by Jake.Horan » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:12 pm
1. Well, let's not discount the fact that some girls ARE equally deserving of their placements albeit the alleged under-the-table dealings. For example, if you told me that Renae Ayris' 3rd RU placement in '12 was because of Kooey and Australian Gold, I wouldn't have minded one bit.
2. "Sash f@ctor" has been existent even prior to the MU-Trump dispensation in the likes of USA (1954, 1956, 1960, 1967, 1980, 1995), Venezuela (1979, 1981, 1986, 1996*) and Puerto Rico (1970, 1985, 1993). I think it still means the same today, people just have different ways of interpreting it.
3. Evolving trends in society, media, and viewership call for different strategies to be employed by MUO. Obviously 1991 is not the same as 2011, the most significant difference being social media. So I say that it's almost inevitable that MUO, as a business organisation (more so being a Trump business organisation), be inclined to do what it's currently doing. And if MUO won't act on the business-side of things, Miss Universe will not be the Miss Universe as we see it now.
4. I agree that some of the semi-finalists are handpicked, then it's battle royale from then on, although not entirely. In all fairness to them, I don't think I've seen a WTF placement in the final 5. (Yes, I think the Philippines deserved their placements from '10-'13). I may not have agreed with who's crowned, but generally speaking, I find it favourable.
5.Wenches who I think clawed their way in with no "sash factor" or politics: Leila Lopes, Venus Raj, and Rozanna Purcell of late.