I just wrote a post saying a lot of people do not like the dance off, and, as I was doing it I thought, what are the pro's for it?

Even in the last few seasons people have not really outstayed their welcome by much , even Widdy only stayed a couple of dances after it seemed most people were fed up with her, and on the whole I think the best dancers got to the finals in these dance off less series.

I could never stand WIddy from long before she ever was on the programme so I don't count in that scenario.

The cons to me are obvious , we had "wuz robbed" situations in Austin and also Gethin.

It lead to one of the most unpopular, judged by dance off's, person getting to a final, Lisa. Quite frankly what was the point in that, did the judges think we would suddenly all change our mind and decide she was the best thing since sliced bread , then go on to win ?

So , for me I cant think of any real point in re instituting the dance off. It makes me nervous for another "wuz robbed" situation.

But, surely, if as they say,it came back because of popular demand, what are the benefits of having a dance off?

The only one I can see is the not voting because you assume they're safe scenario saves a good dancer

But it's not back for "popularity", its back to save the better dancers going out against the more popular personalities. I presume it's back this series specifically to save Denise who I would think will be good but not popular.

It also creates headlines. There's no shock headline maker in the cast this year like Ann or John Sargeant so judges saving a good dancer vs a popular contestant will make big headlines.

The only real positive I can think of is to bring some tension back into the results show.

I wonder where they got "the popular demand" from

the only thing I can see in its favour is that it gives a bit more interest to the results show.

I swear "by popular demand" is a euphemism for some stupid meeting they had where the interns and trainees all said fabulous idea rather than lose their jobs.

I doubt if its by popular demand that its back.

It should add a bit more interest and numbers to the Sunday show in theory.

It should be about the two pairs dancing to be re-judged and the judges should then have a chance to change their minds.
I wonder how often that has happened in the past? - where the judges have saved a couple that they originally put lower on their leaderboard?

This is certainly one of the examples of the dance-off that shows how diverse the judges ways of judging can be.

Craig dismisses all the mistakes Brian made in the dance-off and saves him on 'potential'.
Arlene saves Kenny because he's a rubbish dancer who used to play rugby.
Bruno saves Kenny because he brought romance, sensitivity and a smile.
Len saves Kenny because of the mistakes Brian made in the dance-off.

The video doesn't play at the moment for me - hopefully it will when others try it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USK2-eIl6bo

The pros for me are all negative. Without the dance off we would have been robbed of Bacofoil, I don't think Lisa would have got the public vote over Austin.

Second we would have missed Sergeantgate the GPB voting in their millions to keep John out of the dance off, the hilarity of James' meltdown and the ridiculous spectacle of John relinquishing his championship crown so lesser mortals would have a chance, while Krotchtina gently weeped.

Don't really care if the dance off is here or not, I don't vote and apart from the dancing wardrobe that was Darren Gough, not that fussed who wins.

I would imagine it's back purely to create the sort of tension ithe P-that-B would try to say it's there to avoid

Overall, the least contentious series have been the ones minus the dance off - last year the highest placed eliminee on the judges leaderboard was third from the bottom.

I think only Natasha - in something like week 3 of series one, so when the Strictly-verse was very young - and Alesha have won after being in the bottom 2 - and then only the once each. All the other winners - and in some years the top 2 and even 3 make it to the last gasp without being in the bottom 2.

All the dance off does really, is lift the un-safe places up one or 2 notches so you are more likely to get a bottom-middle ranker finding themselves there sooner rather than later.

It doesn't affect the end result one iota. There are no pros to it, it only causes upset but I suppose TPTB decided there wasn't enough upset on here last year or the year before.

It's a much more exciting, interesting show with the dance-off in it, but the Beeb immediately shoot themselves in the foot by not having the dance-off live on a Saturday night, when it would be must-watch tv, as part II of the show.
The show needs its shares of shocks & upsets, otherwise the whole thing is a foregone conclusion at the start of the series, & the drama is taken away. SCD does not succeed as 'the best dancer should win' show - if this was the case, the Beeb should put Come Dancing back on & let's see how it does. SCD is an entertainment show & should aim to provide entertainment. The dance-off is a key ingredient in this. There needs to be jeopardy and the dance-off provides it. But where they have also gone wrong in the past is not judging the couples purely on the dance-off - which they always tell the audience they will do. Also, at 2-2 it should revert to the public vote - more jeopardy = more entertainment.
But rest assured the dance-off is back purely as a way for TPTB to 'manage' the series, & guide it towards the couples they want to see in the final. If they want Denise VO in the final, for instance, rest assured they will save her in a dance-off, even if her & James are outdanced by a male celeb & his pro partner.
In reality, the dance-off will be used as a way to subtly pick off a popular male they do not want to win - this is how they ousted Gethin, & also got rid of Austin Healy. Tom Chambers would have gone too in the semi-final dance off had it not been for the viewers' outcry over the scoreboard technicality. If they allowed SCD to be a level playing field, a popular male would have won the last 7 series: Darren Gough, Mark Ramprakesh, Gethin Jones, Tom Chambers, Chris Hollins, Matt Baker, Harry Judd. Alesha's win was only enabled by nobbling Gethin; Kara was only able to win by constantly de-ramping Matt Baker while heavily playing upon the behind-the-scenes romance between her & Artem.
SCD requires editorial intervention, including dance-offs, to try and prevent a popular, middle England-friendly male monopoly - the demographic of voters heavily favours such males because it's mostly middle-aged women who vote.

Kara was never anywhere near the bottom 2. There was no dance off in her series, and she won even in spite of having by her standards a very bad final against Matt Baker who fitted every possible demographic of a SCD winner. Cola won because they were cute, the Charleston and the other couples that year were either very mediocre or boring and Whittle getting into custody didn't help him. It should've been Gethin, Alesha and Matt in the final, and they should have put all 3 through that year...after all they managed to change the rules for the 3-3-1 disaster for Tom. They had to do as yes, he was nobbled under the dance off system. If you simply stuck to the FPTP system which has served most series well, the public end up with the final they want to watch and that to me makes far more sense than trying to manipulate a final which the public are not necessarily interested in and don't want to vote on but I've given up understanding the logic or otherwise of bringing the DO back.

How did Julian Clary get into the final? He hardly fits the frustrated housewife vote that supposedly dominates. Neither does Jill Halfpenny winning.

First BIB - rubbish.
Second BIB - as a member of said demographic my favourites have mostly been women.

PS what does de-ramping mean?

IMO even though there wasn't a dance-off, from the way the series 8 leaderboard was arranged in the semi-final, it looked to me that Pamela was placed far enough above Gavin to make it very likely that they would prevent Gavin getting to the final.

Even without the dance-off they can manipulate things quite a lot in the later stages.

too true. That takes us back to the "biased" marking of the judges debate

I like the way the marks are calculated in the American version (as a percentage of the total points and votes). It's not as simple to compute for the dozy old GBP but it does lessen the impact of the judges - especially when things are close.

There is no 'popular demand' from me, the judges will be power crazy again, the voting viewers should always decide.

Pros: Leatitias waltz dance off of awesome
Aleshas win due to gethin being taken out
rachel stevens argentine tango maybe would have never been seen

Cons: rubbish decisions Craig kelly being saved early on, kenny logan early, lisa snowdown (altough maybe we would have never seen the beauty of snowdance if they hadn't dragged her against all humanitys wishing into the finale.)

And how they make len head judge is beyond me.

Even Bruce said at the Red Carpet event that "the viewers will ultimately decide" - well they won't be will they. I'm still praying that there will be a u-turn on the decision to bring it back. I agree that the results show is dire without it if they choose to make the show still last for half an hour.

I doubt the likes of Ann Widdy would have agreed to have done the show if there was a dance off where there was a risk of having to dance again. Some might say the dance off is good in this sense in that only encourages capable contenders to apply for Strictly - this years line up seems to support this since they all seem willing to learn.

I think if they are going to bring the dance-off back, rather than give Len the deciding vote, they should put it down to the public vote.

How can you consider it a pro for the dance-off system to cheat Gethin out of a win? Why have a televote at all?

It's worth noting that if the same rules had been used in Chris and Ola's year they too would have been 'nobbled' in the semi final.

I am right in thinking that the viewers will only be able to "ultimately decide" in the final, when the judges have no power to influence the outcome other than by their comments, or do they get to engineer the leaderboard then, too?

What I don't like about the dance off is that judges get two bites of the cherry.

Ramping is a standard term in financial markets. For example a trader Mr ABC buys shares in obscure small company XYZ at a low price. He then starts a whispering campaign along the grapevine saying that some magnate is about to launch a takeover bid for XYZ. All the greedy sods pile into XYZ whose share price rises. Mr ABC then sells out at a profit, when he never rated XYZ in the first place. ABC's ramping power would be much magnified had he been editor of the financial pages of NOTW for instance. This sort of thing is widely done, and if not too blatant then the culprits are not prosecuted.

Modest self-effacing gentleman Matt Baker was involved in ramping ??

Well not really if judges are artificially marking a certain contestant higher to keep them out of the dance off. They then get a second bite at the cherry if the public have voted and don't like them.

The public only really get a true say in the final, until that point the judges can save the bottom placed dancer every week if they so choose even if the public patently hate them.

In fear of judge power in the dance-off, fanatical fans protect a celeb with multiple-voting (100 times ) to lift him or her far, far above bottom 2. On any Saturday if a celeb is widely perceived to likely aggregate no worse than second-bottom placing after voting, then this would have been enough for survival. After the dance-off was introduced and given fixed animosities from judges, second-bottom placing was no longer safe.

Such multiple voting wreaked havoc on middle-of-the-board celebs overlooked when seemingly safe, pitching them into bottom two. After his last Saturday John Sergeant was leaked by insiders to have outpolled all his rivals combined thanks to protective supporters. John himself was told, and he took fright at the prospect of hue-and-cry if he involuntarily won.

A device designed for peace provoked conflict.

I don't really have a problem with the people the public protect, they pay the money to vote so fair enough.

I have more of a problem with the celebs the judges are artificially supporting to keep them out of the dance off. They did this with Rachel and Lisa and even Pamela when there was no dance off, just to keep them out of the bottom 2.

Austin would have made the final imo without all the artificial scoring. Lisa was never going to win and it would have been a better final with Austin in it.

I have more of a problem with the artificial high scoring when there's a dance off as well because they're getting a second chance. The judges should just be advisers they shouldn't have a direct result on the show.

And I don't want to listen to the argument about it doesn't matter about scores and 10s when they're in the right place on the leaderboard. Well, both matter to me. 10s matter and the judges don't always get the leader board in the right order, the celeb out first is always penalised because the judges always have to have somewhere left to go.