In Survivor fandom the term "Perfect Game" refers to when a winner plays the entire game without getting any valid votes cast against him/her and then sweeps the jury votes at the FTC. In 33 seasons only 3 winners have managed to achieve that difficult accomplishment: JT Thomas (Survivor: Tocantins), John Cochran (Survivor: Caramoan) and *Jeremy Collins (Survivor: Cambodia). In addition to being downright impressive, if you played a "Perfect Game" it means that in basic principle you fully achieved the objective of the game of Survivor: You stayed in a safe position throughout the game to make it to the FTC and once you got there you had a good resume and enough relationships to win you the votes. Does this mean that JT, Cochran and Jeremy are the three best winners in Survivor history? Read on to find out why I think not.
#1 Bitter jurors had a role in the jury sweeps
In Tocantins runner-up Stephen Fishbach steered the direction of the game calling most of the shots while JT went along winning some challenges and making social relationships. Jurors like Taj and even Tyson probably felt betrayed by Stephen and JT for voting them out but because Stephen called the shots, Stephen got the heat from them at the FTC. In Caramoan runner-up Dawn Meehan was an emotional train wreck throughout the season often making camp life miserable for people and she got a lot of heat for that at the FTC. She also betrayed Brenda who was probably never going to vote for her after that. So while Cochran did call the shots and was a worhty winner Dawn had a terrible social game and Sherri was a goat so yes, I would say a bitter jurors influenced at least a couple of the jury votes in Caramoan. In Cambodia everyone came to play and play HARD and with the unique voting bloc dynamic that season I do not think anyone was bitter going into the FTC. In addition Jeremy most certainly did play the best game of the Final 3 but I think Spencer deserved at least a couple votes. Jeremy sealed that he wouldn't get that when he pulled the baby card at the very end. That clearly swayed people like Abi and maybe Ciera so while bitter jurors did not affect the Cambodia jury sweep, the sympathy vote did and that's close enough for me.
#2 A few votes cast against you does not mean you are any worse of a player
In fact it may mean you're a better player. A player usually gets votes cast against them because they are a threat to win the game, especially in the post-merge portions of the game. Other than in a very few certain situations (Cochran might be one decent example) when you can be the best player of the season and still avoid getting votes, if you're not getting votes it often means that you're not the best player of the season, but maybe just the best player left in the FTC. Need an example? Kelley Wentworth was the best Cambodia player, hands down. She was the last boot. Jeremy deserved to win against Spencer and Tasha but not against the entire cast of end-gamers. So, long story short: A winner like Adam Klein (Survivor: Millennials vs Gen X) that got only six votes cast against them at three tribal councils all season and swept the jury is no worse, and possibly a better winner, than a winner JT who swept the jury but got no votes cast against them all season, because of it.
#3 You do not have to sweep the jury to be a lock-in for the win
I can name a lot of winners, including six in the last ten seasons (!) that did not sweep the jury but did get the vast majority of the jury votes and were a lock-in for the win. Take Tyson Apostol's win in Survivor: Blood vs Water for example. Tyson got 7 out of 8 jury votes and the only one he failed to get was Vytas' and that's because Vytas told Tyson the day he was voted out "If you vote for me tonight I will not vote for you for the million". Tyson took the risk and took Vytas out anyway. Vytas kept his "promise" and did not vote for Tyson but even admitted later that he knew Tyson was going to win handedly and that if he thought it was at all close he would have voted for Tyson because Tyson was the best player and he wanted to assure that the best player would win. To me this near jury sweep is no less impressive than an actual jury sweep.
The consensus: It is impressive to go through the entire game without getting any votes and still reaching the final tribal with a winning resume. I have the three "Perfect Game" winners ranked 9th, 11th and 17th out of 31 so by no means are they bad or undeserving winners. However, they are not the best of the best and looking forward expect it difficult for a "Perfect Game" winner to rank at the top of winner rankings because in order to achieve a "Perfect Game" you often have to be the best FTC player but not the best player of the season or win the game or the jury sweep because of a bitter jury.
* = Jeremy Collins was a "Perfect Game" winner because he swept the jury after not having any valid votes cast against him. He did however get three votes cast against him at the Final 6 Tribal Council, which he canceled out with a hidden immunity idol.
