Reality TV's next big thing is a combination of the hits

Three things are true about television programming.

1. Game shows and reality shows are profitable because there are no actors nor writers to pay.
2. Success breeds imitation.
3. The late-1970s is an embarrassment.

There's nothing we can do about the third point (other than time traveling and kidnapping the entire casts of "Happy Days," "Laverne and Shirley" and "Three's Company"), but the first two are the inspiration for my proposal to help save network television.

Well, maybe not save it. But I can create a sure-fire hit television show, which in the era of Netflix, Hulu, Spandex, Sling and Philo (one of those isn't a streaming service, the other four incredibly are!), TV networks desperately need.

TV network executives are like Milli Vanilli in 1990: Desperate for success, so people will quit questioning them (another reasonable simile: they're like Brad Stanhope in 2019, desperate for a cultural reference from the past 25 years).

So my idea is to (drum roll, please!) . . . combine popular reality shows into one big hybrid show!

You may laugh at that idea, in the same way people laughed at me in 2005, when I pitched a show that ended up being "Breaking Bad" (my proposed show was called "Baking Brad" and was focused on making cookies, but still).

I got the idea while watching "The Bachelorette," with Mrs. Brad. Even if you haven't seen the long-running ABC program, you probably know the premise: One woman dates a bunch of men (25 or 30) and gradually eliminates them until there's one left. He then proposes to her (spoiler alert: It didn't work this season!).

"The Bachelor" is the same premise in reverse.

In other words, the franchise is a dating show that is entirely unrealistic, involves only attractive and seemingly successful young adults and creates ridiculous drama. Kind of like the NBA playoffs, but without Kevin Durant (meaning there's less drama).

Anyway, while watching this season, I kept thinking of how the show could be more interesting. What if the contestants, for instance, faced harsh conditions like contestants on "Survivor"? In this case, the men would be forced to catch fish and forage for food between dates. The woman would arrive in an evening gown and a sweaty, stinky guy in shorts and a bandanna would take her out for dinner.

Would you watch? I would.

Further, what about if you added a talent competition, like on "American Idol" and "America's Got Talent"?

The men (hungry, cranky and stinky) would have to perform and gain approval from the viewing audience to remain in the game. You're telling me I might see a famished, staggering man singing "I will always love you" into the camera?

I'd watch.

Finally, what if we added an element of "Cops," where contestants who made morally questionable decisions (on a date with the bachelorette, by stealing food, with a bad song choice) get tackled, handcuffed and hauled away? And it would be photographed with hand-held cameras?

Would you watch it? I would.

Sometimes, the best idea isn't to come up with a new thing, it's to combine a series of old things. Just ask the Stars on 45, who put together a bunch of 1960s songs to create a No. 1 hit in 1981 (again: I'm desperate for current pop culture references).

If TV networks want the next big thing, they should turn to me: "The Bachelorette's Survivors Got Talent Until the Cops Come."

If the networks don't scoop it up, it will be available for streaming this fall on Spandex.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.