Big Brother finale spoilers ahead, obviously!
Did they make the wrong choice in bringing the person they brought to the end? That's always going to be a question when the final Head of Household winner doesn't end up actually winning the game. Could they have won if they'd evicted the other person? It's a question that was asked when Cody brought Derrick to Final 2 in Season 16. And it's certainly a question on Big Brother fans' minds today, after Paul Abrahamian managed to win that last HoH competition, only to lose to Nicole by a jury vote of 5 to 4. Could he have won against James?
Naturally, this conversation came up when the press was speaking with Paul after the Big Brother Season 18 finale. Podcaster Rob Cesternino talked to Paul on Wednesday night about his plan to bring Nicole to the end, and why he thought that was a better move than taking James. Here's what Paul had to say...
So it would seem he figured he had a good shot at winning no matter who he brought. And in the end, Paul admitted that maybe there was some emotion involved in his choice to send James out...
In his interview with EW, Paul talked in a bit more detail about the two different scenarios he had in his mind, and how he thought the votes would've broken down, depending on if he took Nicole or James.
Of this Final 3, Paul and Nicole were the most deserving for Final 2, if we're looking at gameplay. Even as someone who was rooting for Paul to win, I can't say that I'm overly disappointed that Nicole won and he came in second. It's a solid Final 2, which can't always be said at the end of Big Brother.
There's one thing that Paul brought up that always confuses me a bit, because he's certainly not the only player to say it, but it's the perceived emphasis on competition wins as a major credit to their gameplay. Some houseguests talk up their (or other players') competition wins as though the wins alone are reason to win the whole game. As a Big Brother fan, I've always looked at competitions as being a good way to claim power in the house when a houseguest needs to make a move, secure an alliance, prove loyalty, or target a threat. With that in mind, good gameplay should be measured less by how much power a houseguest won throughout the season, and more by what they did or didn't do with that power. Paul had moments of power throughout the season, and when he didn't, he compensated well with his social game. Maybe he needed to play that part up more to the jury. Who knows if it would've made much of a difference though.
I do think Paul's gameplay was better and more entertaining than Nicole's, with the exception of his jury assessment and management. A crucial part of winning, which Nicole obviously had more awareness of and experience with than Paul did. Perhaps, if he gets a shot to play the game again, he'll be more mindful of that.
In the meantime, based on his interviews, it seems like Paul's walking away from this season in good spirits. From his interview with Rob Cesternino, he seemed pretty thrilled to know he has fans who loved watching on the feeds.
Hopefully we haven't seen the last of your boy in the Big Brother universe.
Watch Paul's full interview with Rob Cesternino (and Rob's other backyard interviews) next...