Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvio
In my opinion, the Allstars should consist of the winners only.
Here's why:
1 - I just think it's the logical thing to do. They were the ones that won their crown fair and square, and therefore, it would make sense to give them the chance to battle it out for the ultimate winner. A bit like a tournament final.
2 - People want many certain HMs to go in - Makosi, Nikki etc, people that HAVEN'T won. There are so many diverging opinions, and nobody will agree, and there will always be someone that is pissed off. But if all the winners went in, then (even though people might still be pissed off) at least there is a legitimate, justified, and logical reason why the winners are there (seeing as they won their respective shows).
3 - I also think it's the most logical thing to do in terms of HM popularity anyway. Afterall, each winner of each year was, in terms of voting, the most popular of that year. So I think the majority would be pretty happy anyway. (I know Cameron would be there, which people wouldn't like, but it wouldn't be right not to represent every series).
4 - Would consist of just 11 HMs. Not too many, and so the perfect amount anyway for these final 2 weeks IMO.
What does everyone think?
Craig BB1
Brian BB2
Kate BB3
Cameron BB4
Nadia BB5
Anthony BB6
Pete BB7
Brian BB8
Rachael BB9
Sophie BB10
And whoever wins BB11
|
You describe Big Brother as 'fair and square'?
