True, but the person can only win the game if the other players believe he or she deserves to win. If they don't think that surviving at RI is worthy of the million, they will vote for one of the two finalists that never went to RI.

If 2 of the 3 Finalists turn out to be coattail riders, then the jury has a way to say "hell no, you didn't play." Of course, if the returnee can't win immunity at both F5 and F4 or make some very strong game moves, very likely he/she is going to get bounced.

That is one reason why I nixed Georjanna's idea that the last returnee is automatically F3. No, that person has to prove that he/she can survive within the game to get to the finals.

In support of this idea, I can see how producers would have foreseen that the first returnee could get bounced like Matt. This ensures that the returnee is on the jury, no matter what. That means consequences, and Survivor likes consequences for actions.

It also means that the dominant alliance, if it chooses to pagong, risks having the minority tribe make up more than 50% of the jury. I think that is more interesting than when the one tribe dominates both the Finalists and the Jury.

I totally agree that in this scenario, RI starts to over-shadow the game. Although, because of the segment length, it won't really, not unless they show a lot more of life at RI. (Get ready for RI clips like the Ponderosa clips.)

Jeff said in his blog this week:
I don’t think we’ve even touched what RI will bring to this game. For those of you on the fence, give it a chance. Let’s see where it goes.

It's been dull with the simple duels. I think more personnel would enliven the arena.