Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains - A Rant

A sidebar which I meant to mention in my post yesterday...

Parvati has been rather firm in her belief that she needs to get rid of the Heroes because they would win the final vote since there are so many already on the jury. It was repeated often enough that it seemed to become accepted wisdom on the show. I'm willing to give it a pass on the show because the players are out there for 30+ days in not-so-great conditions and it's easyto get confused. But when Jeff Probst repeats it in his written-after-the-fact blog post yesterday, I'm set off.

(Jeff's quote: If [Colby] makes it to the end, he wins. Too many heroes on the jury that have too much animosity for the Villains.)

Barring a twist where final tribal council involves 4 players, the jury is going to be a minimum of 9 people. There are currently 4 Heroes on the jury, which means that if a Hero makes it to the final tribal council, there will be a minimum of 5 villains on the jury. So even if you give Colby every Hero's vote (and I'm not sure that is a shoo-in), there are still 5 VOTES IN PLAY! This isn't to say that Colby stands no chance of winning, but it's not a situation where if he makes it to final tribal council, he will win because he has all of the Heroes' votes. He still needs to get a vote from a villain or split the other votes (in the case of a final 3).

This wouldn't have bothered me if it wasn't something that was easily verified by counting the jurors. Is it asking too much to have a quick sanity check on these items?