+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

  1. #1
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    81

    Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    Who has the archive? As the players start anticipating the merge, I have been wondering this: In the 20 seasons of "Survivor," what percentage of ultimate winners have been members of the tribe that had more members at the merge? That is, do the members of the majority tribe consistently protect each other after the merge, or is it really a new scramble for everybody?

  2. #2
    The First And The Best pawpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Michigan, U.S.A
    Posts
    2,176

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    Quote Originally Posted by fan999;3868597;
    Who has the archive? As the players start anticipating the merge, I have been wondering this: In the 20 seasons of "Survivor," what percentage of ultimate winners have been members of the tribe that had more members at the merge? That is, do the members of the majority tribe consistently protect each other after the merge, or is it really a new scramble for everybody?
    Part of a list:

    Borneo--5-5
    Guatamala--5--5
    Vanuitu-6-4 winner from minority
    Cook-4-5 winner from minority
    Fiji-4-6 winner from minority
    Paulu-9-1 winner from majority
    Panana- 6-4 winner from majority
    China- 6-4 winner from majority
    Samoa- 8-4 winner from minority
    Gabon- 4-5 winner from minority
    Tocantins- 6-4 winner from minority

    Minority winner come when the majority isn't really one tribe but 2 or more fractions, they boot all the minority tribe down to 1-2 players then turn on themselfs letting the minority hang around as swing votes.
    Last edited by pawpaw; 04-02-2010 at 02:47 PM.
    I Think The American Public Will See I'm Ethical And Honest

    Richard Hatch Season 1

  3. #3
    FORT Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    Richard Hatch demonstrated in season one how the majority tribe could work its will on the minority by voting them off one by one (though Kelly briefly interupted the process). Most of the early seasons went the same way. Then players like Rob Centerino (sp?) started creatively recombining coalitions from different tribes, and Burnett introduced new variations like the hidden immunity idol into the game to keep the suspense.

    Still, the majority tribe should be able to have one of its members win if they stick together. Last season was an example where the majority failed miserably.

  4. #4
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    105

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    Last season was also a textbook example of a Majority tribe that wasn't really a tribe. They had splintered into 2 factions after voting out Yasmine. When Russell Swan was taken out those two factions degenerated into Boys v. Girls. Except you have to feel bad for John and Eric because no body would have suspected that Casting would be dumb enough to cast 2, maybe 3 people, that knew each other before going on the show.

    For the list Paw Paw: Australia 5 - 5

  5. #5
    PWS
    PWS is offline
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    From pawpaw's list it certainly looks like it's better to be in the minority tribe at the merge! Who woulda guessed!

  6. #6
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    105

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    Being in the minority often forces you to band together and it usually results in a group that comes out unified. All the troublemakers and floppers have been voted out so now you have a tight group to take advantage of cracks in the other side.

  7. #7
    FORT Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    The mistake too many majority tribes make is to have a too obvious pecking order. So if the tribe goes into the merge with six members, but one or more of them believes they will be the first to go of their group, then those members are easily swayed to join with other players.

    I remember Richard Hatch being asked about strategy several years ago. He said that the best strategy had never been utilized, namely to form an alliance and stick with it through the whole game. Apparently he thought his season didn't qualify because of Kelly's rebellion. I think to make his suggested strategy work there has to be an understanding that everyone in the alliance is equal. Really, after the merge the weaker players are actually more desirable to face at the final tribal council, so that shouldn't be too hard to convey.

  8. #8
    PWS
    PWS is offline
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    Quote Originally Posted by rjstf;3869367;
    The mistake too many majority tribes make is to have a too obvious pecking order. So if the tribe goes into the merge with six members, but one or more of them believes they will be the first to go of their group, then those members are easily swayed to join with other players.

    I remember Richard Hatch being asked about strategy several years ago. He said that the best strategy had never been utilized, namely to form an alliance and stick with it through the whole game. Apparently he thought his season didn't qualify because of Kelly's rebellion. I think to make his suggested strategy work there has to be an understanding that everyone in the alliance is equal. Really, after the merge the weaker players are actually more desirable to face at the final tribal council, so that shouldn't be too hard to convey.
    And of course if that gets conveyed in one of those "break his tile" type challenges it just rubs it in.
    I think the only way things could work well would be to have a somewhat secret (at first) alliance of 4 with the overt agreement that once the numbers get to the F4 it's everyone for themsellf.... And to have 4 pretty equal members in strength, none of them obviously weak, so they won't be targeted by other team members when the 4 are still in a minority.

  9. #9
    *Until Next Season...* karalott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Forever in the Gilles & Chmerkovskiy Camp
    Posts
    17,600

    Re: Is it a long-term advantage to be in the majority at the merge?

    Thinking you're in the majority alliance or flaunting your arrogance at it can certainly have its downfalls. Vecepia won Marquesas at the stupidity of the Rotu 4, who probably would have been the final 4 had they not made it known to Neleh and Paschal in a challenge that they were going after Vee, Sean, and Kathy. Those 2 still had the numbers to turn the tables and change the course of the game. Danni Boatwright is another good example of someone who won who was really outnumbered at the merge, but she stayed UTR and the other tribe picked away at each other. Also, we've seen side alliances spring up that have ended up blindsiding people who thought they were golden (Micronesia). I don't think being in the majority works the way it did in the earlier seasons-especially with tribe swaps and idols that are more frequent. Those in the minority have nothing to lose, and if they can find who's at the bottom of the totem pole and work on them they may have a shot.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.