapley 6-1-1; John Cochran 8-0-0; Tyson Apostol 7-1-0; Tony Vlachos 8-1). There were even landslide votes in the "old school"
> seasons eg. S6 (Jenna Morasca 6-1); S7 (Sandra Diaz 6-1); S10 (Tom Westman 6-1); S11 (Danni Boatwright 6-1). If a "blowout" is defined as a FTC in which the
> losing player(s) were either shut out or received only one vote, then there were 14 of them between S1 and S40. My point is that sometimes juries vote this way,
> and when they do it doesn't mean that the game is broken and needs to be messed with.

In seasons with a F3 has there ever been a case where the third place finisher has received more than one vote? I don't think there has. I'm pretty sure there's been a ton of x-y-0 votes including two 10-0-0 votes (Jeremy and Adam). Going back to F2 seasons would probably result in more closer final votes than would letting juries watch ICs, but as you point out, that's not guaranteed to happen. To me orchestrating someone's boot is usually a lot more important than winning a challenge. Watching challenges is also not going to solve the groupthink and pressuring that goes on at Ponderosa. To get close votes you need to have a very split jury and probably two people at the end who worked closely together such as Dom and Wendell.

--
Brian