There's been a lot of discussion this season about the following issues:

Do the judges use their scoring/comments to try to influence how people vote?

Do the producers want a female finalist?

Do the producers want a finalist who works for ABC/Disney?

Are the dancers and celebrities fed lines to use in the interviews? Are the "storylines" pre-ordained?

So I thought it would be a good idea to have one thread to discuss all of these theories and whatever else you come up with regarding any behind-the-scenes machinations.

Well, heck yes, though I don't think there's any conspiracy here. If you're a judge, you want people to vote for the dancers you think are strongest and most interesting, so you give the highest scores and best remarks to your favorites and hope the public follows suit.



Finalist as in top three? Sure. Makes it more interesting. As the winner? Who knows. They've hired several female competitors with prior dance experience so it seems clear they wanted a woman to go the distance.



I'm sure they do, which is why they put in Sabrina Bryan. She'll make the final on ability alone, so that's ten weeks of Cheetah Girls promotion. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, though - she really can dance. Conspiracy would be if they put in a mediocre dancer and ordered the judges to jack up the scores. It does, however, make the show less interesting; who wants to see a professional dancer trouncing amateurs? Weak.



Is the Pope Catholic? Some lines and stories definitely pre-ordained to ramp up the drama.

There are a suspicious number of mentions of ballroom dancing on ABC's soaps right now. Not specific to Cameron, and no commercials for him, either, but waltzing and paso doble on General Hospital? What the heck?

Sometimes I wonder whether they wanted a woman to win this season or not.

This season, the females they cast were:

Josie - no chance of winning

Marie - no chance of winning

Jane - no chance of winning

Sabrina - pegged as a ringer from the start, then seen as judges' pet, meaning she probably won't win

Jennie - Insecure, fragile, and TPTB play up her insecurities in all the rehearsal clips. Maybe they're waiting for her to bloom, but I'm not sure. She does get the best wardrobe, and she got a good partner.

Mel - The subject of backhanded compliments from the judges, ugly costumes, and negatively slanted rehearsal editing. The week she finally gets a perfect score, she's *immediately* insulted by Samantha because she only rehearsed for six hours. The judges often seem to love her more than the producers. The judge who seems most aligned with producers (Carrie Ann) is the most critical of Mel.

Let's look at the men. Wayne, Albert, and Mark were cannon fodder. Floyd was probably cannon fodder.

Cameron - Given the underdog arc. Cast on the show even though TPTB had to know his soap fan base would keep him around a long time. Pushed as the "Superman", and given iconic theme music to help gain him fans. Shades of Joey last year with the Star Wars tango (they both got encores). The judge who seems most close to what the producers might want (Carrie Ann) is the most supportive of Cameron.

Helio - Good friends with Apolo Ohno. Given one of the most popular pros. Praised highly from the first week, but rarely in a way which seemed designed to cause backlash (like being given perfect scores). Given plenty of footage to show us how determined and adorable he is. When he had an awful rumba, we were supposed to think he bounced right back with his cha-cha. I think this also happened the week before his rumba, we were supposed to see his dance that week as a comeback for him.

Was this season ever supposed to be a season for women, or were they hoping to have the women out front, deflecting the usual criticism the season is rigged for men, and then have their beloved underdogs Cameron and Helio get to the final three? Or the final two, in a repeat of Joey/Apolo? Then one of them wins. If it's Cameron, then the show is happy, and ABC is happy.

American Idol flashbacks. Having witnessed the power of Disney I am SHOCKED.

Theory: ABC booked her off to avoid being accused of favoritism. That doesn't make much sense, but that's all I've got.

Question: American Idol has a clause that says they can kick off whoever they want for whatever reason. Does DWTS have something similar?

Delete because people take it personally when I was just stating my opinion.

I have to disagree here- I know a lot of folks who have warmed up to Mel (me included) for reasons like her dancing and personality- not because of her race.

I am surprised...nay...shocked that Sabrina was out- but I don't think she was out because of her race and that Mel is still in because of her race. I think there may have been some grumbling about her being on an ABC owned station- but I just don't want to think that Mel is advancing just because of her race. If so- why was Carrie harsh on her for so long and why is she still not feautred much in behind the scenes?

Sorry- not trying to bash your opinion- I just get uncomfortable when minorities who win are only thought to do so because of something behind the scenes- not because they deserve it. You are free to have your opinion, I am free to disagree with it. ;)

After the little Q/A with the judges tonight I think they are setting up for a Mel/Helio showdown. Len mentioned wanting to see her go all the way and then I believe they talked about Helio being a champion or having a champion smile.

Here here, I remember this very allegation came up with Randall on The Apprentice.

I get upset when race becomes a factor. You have a talented individual (Randall) who gets a questionable win.

I worry if the push for Mel will result in a backlash. I really do not want that.

I doubt ABC wants Jane and Marie in the finale. I am guessing ABC wants Cameron/Helio/Jennie/Mel. They get that even male/female split. Also a more younger skewing fan base.

If ABC wants to aim younger, they will aim for a Houghs, Mel finale. I am guessing next week Jane will get less critical comments.

Color me shocked. There goes my brilliant theory. Okay, now I have another one; the producers felt the show lacked suspense and set up Sabrina to take a fall?

I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy that ABC wanted one of its own to win. It's just...business.

MarkC99, I think your analysis of the stars are pretty much right. The only thing with Helio, is that Cheryl won two years in a row and then Julianne won. Now Julianne's the reigning champ and it seems like with Helio she might be headed for a back-to-back. So I think in some ways, that can be an advantage. She has a lot of exposure and fans, but some people will maybe feel like they don't want it to be just a few pros who are always making it to the finals and winning, so they might actively not vote for Julianne and Helio because of that.

And, not only has Jennie been getting an improvement arc, Ian lasted to the final four even though he wasn't even nearly in Laila/Apolo/Joey's league because he had fans. I'm assuming Jennie has a lot of 90210 fans, just like Ian. She seems nice and sweet, and she's actually pretty decent at dancing. So, I think it's possible for Jennie to make the finals. I think she'll go the way of Laila and get booted off before finals, but it's possible she'll make it to the finals so that ABC can get the Hough vs. Hough finale. But who knows?

Also, didn't one of the judges say to Laila last year that it was really hard for her because, as a woman, she was judged to the standards of the female pros? And dancing is a lot about looking good as a couple, but a lot of times, that's judged on the way the female looks. So it's always a little harder for the women because their partners can't pull a Cheryl to cover up their stars' weaknesses and because the women are being compared to the female pros.

Edited: Because grammar is important, kiddos!

You're right, HotBlooded. I think Cheryl's second victory had as much to do with antipathy against Mario and respect for Emmitt as it did admiration for Cheryl. That isn't in the mix this season because the most polarizing person (Sabrina) is gone. Helio won't be winning as many anti-votes, which become important towards the last half of the season.

The men do have it easier this season, even more than other seasons. They have the best pros, in Julianne's case a very popular pro, and they have the underdog arcs. Cameron being in the bottom two means he will have a huge boost and may be safe for the rest of the competition. Helio is usually a show favorite and they do what they can for him. Meanwhile, the women are still splitting votes, and the recent press comments from Marie and Jane have been directly targeted at the female celebrities.

Helio and Cameron are well on their way to sliding into the finale if this pattern continues.

I honestly don't think Ian lasted to final four because of a 90210 constituency. I think he lasted because he was better than the other competitors save for Apolo, Joey and Laila and her tried hard. Remember those who went before him? Clyde, Leeza, John, Heather, Billy Ray? IMO, Ian made the semi-finals on merit.

I don't think there was as much of an "anti-Mario" vote for Emmitt as much as the show beat into our heads every week that Emmitt was a Great American Hero. If people respected Emmitt, and I have no doubt they did because he is a great guy without the puff pieces, a large part of that respect was because the show DEMANDED it by telling us he was An American Sports Hero at every turn. So, I think there was a big assist from the show in Emmitt's win because every week they presented the storyline as Big American Hero v. Little Mexican Guy with a Bad Attitude. That Emmitt's scores were usually inflated, and occasionally higher than Mario's who they admitted often danced at a professional level, also helped establish him as being a better dancer than he was. As someone who liked both Emmitt and Mario, I felt the show treated Mario poorly and took every chance to make him look horrible in comparison to Emmitt, which I don't think is really the case and whatever sour grapes he may have from his experience are kind of earned.

I'm a Gator and I've watched Emmitt since his college days. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him both as an athlete and an individual because he is gracious and humble in the face of all that success. But I found the way the show presented him as smarmy and over the top. The real Emmitt is charming and endearing enough without them going so far overboard. And he didn't exactly earn that win as the show engineered it at every turn.

As for this season, though, I do think the producers specifically cast a few women (Mel, Jane and especially Sabrina) with some dance training because the women do usually get booted too soon (Willa, Monique) but I posit that it's less a bias against the women or that the women celebrities are being judged against the professional women (because the male celebrities are being judged against people like Maks and Alec and, hello, they pale even more in comparison) than it is that the male pros, with the exception of Jonathan who always gets a "challenging" partner, aren't particularly likeable.

Maks and Tony are smarmy, Alec is pretty but dour and occasionally humorlessly judgmental, Mark and Derek are unknown and a bit too hyper and superficial, and Louis (I know he hasn't been around but his presence still irks me) is such a preening peacock I always want to knee him in the balls. Only Jonathan enhances whatever charms and endearing qualities his partner has. When the woman celebrity isn't particularly famous, like Paulina last season, it's difficult for her to overcome Alec's introverted presence, though he seemed to like her and I got his "jokes" about communism, and even though she was nowhere near the worst of the season (Hello, Billy Ray?) she lost because Alec couldn't make her more likeable, in the way Karina, who I believe is probably popular, if a bit polarizing, did for Billy Ray. So she, who is quite a naturally sweet and goofily charming person, seemed less so because of Alec while Billy Ray, a big greasy doofus, seemed less so because of Karina.

With one exception I believe the wrong couple has won every year.

I'm no Sabrina fan but she got hosed. If you are allowed on the show you should be allowed to win. Who started all this "ringer" stuff anyway? A bunch of amateur producers on an internet bulletin board?

I can't stand Jane and Marie and I'm older than both. How they get votes is beyond me but if somebody dug up Elvis and wheeled him around the stage in a wheelbarrow he'd probably win the competition.

If one contestant is allowed to win, then all the contestants should be allowed to win. Which means, all contestants should be allowed to lose, too.

She lost because it's not just a dance competition or a popularity contest, it's both. It always has been and it never presented itself as anything but. She may have won the judges but she didn't win the audience. All the previous winners, except maybe Kelly, managed to win over both halves of the equation, but Sabrina didn't and she lost.

Every season someone good goes home early while someone who has no place being there past the second or third week goes far. This time it's Marie over Sabrina. Sucks for Sabrina fans, but works out great for Marie fans, who, by the way she's never been in the bottom two, would be a larger group of viewers, anyway.

I don't think that that's what the previous poster was saying, I think she was simply referring to the detractors who say that Sabrina shouldn't be allowed to win because of her ringer status.



We don't know that, since we don't know why exactly Sabrina lost. Not that I'm doubting the devotion of Marie fans, lol. But while some viewers never made any secret of their displeasure regarding Sabrina, there were also quite a number of viewers who said that they simply didn't vote for her because they thought she was safe. That could very well mean that the number of Marie fans don't outnumber Sabrina fans, just that the latter got complacent and ended up being caught flatfooted.

I guess I have a few (hundreds of) words to say about the ringer thing. I tried to ignore them but they won't go away.



I totally disagree with this in the abstract. My understanding is that most hip hop and jazz dancers don't have extensive experience dancing with a partner the way a ballroom dancer must. That whole set of skills is usually new. Now, I have no idea about Sabrina, specifically, but I assume she's typical in that respect. So I think Sabrina did learn a lot about ballroom. I suspect Sabrina was as much "a fish out of water", at least in that respect, as anyone.

I think the ringer arguments perpetuate a real misunderstanding of ballroom as a form of dance that is, among other things, partnership based. That's as objective a statement as I can make about the topic. And it's beginning to irk me. (Not any particular post, just this entire misunderstanding in general.)



I understand this part of the argument better. I agree that a person with dance experience may come in with a higher aptitude to ballroom dance. But, to me, that's just a difference in natural ability. No one can deny that Apolo had stamina, muscle sense, and plenty of natural ability. Drew - had to work for some of the more physical aspects - but he had plenty of natural ability, too. You may have an advantage because you've trained in a sport that requires you to have precise balance and control over your every movement, you may have an advantage because you have a finely tuned ability to feel and interpret music better than most, or you may have an advantage because you've honed your ability to pick up choreography in another discipline of dance. All of those things help, without a doubt, and I appreciate posts that try to identify things specifically.

But let's get real. It's precisely because ballroom requires all those skills (and more) that makes it so interesting and allows people to rank what they like differently. And because of that, it's not at all obvious to me that anyone can draw a universally acceptable line around certain things (and not others) as giving an unfair advantage or not. I don't see how any generalization (e.g. tarring someone with a ringer label just because they happen to have had prior unrelated dance experience) could be anything but completely arbitrary. It's a convenient label, no more, no less. One that (I suppose) adds excitement and drama, so I don't expect to see it disappear. But, for me, objections to someone based on whether they are a ringer or not never holds up as anything more than as an imprecise way to articulate whatever people are really thinking, which may be quite complicated.

The bottom line is people like what they like. It seems like many people didn't like Sabrina's strength and power and smile and "one-note" style. Fine. I can understand that. I didn't like Emmitt and Laila for similar reasons. I guess some people don't like certain choreographers. Fine. I have my favorites, too. But that's not about being a ringer or not. That's not about arguing over what, objectively, is better choreography. That's all about personal opinion and perception. I personally think Sabrina was very attractive and she and Mark were perfectly matched. She grew a ton and learned a lot of ballroom and I liked seeing it. I loved their performances. I understand how mileage can vary on that. And that's all it is. Varying mileage. Although I sure wish more people shared my taste.

*pout*

Well, however ringer may or may not be defined, Dancing With the Stars is at present a ringer-less universe and it makes things feel a little skeery. Like the show will suddenly be proceeding forward without a safety net.

Because that is what the role of a ringer is, IMO. A safety net. Someone who can be counted on to bring dancing skills. Given that this is a dancing show. Among other things, of course. But those other things are all resting on the foundation of the dancing.

I'm actually a fan of the inclusion of a ringer. I like tuning in with the confidence that there will be at least one couple who can be counted on to deliver. Each individual performance of their's may not necessarily live up to expectations but more often than not it will at least fail in an interesting way. At least the failure will not be because of incompetence.

My biggest frustration with ringers is when they are transparently being held back. For example, Mario Lopez. Here was so obviously a great dancer, JMO, paired with Karina, also a great dancer. I longed to see what they could really do if there were no limits. It seemed that there was a danger of Mario even showing up the male pros and thus throwing the show out of kilter so the producers reined him in.

Joey Fatone was another one who was reined in, IMO. He didn't pose a threat to the male pros but he could have, if performing at full capacity (even being ballroom-challenged), have far outshone any of the other contestants.

With watching Sabrina, there was no frustration of this sort. Even with her dancing background, ballroom was still a reach for her. She didn't have to dumb down her skill set for the show. Of course, there was another frustration with her. That was having been dazzled and riveted by her first performance and then never seeing that magic happen again.

But it was still interesting to turn in week after week to seek if Mark and Sabrina would be able to recapture the explosiveness of their first week. The potential was indisputably there.

That's what I'll miss about Sabrina and Mark being gone. Aside from the fact that they both seemed to be lovely people and were therefore a welcome presence. The chance to see them reignite as dancers. It was inevitable that they would have. Especially with the tango being their next dance. (Regretful sigh...)

If Edyta went on another network's ballroom dance show, that would be a ringer. To my mind, having dance experience outside of ballroom does not a ringer make.

That said, I thought she and Mark were amazingly talented and I have watched that rhumba of theirs a lot.

Ringers are there to bring the competition up a few notches. Stacy, Mario, and Joey brought it. Love them or hate them they raised the bar and made the show watchable. Sabrina didn’t. The only thing she had going for her was the speed. Actually, she wasn’t much different than Jane. Jane’s wonderful in Ballroom but not so in Latin. Sabrina excelled in Latin but not so in Ballroom.

I really respectfully disagree. I don't think Stacy, Mario or Joey were ringers either. They had dance experience, not ballroom experience. W/ that criteria, I'm a ringer.

rulesoftravel

I totally agree with you. They were considered ringers though.

I agree with this (though I think in Mario's case especially, he /or the show made the situation look worse than it was by initially fudging on just what his dance experience was), and that "dance experience" itself does not make you a Ballroom ringer.

And I think the show needs a cast with a range of dance experience being brought in, since there's otherwise no way to even semi-predict that you'll get some good dancing at least. I mean, if you rule out anyone who has any sort of dance background, you could end up with a season of Billy Rays, and a show that would be IMO unwatchable.

I think mileage varies on the greatness of Mario as a dancer. Mine does anyway.

I don't think you need a range of dance experience on the show, because there's always somebody there who turns out to be really good at learning and entertains the crowd despite not having ballroom or dance in their background. I think it's important to get a range of ages and physical fitness more than varied dance background. From a mix of competition fit athletes and celebrities accustomed to live entertainment you're probably going to get some really good DWTs competitors and performances, even with no dance background in there.

I consider DWTS a celebrity dancing competition where celebrities are learning both ballroom and how to dance as they are competing. That's the excitement, the risk, the suspense, and the exhileration when they pull it off.

A dancing competition/show is SYTYCD, as least those are the expectations I bring when I tune in to DWTs and - rarely - to SYTYCD.

I don't need ringers to ensure somebody is going to deliver decent dancing - Season 1 lacked ringers and was still darn entertaining. As far as I'm concerned Kelly Monaco never did learn how to dance but for some weird reason I always found her routines with Alec amazingly entertaining, and I don't have a girl crush. Didn't think she should have won.. :) but always watched her while ff through Rachel Hunter.

Drew did great dancing all the way through his season without being a ringer, I looked forward to him and Cheryl the most. There's usually a celebrity there who is reliably kicking ass, and it's often not the "ringer".

So I guess my feeling is, it always works out. I actually find ringers tedious cause it's neither fish nor fowl - they're not doing what they do - they're learning ballroom, but they're not doing especially stellar ballroom, so there's not much I enjoy about it, and I can get my high level ballroom fix from the pros dancing together. The middle ground isn't very fun and that's how I end up feeling about ringers. They're ahead of the other celebs but in a way that makes the experience like watching dull pros instead of exciting celeb dancers. Just me, of course.

As opposed to - holy shit, did you see Emmitt's mambo and waltz? Apolo's rumba and paso? Drew's tango?

That's the best explanation I can offer. I really don't enjoy SYTYCD although I've tried, so that probably connects to my not enjoying ringers very much on DWTs.

And yet, some people called Drew a ringer because he had danced w/ his cute little boy band. Again, my position is that if you haven't been trained in ballroom, you aren't a ringer, even if you danced professionally as a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, which interestingly enough Jane Seymour did when she had to learn the routines for a dreadful movie. lol

I know they called him that, but they were mistaken. :) Those 98 degrees boys just bent their knees to music and I don't think Nick can dance a lick, and he was their lead.

For me a ringer is somebody who has extensive professional-level dance training in any dance discipline and has worked and/or previously competed as a dancer. Not getting paid to learn a routine for a movie, for instance, but getting paid to dance, full stop. I'll exempt from that label any actor or actress who learned a dance for a movie, but I'm calling ringer on anybody who is or has been a dancer by trade.

But, does this mean I think ringers shouldn't be allowed into DWTs? No. I don't think it's important to have them, either. Still, I'm not going to root them on unless I see them improving, because then the competition makes no sense to me. Cast a celebrity who knows how to dance, watch em coast to the finals and the win. Why am I watching that? And I definitely don't think we need ringers to ensure entertaining dancing, I'm naturally not going to think that because my favorite dancers were never them. I'm often snoring through them. I just think it always works out. So far it has. There's always somebody or a couple of somebodies who don't have meaningful dance background who ends up doing really well, being a crowd favorite and good television, making me look forward to their performance.

I thought season three was a *very* tense, unpleasant season. There was so much desperation and insecurity on display. Sometimes I thought Joey Lawrence and Willa Ford might burst into tears at how much they needed to be there. Mario had a cocky attitude and took his loss none too well. Monique and Louis had a very intense, perfectionist relationship where Monique was trying so hard it was almost hard to watch sometimes.

This season sometimes is giving me the same feeling. I've been very disappointed in the bitterness from some of the females this season, namely Jane (and sometimes Marie), because this is the first season where women outnumbered men, and here we are with some of them fulfilling stereotypes about women not being able to get along (Jane has seemingly taken a shot at every woman left in the competition, while saying nothing about Helio or Cameron). I think most of the women this season have been good sports and formed good bonds with each other, but that's not what generates press attention.

I don't think it's necessarily possible for anyone to 'raise the game' of other contestants. Stacey didn't raise Drew's game - Drew was kicking butt from the first week. Apolo was a perfectionist and would want to be the best even if his competition consisted of cast members from Teletubbies. I think Sabrina did bring out a competitive spirit in the people around her, while also maintaining a positive attitude. Whether they worked harder because of her, I don't know, but I was disappointed at how some of the other people this season treated her in the press. This is the first season I can remember where people have been so bitter in the press while the competition is still going on. It's starting to cast a pall over the season.

Didn't Kelly Monaco have acrobatic training in her background. And would her dances with Alec have been as entertaining (especially the free style where he threw her around) without it?

I completely agree. S1, should have been John. Kelly Monaco made me cringe whenever she hit the floor. Terrible dancer. S2 was Drew, which IMO was the right outcome, but the tongue baths given Stacy Keibler were embarrassing, because she was not that good. S3 was Emmett...TRAVESTY! Mario wiped the floor with him nightly. S4 was Apolo, which I can live with, although I was rooting for Joey. Joey's samba was the first samba I have ever liked on DWtS and to date remains the ONLY samba I have ever liked on DWtS (really, the sambas on this show are terrible).

And now in S5 the best dancer has already been eliminated only halfway through the competition. I have no interest in watching timid Jennie Garth, airy-fairy Jane Seymour, wobbly Mel B, screechy Marie Osmond, blank Helio Castroneves and ok-but-not-that-good Cameron Mathison battle it out for the mirrorball trophy. Sabrina made it worth it for me (I need at least ONE person who actually 'gets' it in the game or it's all rubbish). At least in the other seasons I was only disappointed at the end.

Trista was a dancer for the Miami Heat and Rachel Hunter was studying ballet until she was 19 or so. She had to quit because she got too tall. The you have Joey McIntyre who came in with lots of performing and musical theatre experience.



I'm telling you, their Samba would have brought the house down. With her speed and strong footwork? I was looking forward to finally having a celeb who looked like she would be able to do bachacatas at full speed and look good doing it! (bachacatas being that fun looking move where the feet sort of alternate stepping back and the hips are just going crazy). Damn shame.

I think someone who arrives already bringing a standard of excellence very valuably sets the stage for the underdog dynamic. And thus the continuing presence of a ringer is important. JMO.

It is much more interesting to watch someone be challenged by and then rise up to and prevail over excellence than watch someone (untrained dancer who gets better week after week) be surrounded by and only challenged by mediocrity. However charming and entertaining in ways other than skillful dancing that mediocrity may be. Again, JMO.

ITA. I thought the only requirement for being on DWTS was that you be a 'Star' and that you have had no formal Ballroom Dance training. All this ringer stuff is means diddley squat if she meets and fits the criteria. imo.

That's all true, but that's not my definition of a ringer. Mine is, you have trained at a professional level and worked professionally and/or competed as a dancer. For me the two who fit my own personal ringer label are Mario and Sabrina.

Formation cheerleading, acrobatics, musical theatre - don't. For me, that's being physically fit, it's not dancing. I'd expect most celebrities to have performing experience - most of DWTs' celebrities are performers! And the ones who aren't performers are athletes!!

If the ringer definition is too broad, then the entire concept of the show becomes "let's see a whole group of ringers compete!"

So, my own yardstick is - is this person a dancer. I don't consider cheerleaders dancers. I think they are closer to gymnists who do routines to music. I think dancer has become a more p.c. term for cheerleader in the sports world.

And again, even though my definition of a ringer is a celebrity who is a dancer coming in to DWTs to compete, I don't say no. But I'm not going to be impressed by them vis a vis anybody else until they start growing from the baseline they brought to the table, no matter how elevated it is.

To say that a cheerleader in this age of the sport is not a dancer is to be facetious. And musical theatre is at least half dance.

At any rate, I got around to rewatching all Sabrina and Mark's dances and I think I want to petition for them to be let back in just non-competitively. It hurts me to be deprived of their tango, mambo, waltz, viennese and samba (especially their samba...Sabrina would probably be the first celeb ever to do it at anything close to the correct speed and to get the bachacatas in!), and it PAINS me to be deprived of what was sure to be the most amazing freestyle ever on this show. Fine, they were voted out of competition (stupid America). But do I have to miss out on their fabulous dances?!

I was actually being quite sincere when I said a cheerleader or sports cheer-dancer doesn't fit my definition of a dancer. And much of musical theatre "dancing", at least by the leads in book musicals, is another issue where there will probably not be accord, without going OT!

I think Sabrina's ouster will be forgotten by next week, as are most mid-season DWTs "scandals". For one, the voting audience didn't vote for her as much as they voted for others, so I think interest beyond the immediate entertainment news cycle is going to be limited. Two, even Sarah Evans' divorce faded in a week or so because DWTs had moved on.

That has always been my understanding.

If tihis is to imply Trista and Rachel were "ringers", I'd have to say FAT LOT OF GOOD it did them eh? Trista went out what? First? and Rachel fairly close behind. Ringers, Smingers. Just because you have rhythm and can follow direction, doesn't make you a ringer. If you've spent the years dancing with a partner cheek to cheek then I'd call you a ringer.

Well, under those standards Sabra Johnson, Danny Tidwell, Sara Von Gillern and everybody who was on SYTYCD except Pasha, Anya and Lacey would be good to go on DWTS. And all those people I've wanted for years -- Bebe Neuwirth, Christina Applegate, Chita Rivera, Harry Groener, Finola Hughes, Scott Wise, Karen Ziemba, Jane Krakowski -- are all perfect choices.

It's really fine with me, because I'd like to see the best dancing possible and forego ever seeing the likes of Billy Ray Cyrus or Wayne Newton again. But there's no way you can argue that Broadway dancers are on equal footing with say, Drew Lachey. Even though she's in her 70s, I think Chita Rivera could take Joey Fatone and Mario Lopez to school every single week and I know Karen Ziemba and Scott Wise could. And, no, they're not ballroom dancers.

I think I'm trying to say that a performer can be in a Broadway musical and not be what I consider a dancer.

John O'Hurley did tons of dinner theatre, I'd be fine with Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane or Kristian Chenowith on DWTs some day.

The back-up dancers in AIDA? Not so much. The leads in AIDA? Sure.

I dunno... with all the "ringer" discussion, I am now kind of confused.

I guess it all boils down to previous instruction vs. natural ability. I considered Stacy, Joey F., and Mario "ringers". Because, to my eye, they obviously had skills that took time to develop. Not sure about Sabrina. To me, Sabrina is more in the Monique category, previous dance instruction coupled with tons of natural ability. Jane, Trista, and Rachel seemed to be the trained but extremely rusty category. Drew and Joey M. were like the guys that had some skills, little challenge, minimal training. Emmitt and Apolo were the naturally talented guys that had the whole package: personality, natural ability, and the "not a ringer" persona.

The bottom line- can there really be true "ringers" in DWTS? I really feel like Stacy was the only real ringer because she obviously had skill, training, and fitness in her corner. Yet, she didn't WIN. I do think TPTB prop up the skilled (but unpopular) dancers in an effort to maintain a smidgen of credibility (the reason behind the whole season 1 "redance" fiasco. Kelly sucked but she was hugely popular.) That's why I think Sabrina got the early perfect scores because she was a great dancer that was coming in the bottom with the popular vote.

With the apparent popularity of Marie, all I can say is, "Thank heaven Sara Evans withdrew", 'cause seriously, I think she would have won ala Kelly Monaco.

I guess I just can't get worked up about what is or isn't a ringer when in terms of this show I don't think a ringer will ever win. Every season the conceived "ringer" by most usually winds up in second or third. So what that this season it is seventh. No disrespect to Sabrina because I like her quite a lot and wanted her in the finals and am disappointed she won't be, but it's hard to get too invested over ringer talk---especially when the definition of a ringer is different to everyone.

For the most part the so-called ringers have all added to the show through their presence and made their seasons interesting, even if I weren't particularly rooting for most of them. Then again I wasn't not rooting for them because of their supposed status. I could do without the Mario type, but that was more his personality than his dancing status.

But bring on all the Broadway vets and whoever else and chances are we would find the same thing. If they come out of the gate guns blazing like Sabrina and there is no improvement arc in show terms combined with some feeling that their inclusion is unfair in the first place, they too will avoid the winners circle.

My only problem with that is I understood completely why people voted and looked forward to Kelly. I have no earthly idea why people voted for slow clunky arrogant Sara.

I can't get on board with any TPTB shenanigans and ringer talk simply because I don't know why everyone votes. Why does there have to be anything sneaky or underhanded about it? I could acknowledge that Sabrina danced well, caught on to the steps easily and had speed. Technically, she was/is gifted. But I really hated the way (as others have noted) she danced at full power at all times. There's more to dancing (any dancing) than just technical proficiency. So, to me, she wasn't the "best" dancer, because she didn't get it. But, I also disliked one-note wonder Mario, too. I rooted for Emmitt not because I disliked Mario, but because I enjoyed watching Emmitt. Mario bored me and I hated that I could see his other dance training in everything he did (think Jane with her ballet jive). He wasn't as good IMO as everyone made/makes him out to be.

So, I can easily see why people didn't vote for her simply in regards to enjoyment level. No "ringer" or "ABC machinations" involved. And how many posts did I read that said "I didn't like her, but she should still be here." If no one liked her, then who voted for her? I think ABC didn't have a choice in the matter.

I don't think "ringer" can be defined because, like with voting, everyone's got a different idea. And some can define it and not be bothered by it and some can't define it but they know it when they see it and it pisses them off. We could even all agree what a "ringer" is and it still wouldn't make a difference because it's about how it makes us feel, regardless of what it means.

School cheerleaders are one thing, but professional cheerleaders have a difficult time getting on major league squads without considerable dance training and the ability to learn very, very quickly.

Speaking of the grassy knoll, I agreed that someone should bring this over from the Marie Osmond thread:


I don't know that you can consider it a conspiracy, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I thought her brother's regular 'critique' stint on ET was bad enough, but you can bet that -- whether they mention it or not -- lots of Oprah's viewers will know she is on DWTS. If Oprah likes Marie, it will definitely influence some votes.

I think the only thing TPTB are concerned about is the ratings. More votes translates into more people watching (duh!). But I do believe that the show wants a bit of credibility by not having a total stinker win (I'm looking at you, Sara Evans!). For those reasons, I do feel that Stacy was propped up a bit to ensure that she didn't go out too early (remember, the voting thing was different that season and the dancer's ranking played a huge part in eliminations). They probably knew that Stacy wouldn't win the popular vote but she was eye candy and a good dancer.

The only other "grassy knollish" manipulation IMO was the sudden positive review of Kelly Monaco during season 1. At first, she left the judges cold but miraculously, started to show "wonderful growth". Bull- TPTB saw the writing on the wall. There was no way for Kelly to lose (too popular) so, in order to save face, the judges started to justify her win with high scores.

I do think rating is important for TPTB, but so is the younger demographic. DWTS has far more older viewers and that is something the network cares about. There is no way ABC will be happy with a Helio/Marie/Jane/Cameron finale. Or at least Marie and Jane. How flashy will those free styles be? I think the judges will continue to prop Mel and Jennie may benefit with the judges comments as well. I know it's been mentioned before why the producers would give Derek Jennie as his partner when Josie seemed to be a better fit. Most likely to pair him with a female star who would stick around.

So, anybody think that they booted Sabrina this early not because she had the lowest "score" with the judges' points and votes from fans at home combined, but because she was low enough to make it plausible, and this way, they get tons and tons of buzz? Again? (I mean, Marie taking a dive and Jane's mother dying had kind of run their course in terms of play in the press.)

I don't necessarily think that, but I am pretty cynical about there being any reality in reality shows, including the order people leave.

I don't think so, because she was probably the only contestant who could arguably pull in the Disney demographic. It will be interesting to see if the younger demo goes down next week -- if it doesn't, though, I wonder if that means kids who tuned in keep watching with their parents anyway.