nick thinks that teams that don't participate have an advantage. I disagree, and think that sitting a series out is generally going to be suicide (although Champ is proving to be the exception).
Thoughts?
Its a big advantage, as long as you get one or two high discussion posters on your side.
You don't have to set lineups or tactics, you can let posters like myself, Roy, Who do that for you. You can be more things to more posters.
So yeah I think its a very large advantage.
I still wonder if I might have won if Roy hadnt argued my team couldnt defend Fab Melo and 4 chairs.
I would have made the same argument whether Champ had showed up or not. Also, my much more vigorous arguments didn't do Dallas any favors.
I agree with Faf, as you know from my PMs on the subject, Roy. I think it could be a huge advantage. Bringing up Champ is maybe a bad example because I knew ahead of time that his business(college football) was starting up so he had great reason and told us ahead of time. But I think it brings up a good point that participation throughout the playoff debates should be addressed by those that make the rules to possibly stop someone who isn't a good debater or thinks they are better off not answering questions on their team during this crucial part of the game and decides not to participate.
I also think it a fairness of competition issue for those that want to debate their opponent. Some of the best basketball related debate on this site has occurred in these playoff threads. You vs IP last year, me vs IP, Rondo and I vs IP, Kane vs IP two years ago, and the earlier TWW vs Lucky debate, TWW, SO, Lucky, IP, and you always have great debate with however you face. I think trying to get participation between the GMs to be good for the game and if outside people like the debate, it helps to promote the game when the competing GMs stick to "within the rules" debates and banter.