Those who watch Survivor when Big Brother's out of season are well aware of the variation that Mark Burnett put on the end game the last two seasons - three people in the final two. In the Cook Islands, it worked to absolute perfection; had the game played out to a normal F2 conclusion, it's likely that Ozzy would have won the last immunity, voted out Yul, and won the game with what would likely have been a 6-1 vote.

Considering the quality of winners we've had lately as well as a few anticlimactic finishes, would it be that bad to consider experimenting with a final three? Sure, you can't exactly telegraph it, but it could work.

Let's say they use a nine-member jury a la Survivor. With 14 people in the house, the first two are gone for good, but the third person voted out joins the jury. However, in order not to make it obvious what's going on, the houseguests are not told that this person is a juror. Evicted houseguests go about their merry way into the jury house with the rest of the hamsters none the wiser, until there are only four left. A big, grandiose HOH competition takes place, and the hamsters are a little confused, but considering the average intelligence of a Big Brother contestant, I doubt they catch on.

The week plays out mostly normally until the eviction, at which point Julie says, "Congratulations on making it to the final three. You are now at the last stage of the game, where you will be addressed by the jury." And we then have all nine jurors getting the chance to address the hamsters and vote for a winner.

There's just one problem. Given the average intelligence of a Big Brother contestant, the possibility of a game-exploding three-way tie increases exponentially. So does the possibility of me laughing heartily alongside the rest of the viewing audience.