Jeff Probst says future Survivor juries might watch challenges

Winning challenges does not matter on Survivor. Well, that's not entirely true. Many a player has saved themself from certain elimination by claiming a super-fashionable immunity necklace after pulling out a big win.

But why don't challenge wins matter when it comes to Survivor juries voting for a winner? Time and time again we have seen juries petty much totally discount challenge wins as a factor in selecting who should take home $1 million and the title of Sole Survivor. Look no further than just last season on Survivor 43, when Cassidy Clark and Owen Knight combined for six individual immunity victories yet could only muster up a single jury vote between them, compared to Mike Gabler's seven.

Why are challenge victories constantly swept aside by juries when deciding on a winner? One theory I've floated for years is that the jury members are not there to watch the challenges as spectators, so their dramatic impact is severely watered down.

Consider the first member of the jury: They only see one individual contest, and that is as a competitor, not a spectator, so they never get to watch a player hang on for dear life and gut out an impressive victory, or watch someone stage an incredible comeback in a puzzle, or come up big with a game-saving win when everyone wants them out. All that jury member sees is someone walking into Tribal Council wearing a necklace. And jury members who follow may be there competing in some of those follow-up immunity contests, but they are often solely focused on their own performance, not watching others.

Compare that to hidden immunity idols and advantages, which are played to great fanfare and dramatic effect at Tribal Council. An illustration showing the gap between challenge and idol impact can be seen in season 35, Survivor: Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers. In that season, Chrissy Hofbeck tied a Survivor record for most immunity wins by a woman by nabbing four individual victories — an impressive feat for a 46-year-old competing against a much younger cast. However, the jury was far more swayed by the super-dramatic "Ben Bombs" that kept being detonated right in front of their face by eventual winner Ben Driebergen, who scored five jury votes after playing three immunity idols in a row at Tribal Council. Chrissy — who won her challenges without an audience — got just two.

With all that mind, would Jeff Probst and the producing team ever consider allowing jury members to actually watch the challenges? If the jury is trying to make a well-rounded decision on all three aspects of the game — outwit, outplay, outlast — wouldn't watching the physical element of the game play out with their own eyes aid in that endeavor? There's even a past model on the show to go by.

Three different times, Survivor has used the Redemption Island twist, where players were voted off their tribe and then had to compete in duel against other voted-off players to stay in the game. In all three of those seasons, the players still on the tribes would watch those duels as spectators in a space called Redemption Arena. Couldn't producers arrange a seating area for current jurors to watch challenges? If they have a sit-out bench, they could certainly have a jury bench as well.

We went straight to the source and asked Probst if he would consider letting Survivor juries watch challenges. "You want to come join our team?" responds Probst. "You have great ideas. Yes, we have considered letting the jury watch the challenges, and we've almost done it a couple of times in the past. Maybe your suggestion will be what tilts the scale, or maybe we've already got it planned for a future season!"

Probst agrees that giving the jury more information can only be a good thing, especially with the rash of landslide 7-1-0 blowouts in the past three seasons. "It's a valid point that it might influence their decision," he says." If we do end up doing it, you can take partial credit for helping sway us."

If it leads to another "F--- you, Brad Culpepper!" moment, we will consider the swaying well worth it.

Sign up for Entertainment Weekly's free daily newsletter to get breaking TV news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars, and more.

Related content:

• Brandon Cottom blames Survivor birdcage miscue on 'wet underwear'
• Jeff Probst says he makes Survivor for kids
• Survivor 44 recap: Danny goes on the (gas) attack
• See more of Carson's 'miserable' night in Survivor deleted scene
• Jeff Probst addresses whether Survivor jury members should be sequestered individually
• Matt Blankinship reveals current status of Survivor romance with Frannie
• Jeff Probst clarifies Survivor Tribal Council bag rule
• Jeff Probst reveals the Survivor concept season we never saw
• See the Survivor 44 merge name that got shot down by the tribe
• Survivor 44 players argue in favor of picking food over competing in challenges
• Carolyn Wiger reveals unseen 'gushing blood' injury of Survivor