My most vivid memory of Dr. Will is that speech from Big Brother 2. At that time, 9/11 had just happened. The houseguests had been told, but were still playing the game as normal (whatever “normal” meant back in Season 2). They were oblivious as to how the events of September 11, 2001 had really rattled people. It changed everything, except in Dr. Will’s world, it was still Big Brother and he felt compelled to give his fellow former houseguests a lesson in “reality” and “reality television.”

It seemed arrogant to those on the inside. To those on the outside, it was something along the lines of, “you have no idea what is going on in the real world.” And they didn’t. To this day, Will Kirby has a very different recollection of September 11. In that way, he’s not unlike those of the generation too young to remember.

But I digress (except to say I’ve grown to like Dr. Will over the years because, you know, except for those unfortunate comments about Big Brother Canada, he’s quite funny and charismatic).

What this post is about is Dr. Kirby’s comment to Global TV that he doesn’t believe the Big Brother 20 jury has a pact to vote as a block — against Tyler or Angela, and in favor of Kaycee, according to Scottie’s reports when he returned to the house. Here’s what Dr. Will said:

“Let me be clear. There has never been a pact in the past and I firmly believe that there won’t be a jury group-voting pact implemented this year either. When the jury discussion starts, the concept of a pact quickly dissolves and common sense prevails.”

But I ask you, why shouldn’t the Big Brother 20 jury agree to vote as a block? Wouldn’t that be consistent with the entire season, where sides were chosen early and no one really was playing the game independently — except for the members of FOUTTE who, one by one, ended up in the jury house?

Here’s how we got to where we are on Big Brother 20: Level 6 decided to pick off the other side, one by one. And they did. Really, the strategy was not all that complicated. It was the collective power of the alliance that got Tyler and Kaycee (and to some extent, JC) to the end. Why should not an alliance in the jury house decide as a group who gets to take home the final prize?

Trying to figure out how the jury thinks is always a challenge because you don’t know what they see once they get out of the house. You don’t know how much information they have about the events that unfolded. Really, this year the competitions didn’t mean much just because the alliances were so large and the house was evenly split. Winning HOH gave you a key to your bedroom, but it didn’t mean you controlled who went home (sorry Hayleigh). The one exception might be JC’s win, which shook up the Level 6 game plan really for the first time.

So Kaycee — whom is my bet, and my preference, to win tonight — got 5 vetos and a hacker comp. That happened in a season when, arguably, wins were less important. I don’t think on any of those weeks (my memory could be failing me), Kaycee was ever really vulnerable. If she had been on her own, and needed to win to survive, those wins would have been more impressive.

In the season of the alliance, there’s no reason why the jury shouldn’t have an alliance as well. At this point, they’ve earned it — because there is no sweeter justice in life than when those who have been getting railroaded over and over again, without knowing they’ve lost control, finally get wise and get revenge.