On which pizza joint should we bestow our game day business? What alternate route will get us out of this traffic jam? Good advice is forgotten quickly while poor choices can be blamed for all of time. This gets magnified when dollars are on the line. In NFL Survivor pools, group entries face a fundamental question: who makes the decisions each week? The answer reveals a governing philosophy behind your group's power structure. Each one has advantages and pitfalls.

The Benevolent Dictator represents the most streamlined approach to Survivor governance. One person makes all the picks, and everyone else trusts their judgment without question. Like Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, this system thrives on efficiency and clear accountability. Decisions get made quickly, without endless debate about whether the Jets are "due," and when things go right, everyone celebrates the wisdom of their chosen leader. The dictator typically earns this role through some combination of football knowledge, previous success, or simply being the one who cares the most. But beware: one controversial read that goes bad can lead to a shakeup.

The Democracy takes the opposite approach, treating each weekly pick like a referendum on the collective wisdom of the group. Every member gets a voice, arguments are presented with the passion of students in the model UN, and decisions emerge with majority rule. This system excels at avoiding obviously terrible picks because someone will always speak up when the group starts heading towards something wacky. The shared decision-making also means shared responsibility when things go wrong—it's harder to blame one person when everyone voted for that underdog. However, democratic Survivor groups often fall victim to analysis paralysis, spending hours debating the merits of choices. But the bigger pitfall lies in being stuck every week with consensus picks that lack the strategic jazz needed for long-term success.

The Constitutional Monarchy strikes a middle ground that many groups find appealing. One designated expert makes the weekly selections, but operates within certain constraints and faces the possibility of group override on particularly controversial choices. Think of it as having a football czar who rules with the consent of the governed. The leader gets to flex expertise most weeks, but the group reserves the right to stage a coup if the leader suggests something truly insane. This system works well when the "monarch" has genuine expertise and the group trusts them while maintaining some safeguards. The key is establishing clear rules about when the override power can be exercised, lest every week devolve into locking horns.

The Oligarchy emerges when groups identify two or three members with superior football knowledge or analytical skills and delegate decision-making authority to this smaller council. This system combines expertise with minimal checks and balances within the ruling group. The oligarchs can debate among themselves, bringing different perspectives to bear while avoiding the chaos of full group democracy. This approach can work well in larger groups where full democracy would lead to gridlock, but it requires careful selection of a trusted ruling council and clear processes for resolving things when the oligarchs disagree.

Pure Anarchy represents the most unstructured of the systems. In such a group, everyone picks whatever they want, and coordination dissolves. Someone goes rogue and takes the exact team people agreed to save for later, or everyone makes the same pick, and strategic planning becomes impossible. While anarchy might seem like the worst possible system, it occasionally produces unexpected benefits: the lack of groupthink can lead to creative contrarian picks, and the absence of consensus means individual members can pursue high-risk, high-reward strategies without the need to debate with others. And they can enjoy the thrill of this without constraint. However, although it prevents anyone from being told “NO” this approach can lead to frustration and early eliminations.

So, what kind of government will best serve your collective style and instincts in an NFL Survivor contest? Ideally a group will settle this question before Week 1. But if you’re sensing a mid-season mutiny, it isn't too late to switch the system by which decisions are made, before all of you end up on the sidelines.