Survivor: Is Ponderosa unfair to the Final Three castaways?

We take a look at the current Ponderosa format and how sequestering jury members might produce a fairer Sole Survivor verdict.

Ever since Survivor: Micronesia, viewers have had the privilege of watching short videos of the jury members hanging out after their torch is snuffed. At Ponderosa, the jurors get a chance to eat whatever they want, reflect on their journey, and most importantly, discuss who they plan on voting for at Final Tribal Council.

Although this isn’t a facet of the game that has received much criticism, there have been a few cases of past castaways complaining about this process. Just ask Russell Hantz about Ponderosa! But there’s certainly a basis for this argument, especially after a season like Edge of Extinction.

Ponderosa encourages groupthink

Spending several days together at Ponderosa is just the right recipe for changing someone’s mind. Russell Hantz in Samoa is the perfect example.

Erik Cardona was the original member of the Samoa jury. During his first Tribal Council as a juror, he was thrilled to watch Russell play his idol correctly and was totally rooting for him. 18 days later, Erik is giving a passionate speech on why Russell doesn’t deserve to win it all. During these 18 days, Erik spent a ton of time with people that openly couldn’t stand Russell and hated how he played.

This example shows how much of an impact eliminated players have on other jurors. When someone it bitter at one of the finalists, that attitude can easily rub off. Besides Samoa, the spread of jury bitterness has directly affected a few seasons including Survivor: All-Stars, Heroes vs. Villains, Kaoh Rong, and you can even throw Guatemala in the mix.

The bottom line is that jury members have been and will continue to be swayed by hearsay. Some to a greater extent than others, but Ponderosa will always have that effect. I will say though, that besides Edge of Extinction, the Ponderosa format has had less of an impact on newer seasons.

As Survivor has evolved, a greater percentage of castaways in a season understand that lying, cheating, and stealing are a part of this game. This new generation of players are students of the show and respect big moves instead of getting offended by them. The new Final Tribal format also helps contain bitterness and prevents extreme swings of momentum.

How could Survivor change the Ponderosa format?

Although Ponderosa probably won’t ruin a future season, it’s clearly not a perfect process. One way production could try to limit bitter, eliminated players from impacting the jury would be by individually separating them. With each jury member sequestered from each other, they will be judging the Final Three solely on what they have experienced personally and what they witness at Tribal Council. They won’t be tainted by hurt feelings and exaggerated stories from other jurors.

It’s true that Ponderosa does give savvy jury members the opportunity to persuade others to vote for the most deserving player, but history has proven that it doesn’t always work out that way. I would love for production just to try a sequestered jury for one season. Then we would have a better idea of how social dynamics at Ponderosa affect the most important vote of a season.