Agree with the comments ... The judges had no real meaningful involvement in the show. The crowd chose the winning team. Alliances and strategy decided which chefs stayed. Cooking took second stage.
The judges didn't work with or interact with the contestants in a meaningful way. They had little to no influence, and could not reward or come down on behavior.
I was happy with the winner, but thought this was a happy accident, rather than the result of a good format. I believe that the judges should have been in a position to reward good behavior, good cooking, and professionalism. They should have been in charge of the dismal process.
The format instead encouraged cronyism, finger pointing , and gamesmanship. Good chefs were voted off early and it turned way too political.
Cooking shows should reward cooking first. Cooks shouldn't be encouraged to be greedy with the salt. Contestant should be encouraged to think about the strategy for their next dish, and less concerned about voting off their strongest rival.