It's just as rewarding coming in 2nd during all of that brewhaha of being in the wild, so lwt there be a 1st runner up prize.

Oh yes, I think this would step up the competition big time. Just think, when they're down to two and one person will leave with absolutely nothing after being stuck on that dang island and the other will leave with the million. I think this would definitely create more tension between the survivors, and isn't that what we really love???

It is reported, everyone is awarded some form of prize money, starting with a min. of at least $2500 for the first person to go. I think winner takes all approach, would be a bad idea. Who would leave behind friends, family, jobs, etc. with the possbility of coming home EMPTY HANDED. You have to have them something for their time.

What better way to get people more emotionally involved that to really stiff the loser who has to endure CBS's crap for 39 days only to lose the final vote? Brilliant. But if the cast of the first Survivor is any indication, there aren't really ANY losers. Almost all the original cast members already have agents who are getting them wads of endorsement money. In the near future you're going to be buying "Rudy" brand Depends undergarments, "Sue" brand tapioca, and "Gervase" brand condoms. So what if they don't win the million? On the post-Survivor advertising circuit, they'll pick up more semi-celebrity money than Darva Conger.

It would have been too bad had Kelly not walked away with a significant second prize which ensures that the person with the best survival skills can get some big money. Otherwise, a castaway could win every single immunity challenge, but lose the vote at the final tribal council and not get paid.

I'm a big believer in the winner take all philosophy. It would make an already ruthless show even more ruthless.