Nicole Franzel, a two time "Big Brother" veteran, made history last week by being the first woman to win "Big Brother" against a male runner-up. She made it to the final week before even being nominated and had one of the most incredible social games that the show has seen. So why is the validity of her victory being questioned by thousands of viewers?
I really don't understand why it's even being said that Nicole didn't deserve to win this season. I suppose just because she didn't blast through the competitions? "Big Brother" is not just about competitions. Also, I'd like to note, I wasn't a huge fan of Nicole throughout the season (although she was my top pick in her first season on "Big Brother 16" two years prior), but as the game went on, I began to recognize her strategy as one of the best strategies to ever grace the "Big Brother" house.
She came in as a returnee (veteran), so she was already a huge target. She was the first Head Of Household, making her more of a target. Throughout the season, she was consistently either with the power source or had an indirect hand with almost every nomination including weeks when Paul, Victor, and Natalie were in power. She played an outstanding game of manipulation and won her fair share of competitions.
Dr. Will Kirby, winner of "Big Brother 2"
When we think of the greats of the game like Dr. Will, Dan Gheesling, and even Derrick Lavasseur, they all had incredible manipulation games. Nicole's move of convincing Natalie and Michelle to put up Paul and Victor was comparable to Dan's move on "Big Brother 14," which was convincing Danielle to to use the veto on him during the final eviction of the season. The fact that she was even able to convince Paul to take her to the final two was so clearly reminiscent of Derrick convincing Cody to take him to the final two during "Big Brother 16" on her original season.
Derrick Lavasseur, winner of "Big Brother 16"
On Dan's second season, he barely won any competitions and yet made it to the final two after already having won his first season because of manipulation. Dr. Will didn't win a single Head of Household and Veto had yet to be introduced his first season. Still, he won the game through manipulation. Derrick won a handful of competitions, just like Nicole, and was the clear winner because of his use of manipulation. Nicole's game echoed those of the greats, so why is she getting so much sh*t for it?
Andy Herren, winner of "Big Brother 15"
Something similar has actually happened in the past. Andy Herren made history by being the first openly homosexual man to win the game. He had a similar game strategy to those that I've mentioned, lying in wait as he pulled the strings from behind the scenes. He also won his fair share of competitions, even guaranteeing his spot in the final two by winning the last Head of Household of his season. Yet, the general consensus was that he was a "floater" and did not deserve the win. When people list the great players of big brother, Andy's name usually doesn't come up until fifth, sixth, seventh in line. Why is that?
Jun Song, winner of "Big Brother 4"
Another instance of this was after Jun Song won "Big Brother 4" by just manipulating the hell out of everyone on her season. She was labeled many names, but maniacal genius was not often one of them. This was only two seasons after Dr. Will had forever been imprinted in our minds as a manipulative genius. Does this say more about our society than the actual game?
I really deplore the idea of going straight to, "she's a woman, so she's not getting proper credit," but I really don't see another valid explanation as to why people are suggesting she didn't deserve her win. It seems that when straight men play the same game they are revered as genius masterminds, but when the winner happens to be female or gay, they don't get the same amount of recognition. She played a near flawless game this season, and she deserves the credit that other great players got.
On the other hand, Paul had a better than average social game, but nothing to write home about. Yes, he saved himself when he needed to and that deserves credit as well. However, if Paul would have won this season, it would not be right to put him in the same category as Dr. Will, Dan, or Derrick among other true "Big Brother" heroes. I would be more likely to place him with Rachel Reilly, James Rhine, and Frank Eudy, who all had to fight for their place again and again because their social games were not up to par with players like Nicole, Dr. Will, Derrick, Dan, and others. When it comes down to it, you can see that the players who played games more similar to Paul's did not always win because the game is more about manipulation than competition.
However, when someone does win by blowing competitions out of the water, they aren't considered a mastermind of the game, and often aren't mentioned with the top "Big Brother" players of all time. This is because they didn't master the game, but they mastered the competitions. Yet, thousands of people are saying that the game is rigged and that Paul deserved the win.
Nicole 100% deserved this win. If Paul had won, I would have said good game and moved on. Yes, he deserved it, but he wasn't a "Big Brother" legend. Nicole is getting sold short on her game for reasons unknown. These are my opinions and conclusions that I couldn't help come to after the backlash. I am open for all opinions and theories of this season and those past. Feel free to start a discussion in the comments about game moves and strategies as you saw them.
