We probably get about 2 unpredictable head to heads per series if we're lucky.

Mess if they'd used this format in the last summer series then the first eviction (based off noms - not the silly members club thingy) would've been Sarah vs Chad :skull: and the series before would've seen Jedward vs Kim mid-series :skull:

I don't agree, the first one could've went either way.

Face to face will surely happen...:laugh:

I couldnt predict the last one or this one, so its already 2 for 2 haha.

I think the reason to dislike it could be ‘the big characters are more likely to go’, but ‘predictable’ just isnt a reason really.

Never been a fan of head-to-heads tbh.

I actually much preferred the way BBAU did things - it was always the three with the most votes, with extras being added if there was a tie for third place. It kept things interesting as it wasn't an either/or situation - plus it made the result less obvious if there was going to be a clear winner with the most votes to save.

The big problem with just 2 up is where the house has split into teams (insiders/outsiders; cool gang/uncool gang, etc.).

The bigger team block votes (after a bit of unsubtle hinting) and puts up two of the smaller group every week until only one remains.

So it's always going to be head to head ? .
I'm curious how things would of gone if Roxy was up as well

Awful

Now I'm more mad, both of these would have been ideal.

I did want 2 people up each week but I can see how damaging it can be to a series. I think we need 3 up rule instead :joker:

It just needs to be consistent but we don't want nearly all the house up

3 up would work but only if it was VTS

I love it. It makes it more dramatic and powerful. Head to head, normally rival camps, 50% of your favourite going once they're up.

Though I do wonder if all we're going to get this series is "Hardeep vs. X", because he's going to be nominated every week until he leaves... if that happens...