Should the winner of the season be the major storyline?

This is something I originally brought up in the Unpopular Opinions thread, but I wanted to post it as its own topic as well because I wanted to hear peoples' thoughts on it. This is an unpopular opinion I happen to believe in very strongly these days.

**I believe the show focuses far too much on the winner of a season and how they got there nowadays.** And I believe this is a mistake because the winner is often the least interesting player of the season. In fact I have always argued it really doesn't even MATTER who wins a season, a lot of times the winner is generally just the person who doesn't fuck up. And what's interesting about that?

If you look at a lot of the best seasons of Survivor (especially in the early days), you'll notice that the winner's storyline isn't actually the primary story of the season. A lot of the time the winner just "happens" when everyone else screws up and then only one person survives the carnage and is left standing at the end. And I don't think that type of storytelling was an accident. When Survivor first started out, it was very much a human drama -- it was about everyday people caught in this horrible game, and the steps they took along the way to try to succeed at it. And then, just like in a lot of great tragic dramas, they failed. People (as people tend to do) failed over and over and over. And that essentially became what Survivor was - people failing at things. They would do well for a while and then make a tragic mistake. They would come very close to the end and then get shanked in the final three. They would get cocky after an early success, and that would lead to a quick downfall. This became what Survivor was. And it was gripping because you CARED about it. You cared about every single character who was voted out. It was gripping because (this is the important part) almost every elimination was supposed to be sad.

At some point in the teen years of the franchise, the producers decided that they didn't want the vote offs to be sad anymore. They wanted the ~~eliminations~~ blindsides of the ~~people~~ pawns to be exciting. So the entire point of the show suddenly changed. Suddenly, they changed the music at Tribal Council. Everything got exciting and fun rather than sad. By doing this, they took the focus off of the loser's elimination storyline, and they switched it to how awesome the successful players were, and what awesome people they were. And to me, this switch right here basically changed the ENTIRE point of the show. Survivor would never again be a classic Greek drama about humans failing and their failures making them memorable and human and interesting. Suddenly, every player who lost was just this tiny little footnote in the story of the winner(s). And this is how you wind up with a show where like 60% of the cast is now a giant big purple nobody. The MINUTE a minor character gets a lot of airtime now and threatens to take the spotlight away from the winner, you know they're about to get purpled or shanked. Simply because the producers don't want you to be invested in any of their loser storylines anymore.

So here's my unpopular opinion - the show needs to stop focusing on the winner and the winner's storyline. The winner's story is just generally not that interesting. In fact I'd go so far as to say the winner of the season doesn't even matter. ANYONE could win ANY season of Survivor, and you could still make a compelling story out of it. Focus on the losers instead, and why the losers lost, and make every elimination sad and tragic again instead of hilarious, and it would fix a lot of the problems people have with modern Survivor.