For and Against – An All-Winners Season


Feature Article day is upon us again and today we have a cracker! One of the most debated topics in the Survivor community is whether an all-winners season would or could be done; it intrigues everybody! Today, Ozlets Lancey Morris and James Pickering, team up to debate whether an all-winners season is a good or bad thing. Lancey claims that all all-winners season is a mouthwatering prospect whilst James believes that it would be boring and legacies would be tarnished. So read on, choose which side of the debate you agree with and leave us a comment about what you think below!

An all-winners season is always a talking point amongst Survivor fans. Should it be done? Can it be done? Would would and who wouldn’t return? Will it be the last ever season? It’s always a talking point. So today, Ozlet’s Lancey Morris and James Pickering debate about whether an all-winners is a good idea or not. First we’ll hear from Lancey as to why it’s a fantastic idea, then James will have his say as to why he is against it.


An all-winners season could be the best thing since Jeff started hosting Reunion Shows.

An all winners season of Survivor is something I have become more enthusiastic about each time a season wraps up. I consider the new dynamic of the winner and what their presence would bring and wonder with which other winners they may align. Imagine the dog’s breakfast that would be a Brian, Rob and Tyson alliance? Think of the joy a Kim, Denise and Ethan union could bring to our lives! What if Ethan and Jenna were stuck together, or Rob and Amber had to make it work a second time? This kind of daydreaming isn’t the only reason an all winners season would be magical, it would be everything we’ve hoped for and more, plus it would certainly be better than the mess that sees the same players return time and time again – Boston Rob, I’m looking at you.


Image what an alliance of this lot would be like!

As any Survivor enthusiast knows, Jeff Probst pretty much hand picks the contestants of each season, particularly if they involve returning players. Jeff’s opinion is crucial, as at the very least, if Jeff doesn’t like you or considers you to be a quitter in anyway, (unless of course, you’re Colton), you will not be invited to play again. This is frustrating when the same players are brought back to play for a third or fourth time, or players that were uninspiring are inflated to ‘all-star’ status. The beauty of an all winners season is that Jeff would have very little say. It is doubtful that all twenty-seven plus players, (including the pending winner of Cagayan), could be involved which could give Probst some decision making power, however not all the players would be interested or eligible to play anyway. Alternatively, all twenty-seven players could begin the game but the season could hold an initial challenge resulting in several eliminations. Think of the tears and tantrums that would ensue!

An all winners season would be a chance for the nostalgic fans to see their old favourites: of the twenty-six winners, only half have played more than once. Some of the players that are perhaps reluctant to re-light their torches for another Coach/Ozzy season could feel differently with an all winners seasons, as it would be a chance for them to feel like less of a target and put them on more equal footing with their opponents. Moreover, it would be something the fans have not seen before and could not see it again for several years. I get goosebumps at the thought of Sandra winning a third time. GOOSEBUMPS!


One tribe looks ready to go? 

After so many seasons and variations of the game, seeing the contestants and their strategies adjust would provide great entertainment. Players like Earl who have been accused of being boring, or like Natalie who have been told they were riding coat tails, would finally have a chance to display their prowess and ability to adapt to a new game, (or we would see them crash and burn, which would be great too). It would put the strategists like Yul against the more relaxed players like Fabio, the challenge dominators like Kim against social players like Tina and those who have been declared as non-deserving like Amber against the overrated players like Brian – that’s right, you heard me. It would give the fans the closest thing to an answer of which game playing style works best.

And imagine the possibilities after it aired! An all runners up season? A winners versus those who lost to them season? A first boot season?! Let’s be honest, we all tire of seeing returnees every other season. If we could watch some well-cast original ones it would be such a welcomed treat to watch the winners come back. What I propose is to cut the seasons where only two ‘all-stars’ play against a fatigued new cast and to treat all-stars seasons as an exciting departure from the norm, every so often.

If one day we must say goodbye to the heaven they call Survivor, (assuming Probst isn’t immortal and will one day die on set), this could be the perfect way to do so.


The idea of an all-winners season on paper sounded pretty enticing to me. It’s one of those season ideas that is constantly thrown around by fans on the Internet as the ‘ultimate’ Survivor season and I’ll admit I got sucked into the hype. So I sat down to write an article about how an all winners season would be the best thing to ever happen to Survivor, how it would be the ultimate way for Survivor to finally sign off the air when that inevitably happens. After twenty minutes of thinking about the idea properly, considering the logistics, the potential cast and the potential entertainment value, I did a complete one-eighty and I’m now vehemently against the idea. Here’s the main three reasons why.

1. We wouldn’t get most of the people who would make it an interesting season.

When people fantasise about an all-winner season, they inevitably talk about some pretty salivating match-ups, which look fantastic in theory. The idea of Brian Heidik matching his wits against Richard Hatch and Boston Rob is an enticing prospect. Parvati versus Sandra versus Kim Spradlin in a battle to prove who is the best female Survivor player ever is a fascinating idea on paper. Giving some underrated one-time winners such as Todd and Chris the chance to prove their ability against the best of the best seems fair. The problem with all of this though is that it would never actually happen in the real world. There are several winners who would make ninety percent of most people’s ideal cast for an all-winners season who would either decline the opportunity or never be invited in the first place. Brian has been supposedly blacklisted from Survivor by CBS, Ethan and Todd have well-documented health issues, Cochran is now working for CBS which I believe makes him ineligible, whilst Kim and Aras both have new additions to the family which would probably mean they’d think twice before jumping on a deserted island for thirty-nine days. On top of that there are winners that CBS probably wouldn’t invite back due to them being considered ‘boring winners’; I believe Chris and Vecepia have never received a phone call asking them to return, whilst I wouldn’t mind betting Natalie probably falls into that category as well. Add to that the obvious relationship conflicts between Ethan and Jenna and Rob and Amber which would probably prevent one of them playing. Therefore, I believe that any ‘dream cast’ would be literally impossible. What we would probably end up seeing is a season packed full of winners we have already seen return twice, thrice or quince who would receive eighty percent of the airtime. This would defeat the ideology of the season for most people anyway and as a result I don’t think it would be a good season.


Is it fair that these two would be both playing?

2. A season full of people who are all winners would be inherently boring

This one might be a tad controversial, but hear me out. I am of the belief that despite what Probst and Burnett say, every contestant does not have a one in sixteen to twenty chance of winning a million dollars. Half of the contestants who appear on the show have absolutely no chance of winning and production knows it. They are cast for a variety of reasons, but all reasons come back to one fundamental principle; entertainment value. Some of the biggest and most famous contestants in Survivor history have no chance of winning the game, and they never will; Rupert, Coach, Randy, Russell, Phillip, Corrine all spring to mind. These people lack the social skills to ultimately succeed in a social game such as Survivor, yet it cannot be denied that these people have made an enormous impact on Survivor and its legacy. They also had an enormous role in their respective seasons and in some people’s opinions added to the entertainment in said seasons. Do I believe that Pearl Islands would have been a better season without Rupert? Hell no! You need people in Survivor without a chance of winning; they are such a fundamental part of the season’s entertainment that without them, I’m of the belief that any season would be as boring as bat poo. A season of “game bots” doesn’t fill me with excitement. Maybe that’s just me, but if you sit down and really think about it, I think you’ll see my point.


Some players are cast with the full intention for entertainment instead of game play.

3. It will ruin some winner’s legacies

This point kind of explains itself, but I find it unfortunate that some winners play great games their first time around, but then are considered “Dumbo’s” by the majority of fans because they screw up their second game. I think it’s unfair and ultimately taints people’s view of older seasons because they just can’t believe a good winner could make an obvious mistake. The prime example of this is J.T.; he’s gone from being the first perfect winner, (no votes against him during the game and the received all of the Jury votes), to a laughing stock after his Heroes vs., Villains performance. I don’t want this to happen to other winners, so I’m against an all winners season on that basis.

So there you have it. You might not agree with me, but I think an all-winners season would be a dumb idea.


Some players ‘Survivor legacies’ would be tarnished.



Who do you agree with? Lancey or James? Comment below to let us know whether your For or Against an all-winners season and if Lancey or James’ arguments changed your mind about it!

About Survivor Oz (2110 Articles)
Australia's Only 'Survivor' Radio Show! Tuesdays from 2PM AEST

24 Comments on For and Against – An All-Winners Season

  1. If this gets Todd back, I’m good, especially now that his problem with alcohol has been dealt with. Seeing Richard on our screens would be fantastic after as this time too. That group photo of previous winners had me in awe. Make it happen CBS!

    • Also, if there’s a Final Tribal Council with Denise, Todd, and Chris, expect a very close jury vote because I believe they are the greatest in history when it comes to FTC speeches.

  2. 1. Where is this all winners picture taken?
    2. Is Sandra wearing a Survivo Oz T-Shirt?
    3. Where are last weeks recaps?

    • I understand that you may be wanting some Survivor Oz, and I am not affiliated with them in anyway (just a fan), but I think the tone of Question 3 was quite rude, although I am certain it was unintentional. These people are doing quite amazing stuff and I think we should all treat everyone who is a Survivor fan with respect.

      Also about Sandra’s shirt, it looks like either Nicaragua or Caramoan.

      • I absolutely didn’t mean this in a rude way! I’ve been a fan of survivor oz for a while and listened to most of the interviews. For the last 6 days I’ve been checking every day this blog to find the latest recaps because I haven’t missed a single one and I was just curious did something happen. Of course I admire their work, it’s amazing, one of the best survivor based blogs/podcasts out here.


    • Hey Allas, I’ve been away since last Wednesday doing some work for one of my other shows at the Australian Grand Prix. We posted about this on our Facebook and Twitter pages saying that the recap, Oztopsy and rankings would all be delayed whilst I was away. Apologies for the delay. Please like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to stay up to date with the news 🙂 – Ben

  3. People are able to seperate players seasons. Everyone knows JT made a dumb move but no one takes away from the fact that his first time in Survivor he played a very good game and ultimately won and that’s what matters. If JT didn’t win Tocantins and was brought back for Heroes vs. Villains, I don’t think he would’ve played the same way and he would’ve given Russell the idol. He already won once so he made a risky move that didn’t pay off.

  4. another boston rob 4x dig. pathetic

  5. Winners aren’t really initial targets like they used to be back in All Stars. I think that if they were to do another Fans vs. Favorites they could do a winners tribe, or Blood vs. Water they could do a winners tribe, or even a full all star cast could be a winner tribe, but there aren’t enough good winners willing to return to make a good season. People like Todd, Chris, Yul, and Kim, and Denise should all have a shot to come back though. And I agree that the Ozzy/Coach seasons are dumb and shouldn’t be a thing anymore. I say 7 more seasons of newbies and a full all star cast with winners sprinkled in.

  6. Think that instead of just winners it should be winners vs runner ups

    • I’m really against that idea cause runner-ups would be superior on challenges and have the majority at the merge, after what they would pagong all the winners because they would really not want one of them to win again. Would be a boring season, an all-winners would be much more interesting.

      • Not necessarily…out of all the runners up, the only ones that are capable of dominating the challenges would be Ozzy, Amanda, Stephenie, Dreamz, and maybe Matt and Danielle. Other than that, can you seriously imagine players like Palau Katie, Courtney, or Phillip pulling off any challenge victories?? And on the winners side, there are some pretty good challenge competitors as well…Parvati, Ethan, Aras, Yul, Rob, Danni, Tyson, Fabio, and Kim come to mind. Plus again with the winners, you have people like Todd and Natalie, who may not be the best physical players, but won solely based on their ability to have a pretty flawless social game

  7. No power rankings this week?

  8. The idea sounds good in theory but it needs to go another 10 or so seasons before we can get enough entertaining winners that can play.

  9. In the end I don’t think that this will happen just because more than anything else people love their winners. An All-Winners season would just be too volatile with the fans. For example if Sandra returned and was voted out first people who love her would be mad. Then whoever won would tie her for first and thus some real fighting would begin based on who was better. In the end it will cause more issues than it will solve and I think that they know this. If they really wanted to have an All-Winners season it would have happened seasons ago when they could do an all-winners season and have every single winner back. At least that is my personal opinion.

  10. I see both sides of the argument, but everyone can dream right. I personally think Heidik is the best player ever, and that it is a travesty if he truly is blacklisted, but I feel like he would be one of the few winners that although everyone knows he is a threat, they would not get rid of him. I really want to see this happen.

    My final 2 predictions would be Danni and Vecepia though.

    • For it to be interesting they should maroon the survivors as one tribe the entire time and draw different teams at every challenge as this could potentially stop day 1 alliances making it to the end. Another idea is bringing back exile island but instead of having clues to find a hidden immunity idol the person marooned would have to complete challenge/s to gain the idol.

      I love the idea of an all winners season and I don’t care who they choose, they are all winners of the game and considered the greatest players of the game (except for Sandra who can proudly say she is the GREATEST player of all time because let’s face it no matter what argument you make WINNING is all that matters). So it doesn’t matter if they don’t win however many times they come back to play because anything can and will happen. This is why I love Survivor and really hope they bring back an Aussie version.

  11. I’m not sure that I care about tarnishing Survivor legacies. I think there are enough winners now that they could at least put together a group of 16 that would be entertaining. I expect that some people would turn it down, but I think you could get at least this group:

    Richard Hatch, Tina, Vecepia, Sandra, Chris, Danni, Aras, Yul, Earl, Parvati, Todd, Kim, Denise, Tyson, Boston Rob, Sophie

    It’s true that Kim might not play because of her baby, and others like Yul have a lot happening, but there are players like Natalie, Bob, Fabio, etc. that could be swapped in and still lead to a solid season. You could even go up to 18 or 20 if the cards worked out. This is something that would need to be planned way in advance.

    What I expect is that were more likely to see a “Winners vs. Contenders” season in the future. In that case, you can just put in like 10 winners and 10 people that are either brilliant players (Rob Cesternino, Stephen, etc.) or great TV. This would make the game less dull and also bring together a lot of notable winners.

    • Based on that group you listed, I’d love to see Richard. Are his legal problems done though?

      • I believe so. He mentioned on Rob Has a Podcast recently that it was all behind him. I expect he’ll be back at some point in the near future. I’m hearing rumblings that something big is shaping up for S30, though I don’t have any info about it or his involvement.

    • What about Todd? Is he all better now? If so, that would make him eligible again.

      • I think he’s out of rehab now, and from what I remember of her Survivor Oz interview, Danni would also be up for the challenge, since she’s stated that an all winners season is the only way she’s back in the game

  12. I’m all for an all winners season, especially if it’s an Old School vs New School format, having one tribe be the winners from Richard-Yul and the other tribe be from Earl on, of course placing Sandra on the old school tribe. I’m already picturing a Sandra/Vecepia/Tina final 3 alliance, as well as competing alliances of Rich/Brian/Chris, Ethan/Yul/Tom (of course all the nice guys would gravitate towards each other), and Amber/Jenna/Danni on one tribe, and on the other tribe, we’d have the obvious alliance of Rob/Tyson (that’s a given since not only did the two have a final 4 deal with Sandra/Courtney in HvV, but they’re also good friends outside of the game), and it would be fun to see a Parvati/Kim alliance, with Todd probably joining in, since in China, it seemed that he got along better with Leslie/Courtney/Amanda, than he did with the other guys.

  13. Ideally: double the prize and try as hard as possible to entice all the 1-timers for a return trip (up to 17, after S31). Then fill out the season with those viewed as the best-ever (Parvati and Sandra for sure for being the only ones whose last two seasons ended with them in the finals, then some more depending on how many 1-timers won’t agree).
    So then, hooray, we cut way down on the # of contestants with perfect records, and we get to see how good each winner really is (People who already took 3 tries or failed to make a return FTC post-win are fairly expendable.)

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Analysing The Survivor All-Winners Season – Ben Waterworth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: