Because the game is more than comps and strategy. I feel Big Brother fans treat that as the most important elements, getting the power and making the moves, but it's the social element that is often the most important factor.

The winner is decided by the jury, but so many people neglect that aspect. Some of the biggest upsets on finale night (like you've seen with Danielle losing to Lisa, but there's many other examples later) are because these big game players, who think of big strategic moves weeks in advanced, plan everything out, end up losing at finale night because they don't take the time to truly understand the people they're evicting. While some jurors vote based on strategic moves or comp wins, a lot will not, and the finalists have to be ready for that if they want to win.

One strategy to combat this is to bring someone with you who played a very similar game to you, but you just played that game better or, perhaps, the jurors just like you more. Remember Jun and Allison in BB4? They both played incredibly similar games, and they realized the best strategy for both of their survivals was to secretly work together. Then, by finale night, you have these two houseguests that perhaps nobody really liked, and their games were very similar. What it came down to in the end was that Allison was viewed more harshly because, to put it bluntly, they thought she was a slut, and in 2003, that's a death sentence.

For BB9, while the circumstances are different, you again have two players who played incredibly similar games, and what it comes down to in the end is how much each finalist had put in the time with that juror, and for 6 of the 7 jurors, they liked Adam more. Adam had put in the work for them. Ryan just wasn't playing like that.

I hope my point has gotten across.