Top 5 Most Controversial Big Brother Winners 

people always say that the jury being bitter was why Paul lost, which it was a factor, but the main reason why they lost was because they sucked at the jury question, which is THEE deciding factor on the winner. There's been times where a bury or jury lost that bitterness overtime Nicole and Da'Vonne for example. After Nicole voted for Da'Vonne, she was bitter and made it clear she didn't want Nicole to win. But as the finale was getting closer, Da'Vonne was starting to change her opinion, and jury questions 100% did change her opinions on Nicole, and we saw that when Da'Vonne's vote being the deciding factor and Nicole won due to Day voting for her If Paul watched their old season, and took notes on how to please a jury, then he could've won. Paul is an amazing player, but lacks social intelligence when it comes to the jury.

@@Chris-ot9bk Adding onto that? Paul tried to frame Jason and Alex's evictions on Josh&Christmas. Paul won F5 veto, didn't use it /when the two who went rogue on them last week hold all the power/, and was all surprsied pikachu face when Alex was evicted and said "Not my fault! I only could have used the veto on you but I didn't!" Then Paul wins F4 POV and... evicts Kevin. So by all means? Alex and Jason /should/ have voted for Josh over Paul. According to Paul's own words? Josh and Christmas played him for a fool not just once (Jason's eviction), not just twice (intimidating Paul into not using POV), not just three times (evicting Alex), but FOUR TIMES in three weeks. Paul failing at the jury was just salt in the wounds. The chance either Alex or Jason were going to vote for them was so infinitesimal that Josh could have just sang "I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves!" and still won.

@rob how should Paul get karma for literally should had won twice karma for him for being a beast and the greatest player to never win would be also the greatest player to win over den gj casual

Odd this is in the comments when it was a number in one of his last karma videos. Almost word for word too. 🤭

Right, they also blindside the show-only-viewers that may not feel like he was that bad. Similar, Cam from this season has some 😬 moments and if CBS waits until the finale to address them it’d be awkward to say the least.

And it also was confusing for the casual audience who didn’t see most of his controversial behavior in the episodes. It was just such a weird choice to protect his image in the episodes all season (and let him break have-not rules without consequence) only to throw him to the wolves during the live finale.

Yup! CBS are very weird with how they treat players who do shaky things in the house. They protect them on the episodes and to the public until they no longer can.

I also wanna say that the viewers are to blame. You can’t ASK for justice AND NOT EXPECT IT TO AIR! If they want us to know what is going on and why, please show the footage and THEN talk about it. It’s a serious deal and it HAS to be uncomfortable in order to progress. It’s real life and these are real people WITH CONTROVERSIAL OUTLOOKS ON LIFE! It annoys me to see people complain about bad behavior, which exists btw, and then they want it to not air or be talked about. I prefer the S15 way, which was they aired most of the comments and they talked about it despite it being so uncomfortable to watch. I also believe S15 should’ve been used as the biggest example of what goes on in the world when it comes to race, but they handled that okay and not really well. S21 wasn’t terrible at all and it was time to have a conversation about HOW their behavior can be seen and why it comes off as racist even when I don’t think Mechie was racist and as for Jack??? No comment 😄

@@JoseSena-gs4tz yes!! I think 15 did a great job of it and 21 should’ve done that instead. The way 21 did it felt like it was a stunt to save their image for not airing any of it at all. It felt like they were pandering to the viewers for sweeping it all under the rug.

i’m so glad he lost to nicole

But he deserved to lose the first time lol. I thought the second time was less funny cause it was a bitter jury

@@colebeck6528 Bitter jury shmitter jury. Paul tried to sell the fiction that Josh & Christmas went rogue on him... and were able to do it TWO WEEKS IN A ROW. Then they were able to fleece Paul into wanting to go into the final three with these two people who, by Paul's *own words*, played them for a fool - not once. But twice. Meaning now? They did it /thrice/ Why /shouldn't/ Jason and Alex have voted for Josh? After all - he was somehow able to go rogue on Paul in plain sight.

Paul had zero jury management. Even continued to lie in the goodbye messages the second time being on the show

And Cody winning AFP was the icing on the cake!

Quite literally the ugliest moments of the season. Nicole had TWO CHANCES

I didn’t watch the season live, but I was yelling at them through the TV when I did watch it. It was infuriating.

With the double eviction, getting Christie out was the right move. Had she won that veto, she could have gone to the end. It would take a quite few comps wins, but the remaining comps were doable for her as well. Not getting Holly out at 5 was their undoing. Had they did that, one of them, at least, would have gone to the end as Tommy and Jackson had to go after each other in the next round.

@@shellym79Beth lmfaoo I forgot about that

Nicole wanted to evict them both times but Cliff prevented her from doing so

And Paul outsmarted him in every other lol

@@itzwakk335 Considering the outcome, it looks like that didn’t matter. Paul tried to work the jury as they were getting eliminated and Josh’s honesty exposed Paul’s game.

@lemonsastraightuprapstress yeah i think we can all agree Paul played a more dominant game but Josh outsmarted Paul in the most critical area

In addition to goodbye messages, any remaining chance Paul had to win went out the window with jury questioning. I don’t who Paul was trying to fool in addition Paul not owning their game. Meanwhile, Josh did the number one thing when it comes to jury management: owning your game.

@@itzwakk335couldn’t have said it better

Dan was likely going to struggle for a win against any of the non-coach players. I think Britney said a bottle of ketchup would have won against Dan. He might have eked out a win against one or two (which is why he tried to take Jenn and Danielle as far as he could), but even then I'm not sure. With that said, Dan's social game was not good in season 14 - he was never rude (well, maybe to Danielle, after he just could not take her anymore), but he clearly couldn't connect with most of the people in the game aside from Britney (you could tell he really enjoyed spending time with her). I still cringe at the memory of him repeatedly telling Jenn how great it was that she helped him be more understanding of gay people, or whatever it was he said. Even if it was genuine, I doubt she took it that way.

The audience liked her

It wasn't satisfying. It wasn't Sophie making Coach look like the fool and bully the audience saw him as, and winning while she did it. It was a bunch of people deciding one player shouldn't win because if their behavior, and other seat happened to have a Josh in it.

@@liamthompson7853 the comment doesn’t speak of Josh being deserving though so unsure where your comment is going. It’s more of an insult to Paul that the almost first boot won over him. Josh isn’t a good player in any game he plays, the only reason he wasn’t first boot in the Challenge was because someone injured themselves. You just read what you wanted. Nobody is putting josh on a pedestal, they’re doing what you said they should be saying. 🤭

@kirstybrown1185 I mentioned the Coach thing because there were elements not present in the Paul loss that made the Coach one so satisfying. Like, Coach lost in a way that *hurt Coach*. Paul lost. Paul didn't lose on a way that was personally upsetting to Paul, unless you count the vote totals, which could have happened with any player. That's what was missing to make it satisfying, IMO.

@@liamthompson7853 Rigged seasons with the players giving a big F U to a production rigged season right at the end is always satisifying, no matter who it is. Just like it would have been satisfying if Boston Rob lost Redemption Island, and was very satisifying to see Steph lose Guatemala.

Says a lot, don’t even know who that is until I googled her. She won to spite the Rooneys. No one liked her but they love drama. 🤣 I love our country and how natural our trolls come out. 🤭

To be fair, America hated at least 5 house guest in BB 15 and Helen wasn't even in the top 3... Edit: I just realized you said BBUK and I was talking about BBUSA 😂😂😂

Not only that but it's worth pointing out Danielle knew the rules going into the house.

@@Terestrasz I don’t get your issue. It was season 3, if anyone didn’t know the rules, they’re idiots. Nothing else about it.

​@@kirstybrown1185 Not an issue at all - she probably should have known that "Oh shit - those people I evicted can see this" since that's how it worked last year. The jury voting against Danielle for what she said in the Diary Room and feeds about them was valid - it was just an oversight in the rules. Much like how in Amazing Race, a task of "Make x amount of money selling these items" was exploited by Ken & Gerard because they just sold a bunch of fruit for dirt cheap and kept going back for more. Or how Colby in Survivor brought a Texas Flag as his personal item in Survivor, and used it as a tarp. Within the rules, but "Oh, we didn't think about this".

I always find that it's rarely a type of game that fans think don't deserve to win, but generally a demographic of player they always tailor excuses to. Why Kaycee didn't deserve to win is why some other dude did, ya feel me

@@ashen_roses I’m a gay woman, and I absolutely believe Tyler played a better game than Kaycee. Both were great at comps, both had great social games, but Tyler ran the strategy of that season. Kaycee’s strategic game was basically nonexistent. Speaking of demographics, Rockstar was never going to vote for a man over a woman, and Sam voted for Kaycee because she believed she needed the money more. And Scottie didn’t vote for Tyler because he thought the audience would hate Tyler the way we hated Paul. There’s nothing Tyler could do to change any of those things. Bayleigh’s vote was complicated, because it stemmed from her blow up at Tyler, which happened over a miscommunication, iirc. She misunderstood something he said and it spiraled from there. I also remember him saying he didn’t need her vote to stay in the house that week (he was nominated by Haleigh in the hacker comp) and Bayleigh thought he was saying he didn’t need her jury vote? So the only jury vote he really could’ve changed was Faysal, who voted for Kaycee because she won a bunch of end game comps.

@@JNDReacts just because something is said, doesn’t mean it’s true. You’ll be called gullible if you believe everything. Are you implying that not a single person you mentioned, didn’t want to mention they were bitter, sore losers? I don’t buy that for one second. Excuses are great, not always accurate. We have no reason to think we know why each vote was made. Unless you’re a telepath. Your sexual orientation was neither relevant or gives you the credentials to decide people’s motives. 🤣🤣

@@kirstybrown1185 Even if just one of the people I mentioned had changed their vote, Tyler would have won. Out of three people, I think there’s a good chance that at least one of them was telling the truth about why they voted the way they did. As for my sexual orientation, it was relevant because the person I replied to claimed that Kaycee’s win is discredited by fans due to her demographics, which include being gay and a woman. So I stated those things about myself in order to make it clear that my opinion wasn’t based on those biases.

Not really for me. Tyler’s did originally play a game to where he could have beat anyone sitting next to him, but then he gave the win anyway, especially since he admitted he did prioritize being showmance in his final speech. Between the two, I would have voted for Kaycee since she, in some facet, did successfully played a game that the jury (including those who voted for Tyler) was trying to play themselves.

@@marklisowski6549 also both are really well liked. like yes, Tyler was the better player, but Kaycee also did really well and before I got into BB, I saw people talk about other winners that were controversial.

what does tyler being in a showmance have to do with him losing lol@@marklisowski6549

Do you want the person who played better but sucks as person to win, or do you want the undeserving other seat to win?

​@@liamthompson7853 a win-win situation for production, but a lose-lose situation for the audience

Correction: Heroes vs. Villains. The first time? They were newcomers - they made mistakes. It's completely fine to do that. The second time? They made the EXACT SAME MISTAKES - and made even DUMBER mistakes. So... how'd you two even make it to the finals your first time? For that matter, how'd you even make it past your first elimination cycle...?

Tyler is not a winner & can't be included in the list

@@Josh-uw4yo Obviously he could be since there were literally two examples on this list under, "It's not about the winner but about the game the runner-up played."

*raises hand* I was happy that Kaycee won. But I also would have been happy if it WAS Tyler - because I thought BOTH palyed a good game for different reasons.

Think you misunderstood the list babes. 🤭😅 Kaycee would’ve been on it, not Tyler. Even then. She’s nowhere near as controversial as the ones on the list and there’s no way you can rationalise she is. You’re just bothered. The concept isn’t happy to see lose, it’s gutted to see win. You’ve just flipped everything to create your own narrative. How odd of you. 🤭🤷‍♀️

@@BortSamsung but the person on the list was the person who won. That’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying a non winner deserves to be on this list.

He should’ve taken James to final 2.

Wjat a terrible take. Josh is genuinely up there for worst houseguest to ever show up on the show.

​@@ryanward5770Nice destroyed mirror

@@ryanward5770 Worst person? Yes. I won't argue. But as a plalyer? He saw Paul fucking up and took advantage.

But Paul only dominated the game because production rigged it for him. Instead of being a good player, and being more like Cody, or Xavier he went on to harass his fellow houseguests. He 100% deserved to lose, and I'm glad he did.

So that was BB19, not BB21 😂

Not even that. Natalie was *really* liked. People respected her. Nobody liked Josh. They just hated Paul even more.

“I am 150% confident with my vote”

His GAME wasn't controversial. The other picks only cover the actual games they played during the season, not how they behaved outside the game. Also he got out of jail a decade ago and completely turned his life around getting sober and helping others get clean so there's not really a point to bringing it back up when it has nothing to do with his game.

No, they actually got to return home & watch the episodes there. So it definitely wasn't a good format.

Paul messed up a LOT more than the goodbye messages. That was just salt in the wound.

Honorable mention for sure.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Peridiam is little burnt out of talking about the Pandora’s Box twist, which the video more about the winner themselves. When Rachel got to end, people did start to root for her over the two newbies. Also, between two vets ousting the newbie’s weakest competitor at 6, Kalia incorrectly for Adam over Shelly that round as well, Adam not using the veto at Final 5 to send Jordan home on Rachel’s 3rd HoH and Porsche opting to take a strong competitor at Final 4, blaming Pandora’s Box can only go so far. Yes, It did help the 2 vets but they could have easily picked off at 5 and 4 as well. Also, in retrospect and if remove that twist, people do think whoever, between Jordan and Rachel, survived at would go on to win. I do agree with that, why is I always thought that Pandora’s Box was unnecessary than too game breaking

id say josh kaycee michie lisa and rachel

to at least some extent I don't agree with any except maybe Cody. idc if ppl wanted Vanessa to win, Steve deserved it and even made the right move evicting Vanessa. It paid off for a reason. Funny how no one discusses how salty she was when evicted. The pre juror battle back twist saved Rachel actually. Boogie and Will needed each other to be unstoppable though I will say, he needed Will evicted to win so I'll give you that. He also needed to win final 4 HOH so he wasn't targeted

Cody’s win is overrated on several levels and I hate how long it took me to realize that. As for Steve, his win isn’t that controversial since he’s still a pretty respected winner, and he earned his win, but yeah the love for Vanessa definitely made people annoyed that he won over her!

Eh. Most everyone wanted Vanessa to win - but he evicted Vanessa. So he made the right choice at the right time. Like Jordan.

@@Terestrasz some people need to understand that wanting someone else to win doesn't me that the winner is controversial. Vanessa was one of the best players, but Steve made the right move evicting her (which Vanessa agreed with) and he's likable. I would argue Kaycee isn't controversial either. Yes Tyler was the better player, but both him and Kaycee were pretty liked in the house and both were amazing in their own ways, but Tyler was better. It's weird to me how people say Mitchie isn't a controversial winner even though before I got into BB, I knew about all of the gross shit him and other house guest did and said.

No. Steve isn't controversial for evicting Vanessa in the finale 3 and then winning. That's stupid. Vanessa couldn't have possibly won the jury because she was ON the jury.

That wasn't even a rule back then (they decided that rule during BB22 when people online tried to claim Memphis said it until they looked into it and saw that he didn't), if it was people like GinaMarie would have been expelled.

@@davidmernick7360 I am aware of that. The reason I say that Jack would likely been expelled has he and Jackson said the N-repeatedly would in light of Jack’s prior controversy, where he was given a warning. While I don’t think either of them would have expelled if they actually did, I can see, in light of the issues with JC (getting nearly expelled) from the season prior that Jackson and Jack would likely have been on very thin ice. In addition, a few live feed updaters note that people were so turned off by how the first 3 week went down that it causing people, even causal viewers to stop watching. Even if production likely didn’t care of the live feed updaters, Jack’s little joke in week 4 would have been the final straw. While the joke itself is minor, it would have been the final straw, despite warnings, to rule Jack as too controversial. Even though BB production has been very loose at adhering to there rules, they have, in In least in the past, shown they will have eventually have there limits, which, had Jack actually said something like, would have really tested their limits. With that said, it is clear that Jack didn’t actually say, regardless if it got actually dispelled.

This is a little ahistoric. At that point the only other winner under her rules etc was Will, who did fuck all to manage the jury, and specifically talked trash... and the biggest reality star of the era was Richard Hatch. Danielle was playing a villain in the THICK of the villain era. Her strategy only didn't go over because the rest of the house were a lot like the rest of Survivors second season. Indignant at the idea that people might play the game in a cuthtorat manner, then proceeding to crush dreams as ruthlessly as the villain with a sense of moral justification.

@@liamthompson7853 Part of the problem for Danielle was that Richard and Will never really hid their games, while Danielle was their friend, their confidant, then they'd go home and learn what she'd said. It may not have been fair to her but was also a consequence that was inevitable.

@@kengeorgejones6855 Right, and we as audiences and players, as well as production itself, decided that was unacceptable, leading to much worse players with much angrier games to sweep the field in a sort of overcorrection. Because we don’t want to ever be the people who kept the next Danielle Reyes from being the winner simply because our egos were bruised. But there’s more people who say cruel things than there are excellent players.

@@liamthompson7853 I do think there are still limits (it's how Paul lost twice), but I would agree some people who were much worse than Danielle ever was ended up winning. It's unfair in some ways that there wasn't all the extra mile taken for her that there was for much worse (in all ways) players down the line, like in BB8. At least she is still remembered.

@@kengeorgejones6855 On this we agree wholeheartedly.

100%

Exactly - Paul's loss was their own fault in both games. In BB19? Paul's loss was embarrassing not because "wow dumb jury" so much as "Wow, Paul what an idiot."

@@Terestraszexactly, literally Paul could have won if they admitted to being such a manipulative snake, but because of “friendship” combined with a desire to convince all their allies that Paul always had their back, it was always going to be a recipe for disaster! As happy as I am Josh won, I roll my eyes at Paul trying to win through pretending they didn’t wrong almost the entire jury in some form 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@JRJuggernaut1 Yep. By all means? Alex and Jason SHOULD have voted for Josh - because by Paul's own words? Josh & Christmas managed to play Paul for a fool not once, not twice, but THREE times. (Jason's eviction, "Scaring" Paul into not using the veto on Alex, Paul going into the F3 with Josh and Christmas)

Nah Paul lost and you can see why in the feeds. A lot of the actions in their alliance came from their mouth and they always tried to play it off as "I can't control what my alliance does" which is complete bullshit. In any other year Josh would very likely be a no-vote finalist just cause of his antics

@@captaintalon4485 ..........so you agree

@drews9481 Yeah tl;dr Paul fumbled but it wasn't at his jury appeal it was when the jury phase started maybe even before that

@@captaintalon4485 I disagree; yes he made bad choices all season but there's no way he wouldn't have swung at least the ONE vote he needed in his favor by owning his game on finale night, saying "yep I was in control 100% of the this game and I got rid of you because you're all threats". I think his "aw geez idk guys we're all friends I never meant for any of you to go home 🥺" act was the final nail in the coffin

Not owning up to all the things that might make you a winner on finale night IS a big blunder. Imagine if Derrick had said "Oh, I never controlled anything. I just wanted to be pals with everyone. Cody made all the decisions"

Given that the winner was also america's favorite player (and only to win both) kinda odd to consider that controversial

@lucyhannah1227 The most racist and sexist winner the show has ever had. Kinda ironic, just shows how people are these days, and what they support

@lucyhannah1227 That's why I'm really rooting for Jag this current season, he isn't a POS like Taylor, and isn't using his race and religion card to win money like Taylor did with here race and sex... That's a huge POS move using your race and sex to win money!

@@rileyesmay i think you and i were watching different shows but OK lol

​@@rileyesmaynice bait troll.

Wrong Clearly they saw the show and didn't like Danielle's dismissiveness towards them in the game That's why she lost because they weren't sequestered

Quit making everything racial. She was rude in her diary room sessions.

Yeah, dont use those arguments lightly. I dont want to give actual racists ammo to trick unaware people with.

​@@medraut6599and the other two weren't?

🙄

If a finalist lost due to a bitter jury, they deserve to lose cause they failed to handle their seasons jury correctly, plus I would never vote for anyone who lied after the eviction in their gb messgaes, that's just insulting my intelligence.

@@Minecraftlover73 I can’t fault you for that. I’m not sure how I’d handle it. I just dislike Josh’s gameplay, and it is just as bad on The Challenge. He is the type of guy that can dish it, but never receive it without breaking down. Every season he’s on, I always find myself growing annoyed with him. Maybe I’m a bitter juror.

Jury Management is an important part of the game, nobody likes a bitter jury, but it's something you need to take into account which is what Josh did.

No he didn't deserve to win at all. Production rigged it for him, and he still managed to fuck it up. He 100% deserved the L.