Goat Strategy

The Goat Strategy is a common strategy in Survivor where a player aligns with an unlikable castaway (or castaways if there are three finalists) with the goal of taking them to the Final Tribal Council for a better chance at winning more jury votes and becoming the Sole Survivor. Such unlikable castaways are referred to as "goats".
The most recognizable manifestation of the goat strategy occurs after the Final Immunity Challenge, where the challenge winner votes to bring the least likable contestant to the finals with them. Alternatively, a player that does not win the challenge may portray themselves as a "goat" to convince the challenge winner to bring them to the end. If the challenge winner happens to be the least likable amongst the semi-finalists, their competitors may pitch their case in an attempt to convince them to bring them to the end. In addition, a player who is aware of their unlikability could use their "goat" status in an effort to convince their tribemates to take them to the end over a larger threat.
==Etymology==
The term "goat" was coined in a forum post by the user sunsawed on the Survivor Sucks forum. In that post, sunsawed described a voting bloc of four, with each member serving a role ostensibly in leading to the bloc leader's victory. The "goat", in particular, is selected specifically because they are viewed both as an "easy opponent" to beat at Final Tribal Council, and as a loyal number for the alliance.https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/survivorsucks/the-fox-the-bear-the-goat-and-the-bunny-t10101.html
==History==
In , the strategy was first employed in the game by Brian Heidik, when he took Clay Jordan to the Final Two due to him not being well-liked by his tribemates. While Brian won in a close 4-3 vote, most players taken to the end with the strategy have received few jury votes, if any.
As a result of Brian’s strategy, many players in subsequent seasons have formed alliances with players with the strategy in mind, with varying degrees of success. 
In , the prospective "goat" Lillian Morris won the Final Immunity Challenge. Knowing she was not going to win against Sandra Diaz-Twine or Jon Dalton at the Final Tribal Council, Lillian opted to take Sandra to the Final Two.
 saw Cirie Fields implement a counter-strategy to the goat strategy. At the final six, Cirie realized that multiple players were contemplating bringing Courtney Marit as a "goat" to the Final Two. Believing that this would deprive her of a possible seat at Final Tribal Council, Cirie successfully coordinated a plan to blindside Courtney.
In and , Russell Hantz took Natalie White and Sandra Diaz-Twine, respectively, to the Final Three, attempting to use the strategy under the belief that he could beat both players easily. Due to his poor jury management and arrogance, however, Russell lost overwhelmingly to both Natalie and Sandra in each scenario.
In , the goat strategy was notably used with two players as "goats" when Rob Mariano brought his ally Phillip Sheppard to the Final Tribal Council due to Phillip not being well-liked by his tribemates and Natalie Tenerelli because of her dependency on Rob during the season.
In , Abi-Maria Gomes attempted to leverage her unlikability in an unsuccessful effort to convince Michael Skupin and Lisa Whelchel to keep her as a "goat" before she was voted out by the two, a decision that contributed to the two finishing as co-runners-up against Denise Stapley. Additionally, Denise and Malcolm Freberg preferred to advance in the game with more respected castaways rather than Abi-Maria. 
In , Kass McQuillen made it to the final three, in part due to not being well-liked by her fellow cast members, and was intended to be taken to the Final Two employing the strategy (with Kass even reminding Woo of this in her pitch). However, Woo Hwang infamously ended up taking Tony Vlachos, who convinced him to take a supposedly more honorable route to the end.
The forced fire-making that debuted in has led to similar strategies from seasons with a Final Two where a Final Immunity Challenge winner chooses to save an unlikable player or a player argues that they themselves are less likable in order to convince the Final Immunity Challenge winner to save them (forcing the two other players to make fire). This strategy of players attempting to convince the challenge winner of their own inferior win equity was notably implemented by Tommy Sheehan in and Erika Casupanan in , both of whom ended up winning their respective season.
==Impact==
Jeff Probst has stated that the Final Three was introduced, in part, due to the blowout Final Two wins resulting from the strategy being used.https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-fire-with-jeff-probst-the-official-survivor-podcast/id1673596832?i=1000610798404
==References==
Category:Strategy
Category:Gameplay
Category:Survivor (U.S.)
Category:Survivor (franchise)