'Dancing With the Stars' finale: Who will be competing at the end of season 21?

One more contestant was eliminated on 'Dancing' leading up to the season 21 finale. Who will compete on the upcoming episode and is airing two seasons a year of the show still working for ABC?

Adam Taylor/ABC/AP
'Dancing With the Stars' stars Alek Skarlatos (r.) and Lindsay Arnold (l.).

Following the elimination of one contestant, three dancing pairs are proceeding to the final episode of ABC’s reality competition “Dancing With the Stars.” 

“Big Time Rush” actor Carlos PenaVega and his partner Witney Carson departed the show after performing on the Nov. 23 episode. PenaVega’s wife, actress Alexa, had also participated in the season and had left prior to this. 

Now that PenaVega has departed, the three remaining celebrity contestants are Bindi Irwin (dancing with Derek Hough), Alek Skarlatos (dancing with Lindsay Arnold), and Nick Carter (dancing with Sharna Burgess).

The Nov. 23 episode of “Dancing” was a high-scoring one. Irwin and Hough, PenaVega and Carson, and Carter and Burgess all earned perfect scores (30) for both of their routines. Skarlatos and Arnold were only slightly behind with scores of 27 and 30 for their performances.

The final episode of this season of “Dancing” will air on Nov. 24 and the winner of the show will be announced then.

“Dancing” has an unusual model compared to network dramas and sitcoms in that it ends its season as the holidays approach. Most network shows debut in September and air until May, often taking a break around December but not dividing their episodes into two separate seasons. 

By contrast, programs like “Dancing,” NBC’s singing competition “The Voice,” and CBS’s long-running reality competition “Survivor” usually air a fall season and a spring season each year. That’s how it’s possible for “Dancing” to be airing its 21st season despite having debuted in 2005.

Is this a good model? In terms of overall viewers, “Dancing” and “Voice” are still doing well in the ratings, ranking near the top of the list for broadcast network ratings for the 2014-2015 TV season. “Voice” is more of a novelty than “Dancing,” as “Voice” only debuted in 2011. 

Because reality shows are less expensive to produce than dramas or sitcoms, networks are able to do these two seasons a year. 

This two-season idea also fits with the reality show format. It’s difficult to imagine a competition show like “Dancing” stretching from fall to spring. If a contestant is going to be eliminated frequently, keeping audience interest, a season can only last so many weeks.

Ratings for season premieres of, for example, “Dancing” have dropped since the show was newer in 2008 or 2009. However, ratings are usually similar no matter when the new season debuts – “Dancing” usually comes on the air in September or March. This past spring, the new season of the show debuted to 14 million viewers. The September before that, a new season was watched by 13.5 million.  

With “Dancing,” those behind the cameras seem to have found that having two seasons a year keeps viewers talking and that both seasons are still steady performers.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.