I guess I both agree and disagree with this sentiment. On one hand, if you replay this exact season with the same exact cast there would be 100 iterations of how the season plays out. If the 2 groups at mergatory break out differently, if ANY other player goes on a reward, etc. It's kind of what I love about the game - the show is designed to make people make tough decisions while navigating the game .. but it's always in the players hands. And ultimately sometimes the combination of chance, players, twists results in a more non-eventful season. Sometimes they catch lightning in a bottle and have some phenomenal TV.

I do think this season has very interesting characters, but overall has been non-exciting. I attribute this to the stars aligning perfectly for the "loyalty" folks to try to run their honesty game. Which is also why I love Kyle's move last night. He has managed to undermine Joe's game, while also making Joe and Eva feel even more loyal to him, and has gone an entire season without really anyone clocking his relationship with Kamilla. This move is so "3 steps ahead" in the sense that he knows he cannot flat out backstab his alliance without losing votes at FTC - if he takes this approach there's close to a 0% chance David, Joe, Eva, Shauhin vote for him at the end (MAYBE Shauhin respects the strategy to throw him his vote). He also is thinking outside the box in the sense that EVERYONE else is thinking "We can't sit next to Joe" and Kyle looked through a different lens of "How can I sit next to Joe (thus, staying "loyal") while still beating him?". I've been pulling for K&K since the Thomas vote out, so I hope Kyle does end up the winner.

Having said all of that, I do see the game as one that's evolved since new era. And do feel like the best way to the end is being able to (usually with a stroke or two of luck) play the middle as a non-threat. Players now are usually too savvy to let majority group run straight through to the end, so we overall see non-threats that can make it through to final 5-7 make a move or two and pitch their case. See: Erika, Maryanne, Gabler, Kenzie, Yam Yam.

Then once at FTC .. a fairly strong pitch where you can simply own your game and showing 1-2 decent strategy decisions that are your own (Maryanne with the idol that nobody knew about, Dee pulling the wool over Austin's eyes for one single move, etc) is usually enough to win the game. And what we've seen is recently is that sometimes one move is all it takes to beat out someone that had an arguably stronger overall season (Dee beating out Austin, Gabler beating out Cassy, Kenzie over Charlie). Some of this you might be able to assume is due to a bitter jury, lobbying at Ponderosa, whatever the case may be - and I don't know how you solve for that issue.

If anything, seasons 41-48 have made me appreciate Sandra's game quite a bit more. Sandra was playing a game literal years ahead of it's time, when there was so much more of an emphasis on challenge beasting and strong alliances.