As a human being, particularly one who struggles with her weight, I am very proud of Jeremy Britt, who lost 199 pounds to win the title of "The Biggest Loser" on last night's finale of the NBC franchise.

But as a TV fan, and an almost-former fan of this show - I could not care less. And that pains me, because this show, which used to be an inspirational look at the lives of people who made themselves vulnerable to change their lives, has become "Survivor" with scales and body fat percentages, about alliances, strategies, nasty in-fighting and the worst kind of nastiness. This season, which was ironically subtitled "No Excuses," featured the biggest collection yet of whiners, whose inability to get along with other people or own their own shortcomings resulted not only in a walk-out and an emotionally unsatisfying finale. A friend pointed out that the show was only an hour, where it's usually two, as if NBC knew the cast wasn't popular enough to warrant the extra time.

To me, here were the biggest three issues with "The Biggest Loser" this season, which NBC will have to address if they expect anyone to care next time:

- They cast too many unpleasant people and seemed to encourage their unpleasantness: I understand that this is a TV show, and that drama sells. But the show didn't seem to need it back in the day, when there were so many contestants worth rooting for, like Matt and Suzy or Tara. When they got to the Final Five, I was so irritated with all of them that I thought "Am I gonna keep up with this?" Stupid me - I did. And although the show can't create good moments if the contestants don't have any, the commercials and promos seemed to hype the negativity. If I wanted that, I'd be watching "The Real Housewives."

- The show changed from inspirational to just another angsty reality show. Too many times this season I was reminded of "Survivor," and how there's always a disagreement about whether the winner left standing at the end of the last tribal council deserves to win. Were they the chief strategist? Did they win a lot of challenges? Did they ever make any big moves? I've always thought that the person who gets everyone else to write down their name to win a million dollars is the one who deserves it. Period. And the whole point of that show has always been outwitting, outplaying and outlasting everyone else to win that money, no matter how many lies they have to tell. If they gained spouses and partners and whatnot along the way, it was gravy.

But "The Biggest Loser" was supposed to be different. There was always a cash prize - two, in fact, with one for the biggest at-home winner and one for the person who made it to the finale. But the reason people watched it was about the journey, about seeing identifiable people whose struggles they might share conquer something amazing. It was about seeing self-esteem restored, about seeing diabetes conquered and lives extended. There were sometimes one or two unpleasant people per season, but not, like eight of them. The editing is about the drama, and the contestants whined about who deserved to be there. Yes, if you lose so much weight that you are never in the bottom, in danger of being voted out, you stay on. But there was so much maneuvering and in-fighting and votes based on alliances and personality, rather than how hard people were working or who needed to be on the Biggest Loser ranch longer to lose weight. Mike Messina, the at-home winner, lost a larger percentage of weight than Conda, the third-place winner of the finalists who stayed on the ranch. So does he "deserve" it less than her? Based on what? How hard he worked or how close he wasn't to the power players?

- The sense of entitlement was nauseating: The power players who think they "deserved" to be there pulled the dumbest move ever, based on their whining and their inability to read a contract. They decided that they were too good to compete with eliminated contestants who were being brought back to compete for a spot in the finale - they were personally insulted - and decided they were going to take their toys and go home, so to speak. The most ridiculous thing here was that this happens every year, and if they'd watched the show they would know this. The other is that this twist was written into their contracts. I loved the moment where Jeremy was whining to the show's Awesome Lawyer about how this wasn't fair, and the laywer was like "It's in the contract you signed" and Jeremy shoots back "No, it said that that might happen but not that it absolutely would," and Awesome Lawyer's like "Umm...here it is right here that it is absolutely gonna happen."

Cue open, speechless mouth. That was priceless.

I think that NBC must know how bad this season was, and that they need to reiterate specific things in their contracts, which are made up of important words that people need to pay attention to before they sign them. I expect shows to evolve - you can't last that long if you don't. But if we hate all the contestants, why are we going to be invested in them? I could point to three people at any time in my gym who are having great progress and be inspired by them, without the drama.

Maybe I will.