Well (Spoiler)

[Roy Mars III]

Looks like BB3 has been matched for the worst jury decision ever.

a disgrace really

[Roy Mars III]

if anyone can tell me why Ian deserved to win over Dan, please do

[Marc]

I think Dan played a ruthless but very successful and intelligent game. It's just a shame Ian was sat beside him because he played a clever game too and didn't backstab as many people, he won a lot of times and without knowing he saved his ass on two occassions.

Ian won because he was the only person to evade Dan targetting him.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ian played it right, Dan played it the best.

[LemonJam]

and so it begins...

[Marc]

Dan needed to win that final HoH to win, if he had evicted Ian then he would have won.

What was he going to do if he won?... I didn't catch it properly.

[Roy Mars III]

I think Dan played a ruthless but very successful and intelligent game. It's just a shame Ian was sat beside him because he played a clever game too and didn't backstab as many people, he won a lot of times and without knowing he saved his ass on two occassions.

Ian won because he was the only person to evade Dan targetting him.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ian played it right, Dan played it the best.

Ian's game was boring and bland and should not have been rewarded

[Marc]

I understand your disappointment.. I am too a fan of the ruthless player but this was no where near his BB10 performance which was more sneaky IMO.

[Roy Mars III]

I understand your disappointment.. I am too a fan of the ruthless player but this was no where near his BB10 performance which was more sneaky IMO.

oh, yea, I agree with that. Besides the Funeral veto, Dan played much, much better in 10

[Marc]

It's a shame so many jurors get so pi**y about being played.

[LemonJam]

I'll just say that Ian considered that he was playing with human beings and was ruthless only when he really needed to be. Dan NEVER seemed to consider "hmm, this jury may be pissed off at me"

I don't agree that flashy moves = good moves. I kindof called that he'd lose once he hosted his own funeral (just saying :p) because from that point on he was playing a Russell Hantz of a game.

When someone plays ruthlessly like that, they should realise that in past seasons it doesn't always work out once you're sat with the people you pissed off holding your fate (See Alison, Nicole, Danielle [although I don't technically think the bitter votes came from her gameplay, but she still pissed them off with her confessionals], Natalie)

I still say the BB3 jury is the worst because most of them were butthurt about Danielle in the DR rather than the way she played the game. Not saying that Dan didn't play an at least interesting game, just Ian played a lot better.

[starry]

I don't like the comparison to Russell Hantz. Russell won both final competitions in his main two seasons. He was a threat in the physical game as well as the mental. There was plenty of humour to him, the ego stuff was part of his whole act. Survivor is more ruthless than Big Brother. Ian deserved to win way more than someone like Natalie ever did And of course Sandra is famously crap at competitions. Russell did the hard work and went out and found those idols for himself to help his own destiny as well as building alliances that would take him to the end.

[LemonJam]

If you're trying to say Russell was a great player then lolnope but dear God let's not make it into another of those threads because there's already about 54854398 of them floating around.

I think the comparison's very obvious - both made flashy and sometimes unnecessary moves to get to the end without considering how the jury would feel about them afterwards.

[starry]

Again, Survivor is way more brutal. And I think Russell made necessary moves in that context and established some strong alliances.

[Roy Mars III]

Dr. Will would have made the same moves as Dan and won

[LemonJam]

I think Dr Will would've found someone to do the dirty work for him. (Nicole/Janelle)

[Roy Mars III]

Yea

[Marc]

Poor Russell..

[SoBig]

Dan was going to lose no matter how he played. Since the reset button was hit the house guest were saying that they would NEVER vote for a coach to win especially one that won before. Shane, Jenn and Joe said that constantly. I knew Dan was screwed from then if he didn't sit next to someone like Boogie if he wanted to win again. In the backyard interviews Jenn and Joe basically said that Dan played the best, but he won before and they wanted someone new to win.

[SoBig]

just Ian played a lot better.
Ian did not know what was happening half of the time. He was completely clueless. Ian even believed that he created the Quack Pack an alliance that was created in week 3 before the reset.

[LemonJam]

considering Ian has $500,000 dollars and Dan has $50,000 that kindof speaks for itself

[SoBig]

considering Ian has $500,000 dollars and Dan has $50,000 that kindof speaks for itself
No. Just look at what the past house guest on twitter are saying. They all agreed that Dan played the better game and is the better player. It could have been Danielle sitting next to Dan and he still would have lost. Dan's biggest fault was that he won the game before. They were never going to vote for him to win again. What the houseguests said on the live feeds and in the backyard interviews back that up.

[starry]

Still dislike Joe. This from an interview:

Let's talk about Willie for a moment because I'm curious. There have been a lot of people wondering on the feeds, did you actually get headbutted more than once or was it only once?

It was kind of what I call a rub, we were so close, I thought he was going to kiss me at first. I was like dude, you aren't really gonna kiss a man on the show, are ya? He was pushing back on my head, he was upset wasn't he. I mean he was definitely upset, they were little love taps, 2 or 3 but they weren't hard. He was so close to me, it was either going to be a kiss or a headbutt. I didn't know what I was going to get.

[Roy Mars III]

He would have beat Jenn and Frank

[SoBig]

He would have beat Jenn and Frank
He wouldn't have beaten Frank. Ashley, Joe, Shane and Jenn would have voted for Frank.

He would have lost to Jenn too. Shane, Frank, Ashley and Joe would have voted for her.

Dan only would have won against Mike Boogie or possibly Joe. Too bad those were the people that were after him. He would have had a good shot against Janelle too.

[SoBig]

Jenn HATED Ian and loved Dan, but she still voted for Ian and Dan never backstabbed her. That should tell you all that you needed to know. Jenn even agreed that Dan played a better game.

[Marc]

So Dan wouldn't beat anybody? :pipe:

[Roy Mars III]

The not voting someone because they already won is worse than a bitter jury

[Macie Lightfoot]

I don't like the comparison to Russell Hantz. Russell won both final competitions in his main two seasons. He was a threat in the physical game as well as the mental. There was plenty of humour to him, the ego stuff was part of his whole act. Survivor is more ruthless than Big Brother. Ian deserved to win way more than someone like Natalie ever did And of course Sandra is famously crap at competitions. Russell did the hard work and went out and found those idols for himself to help his own destiny as well as building alliances that would take him to the end.

It's a social game. Bitter juries are completely fair.
Russell was never a threat. He was never going to win.
There's nothing humorous about being "such a fan" but saying the game is wrong and need to change.
Natalie was a very deserving winner. So was Sandra.
And as deserving as someone can be in this **** season, Ian was more than Dan.

These are all facts.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Again, Survivor is way more brutal. And I think Russell made necessary moves in that context and established some strong alliances.

There's nothing necessary about making alliances and then backstabbing them in the same around (which is all Russell does)

[SoBig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrCarqt8XSY
"Dan could have been sitting next to a can of ketchup and he still would have lost." "No one in the jury was going to vote for him except for maybe me."

There you have it folks. Dan could have been sitting next to Joe or Jenn and he still would have lost.

[Roy Mars III]

Terrible

[Roy Mars III]

Another reasons for no vets

[Marc]

Silly jury

[SoBig]

So Dan wouldn't beat anybody? :pipe:
Yup. He was a coach, won the game before and backstabbed nearly everyone. Even before he started backstabbing people the newbies were saying that they wouldn't have voted for a coach to win no matter what.

[SoBig]

It's a social game. Bitter juries are completely fair.
Russell was never a threat. He was never going to win.
There's nothing humorous about being "such a fan" but saying the game is wrong and need to change.
Natalie was a very deserving winner. So was Sandra.
And as deserving as someone can be in this **** season, Ian was more than Dan.

These are all facts.
You would have agreed with Joe winning over Dan? Because that's what would have happened.

[Munchkins]

:worship:
Dan deserved to be the first ever 2 time winner
still the best player in my eyes, winner and runnerup is amazing

[Macie Lightfoot]

You would have agreed with Joe winning over Dan? Because that's what would have happened.

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.

[Munchkins]

Dan never recieved a single eviction vote against him in both his series
:worship:

[Marc]

I would for once like to see a killer-player win. Somebody who cuts everybodies throats and just makes big moves. I know I know "social game blah blah blah" but it's my guilty pleasure.. give me a wicked/evil winner.

[Roy Mars III]

I would for once like to see a killer-player win. Somebody who cuts everybodies throats and just makes big moves. I know I know "social game blah blah blah" but it's my guilty pleasure.. give me a wicked/evil winner.

:worship:

[SoBig]

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.
So you think not voting for someone to win because they won before is right?

[LemonJam]

Even if they hadn't made this "anti-coach" pact wouldn't Joe, Shane, Britney, Ashley and Frank have voted for Ian anyway?

[Marc]

They should just do a season of bad ass players

[starry]

In some ways I didn't mind his gameplaying. But I just found him boring as a character, I'm not sure he made me laugh at all. His shouting and promoting of his books and website just made me squirm.

[SoBig]

Even if they hadn't made this "anti-coach" pact wouldn't Joe, Shane, Britney, Ashley and Frank have voted for Ian anyway?
Its hard to say. Since they made it. Joe or Jenn would have won against Dan. That's all you need to know really.

If Boogie and Janelle were in the jury Dan probably would have won.

[starry]

To me anyone in these jury decided shows (Survivor is another) who gets to the final is a winner anyway. Why put faith in some of these losers like Danielle, Jenn, Joe and (lol) Ashley to even think properly anyway.

[Marc]

Bad-Ass Season.

All players know it's a bad-ass season, all morals are left at the front door and the carnage begins. Somebody commission this.

[mkbb]

I would for once like to see a killer-player win. Somebody who cuts everybodies throats and just makes big moves. I know I know "social game blah blah blah" but it's my guilty pleasure.. give me a wicked/evil winner.

I think Dr Will, Boogie and Evel Dick all sort of fall into that category of an evil winner.

[starry]

I think people throw the word evil around a bit too much anyway. I'm not sure there are heroes and villains in any of these reality shows. The main crime is to be boring and Dan was I thought a bit boring. The producers seemed to be really pushing him in the HLs programs which was a bit annoying as well.

[Marc]

They don't necessarily need to be winners,

Shelly, Allison, Jase, April, James, Dick, Amber (for the LULS), Chelsia, Michelle, Jessie, Ronnie, Kristen all those bitches pls

[Roy Mars III]

90% of those people are terrible

[Roy Mars III]

I am auditioning next year so no all star season please

[BBfanUSA]

If there is ever a Good Vs Evil

Evil
Kristen
Dick
Shelly
Chelsia

Good
Frank (appearantly)
Ian? :S
Lane
There really hasn't been any good females have there?

[SoBig]

I think people throw the word evil around a bit too much anyway. I'm not sure there are heroes and villains in any of these reality shows. The main crime is to be boring and Dan was I thought a bit boring. The producers seemed to be really pushing him in the HLs programs which was a bit annoying as well.
Dan was far from boring. He was great to watch on the live feeds.

[starry]

His DRs.....just awful.

It's really hard to say who is good or evil in a game where everyone wants to win. Much of it really is perception and that is filtered through whatever storylines the producers follow.

[SoBig]

His DRs.....just awful.


Who cares? The show is edited garbage. Half of the things that you saw on the show was bs.

Danielle is not this sweet innocent girl from Alabama. She is a liar and very delusional. Ian and Ashley were never dating. They hardly even talked. Shane and Danielle were never a showmance. Danielle was just his stalker. Dan controlled the entire Quack Pack. Britney, Ian and Danielle were never going to save Dan. The plan was to get him to throw the veto so that they could vote him out. Britney was constantly trying to turn the entire house against Dan. She was constantly throwing him under the bus to people. She backstabbed him first.

The show is edited garbage.

Live feeds>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The show

[Macie Lightfoot]

So you think not voting for someone to win because they won before is right?

Even if he wasn't a former winner he wouldn't have won. If you just look at the moves he made and how he made them, he was ruthless and backstabbed pretty much everyone. If you play like that, you're playing to lose. Juries always vote for who's more likable/lesser of two evils.

[starry]

Danielle is not this sweet innocent girl from Alabama. She is a liar and very delusional. Ian and Ashley were never dating. They hardly even talked. Shane and Danielle were never a showmance. Danielle was just his stalker. Dan controlled the entire Quack Pack. Britney, Ian and Danielle were never going to save Dan. The plan was to get him to throw the veto so that they could vote him out. Britney was constantly trying to turn the entire house against Dan. She was constantly throwing him under the bus to people. She backstabbed him first.


Well all of that was intimated to some extent on the HLs. But watching the live stream you will also pick out what suits you too and probably ignore some other things, and some of those who watch the live stream I actually find very one-sided in their opinions.

And I still think Dan's funeral was one of the most ridiculous things I have seen.

[Marc]

90% of those people are terrible

You'd be terrible. Don't apply :idc:

[Donovan.]

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.

He overplayed when he got Danielle to use the veto on him so that he could evict Shane. It was just unnecessary. Sure Shane wouldn't take him, but you're pissing off an already bitter jury. Having Shane cut Ian at the f4 and cutting Shane before the f2 was his only hope. Even then the "no-2-time winner" brigade would have stopped him.

[SoBig]

He overplayed when he got Danielle to use the veto on him so that he could evict Shane. It was just unnecessary. Sure Shane wouldn't take him, but you're pissing off an already bitter jury. Having Shane cut Ian at the f4 and cutting Shane before the f2 was his only hope. Even then the "no-2-time winner" brigade would have stopped him.
Shane would have never taken him and it was 50/50 that Danielle would. Dan made the right move.

What hurt Dan is not taking Shane out at the DE. He wouldn't have won anyway. The jury weren't going to vote for a coach to win no matter what. Especially one that already won. Dan's biggest mistake was cutting Janelle and Boogie before the jury. It was 6 newbies to 1 vet in the jury. Dan thought the jury was going to vote on game play, but he was wrong.

[Bluerang1]

You guys are just butthurt. If Danielle beat Dan, I would have understood. But saying Ian doesn't deserve is win is just plain wrong. The socially awkward guy still managed to not get the Jury members to hate him. Also Big Brother has competitions regardless of what you guys say. You should be fairly good at them and at not damaging your relationships with the people voting for you to win.

Dan did play good even though I hate him, but get over it, Ian actually deserved to win.

[LemonJam]

just out of curiosity with the "anti-coach" movement, would Britney still not have been able to win? Even against Jenn or Joe?

[Marc]

James what are you on?

Joe would have beaten anybody in that final :idc:

[LemonJam]

James what are you on?

Joe would have beaten anybody in that final :idc:

ugh so true :(

[Bluerang1]

Also, So Big and Roy, you guys are always so passionate about these things haha.

[SoBig]

just out of curiosity with the "anti-coach" movement, would Britney still not have been able to win? Even against Jenn or Joe?
Joe, Wil, Jenn, Shane and Ashley all said that they would never vote for a coach. Maybe if she was up against Dan who had already won the game or a someone as useless as Joe she would win. The jury this year was terrible. They ignored game play completely.

[SoBig]

You guys are just butthurt. If Danielle beat Dan, I would have understood. But saying Ian doesn't deserve is win is just plain wrong. The socially awkward guy still managed to not get the Jury members to hate him. Also Big Brother has competitions regardless of what you guys say. You should be fairly good at them and at not damaging your relationships with the people voting for you to win.

Dan did play good even though I hate him, but get over it, Ian actually deserved to win.
Ian did not deserve to win. He was clueless for the whole series. He honestly believed that he formed the Quack Pack an alliance that was created in week 3 with Dan, Shane, Danielle and Britney. Dan controlled all of his HOH's. He had no clue that everyone was after him. Ian literally had no control in the house. Dan was playing him like a fiddle the whole time.

There is only one past BB player that thinks that Ian deserved to win and that's Evel Dick, because he HATES Dan. He is pissed that everyone ranks Dan over him.

Danielle Reyes, Brendon and Rachel, Jeff, Janelle, James Rihne, Matt Hoffman etc all said that Dan should have won.

No one in their right mind would say that Ian is a better player than Dan. Dan played Ian from the start. Ian NEVER played Dan.

[Bluerang1]

Ian did not deserve to win. He was clueless for the whole series. He honestly believed that he formed the Quack Pack an alliance that was created in week 3 with Dan, Shane, Danielle and Britney. Dan controlled all of his HOH's. He had no clue that everyone was after him. Ian literally had no control in the house. Dan was playing him like a fiddle the whole time.

There is only one past BB player that thinks that Ian deserved to win and that's Evel Dick, because he HATES Dan. He is pissed that everyone ranks Dan over him.

Danielle Reyes, Brendon and Rachel, Jeff, Janelle, James Rihne, Matt Hoffman etc all said that Dan should have won.

No one in their right mind would say that Ian is a better player than Dan. Dan played Ian from the start. Ian NEVER played Dan.

Yeah, no.

Evel Dick Donato ‏@EvelDick

Congratulations to Ian!! A very deserving winner. He beat one of the best in the game.


Evel Dick Donato ‏@EvelDick

Dan was a huge liar and that is not my thing. I don't like liars and am not one myself. Dan paid the price. Ian gave a great speech


Porsche Briggs ‏@PorscheLBriggs

Hahaha "Really? Really?" #TeamIan


James Rhine ‏@jamesrhine

Catching the #bb14 finale again and Dan's speech was crushed by Ian's. Ian owned it and Dan made lots of excuses. Dan's the best, but...


Michele Noonan ‏@neurogoddess

Congrats Ian! My pick for winner. Nerds rule! You rocked Big Brother & totally deserve it! #bb14


Mr. PEC-Tacular™ ‏@MrPEC_Tacular

Little late but a #PECTacular Congrats to, Ian winner of #BB14. You deserve it! If Dan's good....you must already be a legend!#YoureWelcome


Porsche Briggs ‏@PorscheLBriggs

So happy for Ian!


ChattyNatty ‏@ChattyNatty

WOAH! I was totally on wrong on my #bb14 predictions!Very happy for Ian though!I'm glad someone else got to experience the feel of a BB Win!


Chima Simone ‏@ChimaSimone

I didn't think Ian could win against Dan. I was wrong. Good for him--well deserved.


Britney Haynes ‏@britney_haynes

Thanks for watching! What a crazy summer! So happy for my sweet Ian Terry! #quackquack

And your rebuttal is that they don't count right? :idc:

[LemonJam]

Joe, Wil, Jenn, Shane and Ashley all said that they would never vote for a coach. Maybe if she was up against Dan who had already won the game or a someone as useless as Joe she would win. The jury this year was terrible. They ignored game play completely.

In fairness, I would say that Britney wouldn't have been able to beat Shane, Danielle or Ian anyway. I couldn't imagine the quack packers not voting for Britney over Jenn, Joe or Ashley however.

Also I wouldn't say they "ignored gameplay" because this is a social game. This is nothing in comparison ofcourse but I did an online BB (and won y'all ^_^) and I had to backstab two of my best friends in the game to get my alliance to the final 4. I lost both of their votes in the jury because I'd blindsided and betrayed them even though both of them said I played a good game. That's just on a forum, imagine if you kept betraying people when you're with them for 3 months.

One day we'll agree on something SoBig. :p Maybe next season.

[SoBig]

Yeah, no.



And your rebuttal is that they don't count right? :idc:
Read through James Rhine ‏tweets again. Evel Dick hates Dan. Same with Jessie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JSwEfcKG_hE
Porsche clearly said something different on this show. :idc:

Porsche was rooting for Ian because he is a newbie and likes him more, she didn't think that he played better than Dan.

[SoBig]

One day we'll agree on something SoBig. :p Maybe next season.
:joker:
In fairness, I would say that Britney wouldn't have been able to beat Shane, Danielle or Ian anyway. I couldn't imagine the quack packers not voting for Britney over Jenn, Joe or Ashley however.
One day we'll agree on something SoBig. :p Maybe next season.
Shane, Dan, Danielle and Ian would vote for her over those 3. Yeah, you are right. I didn't think about Dan and Ian being on the jury.

[Vladimir]

I'm happy with the outcome, they both deserved to win though.

[SoBig]

http://robhasawebsite.com/big-brother-14-interview-winner-ian-terry-dan-gheesling-danielle-murphree.html

More proof that Dan should have won. :idc:

[Roy Mars III]

Rob C always speaks sense

[Roy Mars III]

Yeah, no.



And your rebuttal is that they don't count right? :idc:

Those are all **** housemates though, who cares what they think? And Evel Dick is just sad that people don't consider him the best player ever

[SoBig]

Those are all **** housemates though, who cares what they think? And Evel Dick is just sad that people don't consider him the best player ever
My new favorite poster. :worship:

Evel Dick is just all around bitter. He gets PISSED whenever someone ranks Dan as the best or second best player ever. Its sad really. Evel Dick is not even in the top 3 players of all time.

[Munchkins]

Ew i hate evil dick
bastard should have been removed for what he did to Jen
i wanted Dani to win

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Those are all **** housemates though, who cares what they think?

:joker: True, the opinions of Grodner-***** Jessie or trainwreck Michele don't matter. The housemates only care about fame or TV time love Ian; the ones who actually care about the game were pro-Dan.

Ian managed to survive because of his vetos/HoHs, the coach's comp in Week 1 and the "magic veto ball". He 'deserved' to win but he wasn't a very good player - he played a very basic and lucky game, just like Jordan.

[SoBig]

:joker: True, the opinions of Grodner-***** Jessie or trainwreck Michele don't matter. The housemates only care about fame or TV time love Ian; the ones who actually care about the game were pro-Dan.

Ian managed to survive because of his vetos/HoHs, the coach's comp in Week 1 and the "magic veto ball". He 'deserved' to win but he wasn't a very good player - he played a very basic and lucky game, just like Jordan.
Exactly. When ********* Dr. Will, Danielle Reyes and Janelle said you played the best game you know you are doing something right.

LMAO @ bringing up that loser Jessie.

Ian said it best. He lucked into his win like Bob from Survivor did.

[Macie Lightfoot]

So you're using Janelle as evidence for Dan being robbed of his win. The same Janelle who voted for Ivette to win BB6. Right...

This is just the Samoa finale over again. Dan lost because of what he did. He gave them all reasons to be bitter. Everyone just needs to get over it.

[SoBig]

So you're using Janelle as evidence for Dan being robbed of his win. The same Janelle who voted for Ivette to win BB6. Right...

This is just the Samoa finale over again. Dan lost because of what he did. He gave them all reasons to be bitter. Everyone just needs to get over it.
Did he gave a Jenn a reason to be bitter? She said that she did NOT VOTE for Dan because she wanted someone NEW to WIN THE GAME. She was anti-coach since the reset. She even admitted that Dan played a better game.

[Macie Lightfoot]

And that's her decision to do so. That'd make it 5-2 and Dan still loses significantly.

[SoBig]

And that's her decision to do so. That'd make it 5-2 and Dan still loses significantly.
What did Dan do to Ashley and Joe?

Those were the three main players that were very anti-coach. Nearly everyday on the live feeds they said that they would NEVER vote for a coach to win. Joe - "A Coach will win this game over my dead body." I knew Dan had zero shot at winning BB the night the reset button was hit. Those players wanted the coaches out and they would never vote for any of them if they made the final 2 against a newbie. I said that several times on here too.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Ashley was closer with Ian and Dan was HoH when Joe was evicted. Juries vote for who they like more, or in the case both people are hated the lesser of two evils. They all loved Ian and nobody really liked Dan that much. If you're not more likable than your opponent, you won't win. I know you're blaming it all on the fact that Dan was a Coach, but with the way he played do you actually think he'd get any votes if he wasn't a Coach? If so, see Russell vs. Natalie, Rob vs. Amber, etc. History repeats itself.

[Donovan.]

As much as I hate to admit it, Ian played the best game this season. And that's why he won. Sure Dan made some amazing moves, but the game isn't about manipulating or winning comps, it's about making it to the end with the votes to win. That's what Ian did. I can't sit here and say, "Jodi played the best game...until she was evicted on night one," so I can't take it seriously when people say think Dan played the best game.

[TheManWhoLaughs]

This is just the Samoa finale over again. Dan lost because of what he did. He gave them all reasons to be bitter. Everyone just needs to get over it.

I don't really get many of the Hantz comparisons because Natalie repeatedly manipulated him into doing things that were better for her than for him (like getting rid of John and Shambo). Ian had absolutely no strategic input in anything except being the 5th vote for the Quack Pack.

Ian only got as far as he did because of comps, to an even greater extent than any of the 'controversial' winners (Lisa, Jordan, Amber etc). It's a legit win but a bit underwhelming and luck-driven like Fabio's on Survivor.

[SoBig]

Ashley was closer with Ian and Dan was HoH when Joe was evicted. Juries vote for who they like more, or in the case both people are hated the lesser of two evils. They all loved Ian and nobody really liked Dan that much. If you're not more likable than your opponent, you won't win. I know you're blaming it all on the fact that Dan was a Coach, but with the way he played do you actually think he'd get any votes if he wasn't a Coach? If so, see Russell vs. Natalie, Rob vs. Amber, etc. History repeats itself.
Dan was liked in the house. People at the start didn't trust him because of his BB reputation. Dan only started to receive hate after Frank and Boogie were nominated and then again after the funeral, because everyone thought it was real. Dan treated all the house guest with respect. That's why they all trusted him at the end and got them to do whatever he wanted them to.

Ian wasn't loved in the house. Only Dan, Ashley and Britney loved him.

But that should tell you how much of a joke the jury voting is sometimes. Ozzy would have won South Pacific on a 8-1 vote over Sophie and Coach if he had made it to the final 3. Even though his game play wasn't that great outside of comp wins. But the jury is always right though right?

[SoBig]

I don't really get many of the Hantz comparisons because Natalie repeatedly manipulated him into doing things that were better for her than for him (like getting rid of John and Shambo). Ian had absolutely no strategic input in anything except being the 5th vote for the Quack Pack.

Ian only got as far as he did because of comps, to an even greater extent than any of the 'controversial' winners (Lisa, Jordan, Amber etc). It's a legit win but a bit underwhelming and luck-driven like Fabio's on Survivor.
Natalie never manipulated Russell Hantz. Get that right. But you are right about Ian. Dan and Britney controlled Ian's every move.

I still can't believe that some people are still crediting Ian for creating the Quack Pack. That alliance was already formed a week before Dan pulled him into it. It was either going to be Jenn or him as the 5th member, but Dan thought he could trust Ian more, so they picked him. He didn't even come up with the name. Britney did.

[LemonJam]

Ozzy would have won South Pacific on a 8-1 vote over Sophie and Coach if he had made it to the final 3. Even though his game play wasn't that great outside of comp wins. But the jury is always right though right?

He would have indeed, because he had a great social game. The people on his tribe respected him and Sophie and Coach didn't seem popular with people on their own tribe, let alone the others. Ozzy's strategic game wasn't great, but that just goes to show how important the social game is.
The BB14 jury just didn't respect Dan's game. Maybe had the game had contestants with different moral compasses he would've won, but he didn't seem to realise how much the jury put morals into their decision.

[Marc]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... BBadAss season

[Roy Mars III]

I wouldn't say Russel and Dan were that similar, many of the other contestant's biggest complaint with Russel was that he used his anger and almost bullied people to make them do things. Dan wasn't like that al all.

They are both top players though

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Natalie never manipulated Russell Hantz. Get that right.

If you want to completely deny her of credit, you can at least say that Russell made some terrible jury decisions on his own by getting rid of John and Shambo, as he would have had a decent chance of beating them.

Dan, on the other hand, didn't really have anyone he could go up against who he had a shot against given the anti-coach sentiment. It's one thing to mess up a potentially winning game and another to go balls out because you know you don't have much of a chance.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Natalie never manipulated Russell Hantz. Get that right.

Of course she didn't :joker: keep telling yourself that.

I wouldn't say Russel and Dan were that similar, many of the other contestant's biggest complaint with Russel was that he used his anger and almost bullied people to make them do things. Dan wasn't like that al all.

They are both top players though

It's not a personal comparison, just a situational comparison. And Russell's far from a top player. Getting 2 out of 18 possible Jury votes is not indicative of a "top player."

[SoBig]

Joe said he wish he had voted for Dan after re-watching the show and learning new information.

He hated Dan because he thought the funeral was real and he thought Ian created the QP....

What a fool.

[starry]

If you want to completely deny her of credit, you can at least say that Russell made some terrible jury decisions on his own by getting rid of John and Shambo, as he would have had a decent chance of beating them.


I don't think Natalie deserved to have a shot against Russell either. Anyway Russell won the popular vote and that says something in Survivor at times.

[Macie Lightfoot]

I don't think Natalie deserved to have a shot against Russell either. Anyway Russell won the popular vote and that says something in Survivor at times.

Natalie definitely deserved a shot. And the popular vote never means anything.

[starry]

Totallly disagree on the popular vote. There have been some good winners of it on Survivor, sometimes preferable to the jury vote winner. The storyline of the show is followed by the audience and not by the cast of course, so naturally the popular vote can be far more acceptable.

[SoBig]

I don't think Natalie deserved to have a shot against Russell either. Anyway Russell won the popular vote and that says something in Survivor at times.
She didn't. Most people agree.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Totallly disagree on the popular vote. There have been some good winners of it on Survivor, sometimes preferable to the jury vote winner. The storyline of the show is followed by the audience and not by the cast of course, so naturally the popular vote can be far more acceptable.

So you're saying that the vote of the public, who sees ~42 extremely edited minutes for every 72 hours (effectively less than 1% of the time), is more acceptable than the vote of the people who actually played? The storyline may be followed by the audience but the storyline is written by the cast. So naturally the real ending is the one that matters.

The only rule to the game is that you win if you get people to vote for you at the end. You can't win on your own, nobody's ever cast four jury votes for themselves. If you can get enough people to vote for you, you win. People like Russell don't see this and people like Natalie do. This is why the Natalies and the Sandras will always beat the Russells in Survivor. Nothing's unfair about it, nothing makes someone like Natalie undeserving of the win.

[starry]

but the storyline is written by the cast.

I never knew the cast did the editing. :D

And seeing people suck up to other competitors before they leave can be kind of pathetic. I liked the winner of Cook Islands but seeing him having to suck up to some arrogant idiot (called Adam I think) before he left because this tosser said he wouldn't get his vote unless he did what he said was one of the worst moments of that season. Some of those on the jury on these US shows are just the stereotypical stupid arrogants.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Yeah but I mean that has to be done in, well, any social game. Nobody's ever going to give half a million or a million dollars to someone they hate. At the end of it all, your fate isn't in your own hands so you have to try to appeal to the jurors since they control everything. Like it or not, that's how it works in pretty much any show. That's just life.

[starry]

The social game is primarily building an alliance to get you to the end, not depending on the losers (often pretty incompetant people within the game) judging who should win. Juries decide who wins Survivor and the American BB, but they don't most other reality shows. And as you say people often judge just based on who they think needs the money, American shows are often obsessed with the money aspect. I really wish that was less and it was more about simply winning for the gameplay and the title.

[Macie Lightfoot]

The social game is primarily building an alliance to get you to the end, not depending on the losers (often pretty incompetant people within the game) judging who should win. Juries decide who wins Survivor and the American BB, but they don't most other reality shows. And as you say people often judge just based on who they think needs the money, American shows are often obsessed with the money aspect. I really wish that was less and it was more about simply winning for the gameplay and the title.

Building an alliance and getting to the end is strategy, not social. And just because other shows don't have a jury decide the winner doesn't mean that Survivor and BB are wrong, they're just a different breed. A brilliant one at that. That's what makes everything with the Jury so fascinating, there's a bit of a "you screwed me, now I screw you" element that's the ultimate revenge. If you can't factor that into your gameplan and you're not weary of that, then you deserve to lose. I never said that who needs the money more plays a role, and it really doesn't. It's just an excuse for voting who you like more, which is how the Jury works every single time. Whoever the Jury likes better among the two finalists wins.

[starry]

Building an alliance and getting to the end is strategy, not social.

I disagree. To build an alliance you have to get on with people, they have to trust you. That is part of the social game.

And something like Survivor is such a brutal game that sucking up to people really doesn't fit in with the gameplay at all. The truth is that jury members will never be objective enough anyway, and to have the worst gamplayers judging the best is rather stupid.

[SoberLikeGizmo]

Dan lost because he back stabbed most of the jury after promising them he would take them to the end/near the end. He made too many alliance, at least with Ian he stuck to his alliance and did not back stab them and said multiple times he would rather be evicted then to back stab his alliance.

Ian was a great winner, fan of the show, won competitions and was a loyal and honest person to the people he was allied with (minus Frank of course)

[SoBig]

Dan lost because he back stabbed most of the jury after promising them he would take them to the end/near the end. He made too many alliance, at least with Ian he stuck to his alliance and did not back stab them and said multiple times he would rather be evicted then to back stab his alliance.

Ian was a great winner, fan of the show, won competitions and was a loyal and honest person to the people he was allied with (minus Frank of course)
Dan didn't make too many alliances. If he played any other way he would have been out the door week 8 or soon after that. Majority of the house was against Dan, because of he was.

Dan wasn't going to win regardless. There was only one vet in the jury. 6 vs 1 and majority of the jury was anti-coach. They didn't want a coach to win no matter how well they played. Joe, Shane, Ashley and Jenn said that numerous times. If Boogie and Janelle were in the jury no doubt in my mind Dan would have won.

Dan controlled the entire house. Ian had no clue what was going on 90% of the time.

This is a great recap.
http://tvrecaps.ew.com/recap/big-brother-season-finale-recap-ian-dan/

[SoBig]

Ian did not even control his HOH's. Dan and Britney controlled the first one and Dan controlled the others.

[Munchkins]

Dan really shouldn't have let Janelle go out before jury :(

[SoBig]

Another great read.

http://robhasawebsite.com/ian-terry-defeats-dan-gheesling-big-brother-14.html

Even Joe said he regretted voting for Ian after watching the season a few days ago. :joker::joker::joker:

Dan was clearly the best player in the BB house. When you have past players congratulating Ian(Janelle, Rachel, Danielle Reyes etc.), but still saying that Dan played a much better game. You know who should have won.

[SoBig]

Getting rid of Shane was a great move on Dan's part. Danielle said she probably would have taken Shane and that she was going to throw part 1 or part 2 of the final hoh, so that she wouldn't have had to evict either Dan or Shane. Dan read it perfectly. Neither Danielle or Shane were planning to take him to the final 2.

Dan got both Danielle and Ian to throw the first part of the HOH to him. That alone should have gotten him the win.

[Roy Mars III]

Dan really shouldn't have let Janelle go out before jury :(

one of his best moves, she is terrible

[Macie Lightfoot]

I disagree. To build an alliance you have to get on with people, they have to trust you. That is part of the social game.

And something like Survivor is such a brutal game that sucking up to people really doesn't fit in with the gameplay at all. The truth is that jury members will never be objective enough anyway, and to have the worst gamplayers judging the best is rather stupid.

The only fundamental difference between Survivor and BB is the environment. The social standards will apply in both games and sucking up to the Jury happens in Survivor a lot. You have to do it to get a Jury to vote for you. You said it yourself, jurors will never be objective because as people you can't be objective. Everyone has a favorite and a least favorite and of course when half or one million dollars is involved, it will play a factor. It's not stupid to have the jurors decide the winner (I'm not going to refer to them as the worst players because you have to beat some people out to make the jury) because that's a fundamental part of Survivor and BB. It's how the game has been played for more than a decade and just because someone who played one half of the game really well and the other half really poorly didn't end up winning, doesn't mean that the game is broken. It's just Russell Hantz all over again and that was exhausting enough both times.

[SoberLikeGizmo]

Dan didn't make too many alliances. If he played any other way he would have been out the door week 8 or soon after that. Majority of the house was against Dan, because of he was.

Dan wasn't going to win regardless. There was only one vet in the jury. 6 vs 1 and majority of the jury was anti-coach. They didn't want a coach to win no matter how well they played. Joe, Shane, Ashley and Jenn said that numerous times. If Boogie and Janelle were in the jury no doubt in my mind Dan would have won.

Dan controlled the entire house. Ian had no clue what was going on 90% of the time.

This is a great recap.
http://tvrecaps.ew.com/recap/big-brother-season-finale-recap-ian-dan/

Dan made a final 2 with Dani, Ian and Frank
a final 3 with Jenn and Dani
and a final 3 with Dani and Shane

he also was in a alliance with Britney

Way too many alliances with 5 of the people he had alliances with being in the jury

Yes he played a good game to get the end, but he burnt too many bridges and screwed too many people over in the jury.

[SoBig]

Dan made a final 2 with Dani, Ian and Frank
a final 3 with Jenn and Dani
and a final 3 with Dani and Shane

he also was in a alliance with Britney

Way too many alliances with 5 of the people he had alliances with being in the jury

Yes he played a good game to get the end, but he burnt too many bridges and screwed too many people over in the jury.
He wouldn't have made it to the final 2 if he played any other way. He would have been evicted in week 8. He had to change his entire game plan after Frank nominated him.

Frank had a final 2 deal with everyone in the house and he got caught. Same with Britney. Dan made sure that everyone he had a deal with stayed quiet. Ian had multiple final 2 deals himself. Dan deserves a lot of credit. No one would have predicted that he would have made it to the final 2 especially after Frank won HOH in week 8.

Frank does not get Jenn to use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 2 with him.

Jenn does not use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 3 with her.

And so on and so on.

Dan had complete control over the BB house. When was the last time a player had that much control? You have to go all the way back to Will in BB7, but he got caught towards the end. Dan never got caught.

[starry]

The only fundamental difference between Survivor and BB is the environment. The social standards will apply in both games and sucking up to the Jury happens in Survivor a lot. You have to do it to get a Jury to vote for you. You said it yourself, jurors will never be objective because as people you can't be objective. Everyone has a favorite and a least favorite and of course when half or one million dollars is involved, it will play a factor. It's not stupid to have the jurors decide the winner (I'm not going to refer to them as the worst players because you have to beat some people out to make the jury) because that's a fundamental part of Survivor and BB. It's how the game has been played for more than a decade and just because someone who played one half of the game really well and the other half really poorly didn't end up winning, doesn't mean that the game is broken. It's just Russell Hantz all over again and that was exhausting enough both times.

For the audience there are absolutely huge differences, for the reasons I gave. And it is a program made for the audience, you can't ignore them. If you don't have an audience you don't have a show. And Big Brother is decided elsewhere by other means anyway. And those in the final are by definition better than those who got eliminated earlier. People basically watch Survivor for the cut-throat gameplay, that is what the shows are all about.

[SoberLikeGizmo]

He wouldn't have made it to the final 2 if he played any other way. He would have been evicted in week 8. He had to change his entire game plan after Frank nominated him.

Frank had a final 2 deal with everyone in the house and he got caught. Same with Britney. Dan made sure that everyone he had a deal with stayed quiet. Ian had multiple final 2 deals himself. Dan deserves a lot of credit. No one would have predicted that he would have made it to the final 2 especially after Frank won HOH in week 8.

Frank does not get Jenn to use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 2 with him.

Jenn does not use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 3 with her.

And so on and so on.

Dan had complete control over the BB house. When was the last time a player had that much control? You have to go all the way back to Will in BB7, but he got caught towards the end. Dan never got caught.

But a major part of the game is to get jury votes and Dan failed to get them because he double crossed people. Regardless if you played a good game you have to take into account the Jury, in this case Dan failed, yes he had to change his game to get to the end but by doing so he screwed over the jury. He basically played Russell H from Survivors game and we all know how that turned out.

Again Ian never double crossed the jury bar maybe Frank and Jenn and that is why the jury handed him the win.

[SoBig]

But a major part of the game is to get jury votes and Dan failed to get them because he double crossed people. Regardless if you played a good game you have to take into account the Jury, in this case Dan failed, yes he had to change his game to get to the end but by doing so he screwed over the jury. He basically played Russell H from Survivors game and we all know how that turned out.

Again Ian never double crossed the jury bar maybe Frank and Jenn and that is why the jury handed him the win.
Ashley and Joe.

Drew, Mike Boogie, Dan(bb10) and Evel Dick all double crossed people and they still won. BB juries are usually good at rewarding the best player with the win.

[Macie Lightfoot]

For the audience there are absolutely huge differences, for the reasons I gave. And it is a program made for the audience, you can't ignore them. If you don't have an audience you don't have a show. And Big Brother is decided elsewhere by other means anyway. And those in the final are by definition better than those who got eliminated earlier. People basically watch Survivor for the cut-throat gameplay, that is what the shows are all about.

There aren't big differences and you didn't list any big differences. You just keep saying "well Survivor's more cutthroat" but they're the same. Big Brother is just Survivor in a house. At the end of the day you have to remember that these shows started off as social experiments. The whole premise of Survivor was "k let's put these 16 strangers on an island and have them vote each other off and let's see what happens" and same with Big Brother, just in a house. Of course with how American TV is, these shows have evolved into being all about the game, but the same rules still apply. People still act the same. The more likable finalist being the winner isn't something new, it's happened season after season, year after year, for more than a decade. The game isn't broken because someone was "robbed" when they lost fair and square.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Ashley and Joe.

Drew, Mike Boogie, Dan(bb10) and Evel Dick all double crossed people and they still won. BB juries are usually good at rewarding the best player with the win.

Drew was more liked/respected than Cowboy, Boogie was more liked/respected than Erika, Dick was more liked/respected/favored by Grodner than Daniele. Same holds true, Ian was more liked/respected than Dan. Happens every time.

[SoBig]

Drew was more liked/respected than Cowboy, Boogie was more liked/respected than Erika, Dick was more liked/respected/favored by Grodner than Daniele. Same holds true, Ian was more liked/respected than Dan. Happens every time.
Porsche was more liked than Rachel.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Except for the fact that the Jury consisted of three self-loving veterans (not counting Daniele in this group obviously) and two newbies who sucked up to the veterans nonstop.