Is being in the bottom 3 actually helpful?

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Historically, being in the b3 is the kiss of death. Each week's eliminee is pretty likely to come from the previous week's b3. Surprise b3's lose their momentum and go from front-runner to out in a hurry. Ocassionally you see a brief rally for someone in there for the first time, but the main way out of the dumps is to give great performances (e.g. Elliot last year - perrenial b3).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is true, but we should compile data on it. Where can I find show by show breakdowns for previous seasons, so I could see who was bottom 3 and who got eliminated quickly?

My intuition tells me that the boottee is likely to NOT have been in the b3 the previous week more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to suggest it was "more likely than not," just that it happens quite a lot and you don't really see this "rally" effect any more than you would expect from a normal distribution and regression to the mean. It's an incredibly small sample, but last season's elimination order is kind of interesting. There were only two "surprise" eliminees -- meaning people who hadn't been in the bottom 3 or its functional equivalent (both Melissa and Kevin had been bottom-feeders from 24 -> 12). But on the other hand, someone appearing in the b3 for the first time usually got at least a one-week reprieve:

12: Ace Lisa [Melissa]
11: Bucky Lisa [Kevin]
10: Ace Katherine [Lisa]
9: Elliot Paris [Mandisa]
8: Elliot Ace [Bucky]
7: Chris Paris [Ace]
6: Paris [Kellie]
5: Elliot [Paris]
4: Katherine [Chris]
3: [Elliot]

I would still stand by my statement that appearing in the bottom 3 is the "kiss of death." The only person who seemed to have much of a sustained "rally" after being in it was McPhee.