I just say that I can't believe it is black and white, I believe It is gray and that there are numerous situation where the lowest TV team is not at disadvantage baring inducements.
No doubt if the other team has maxed out its re-rolls and cheerleaders and has 16 players each with a totally random selection of skills then underdog teams coached by anyone with a clue will still beat it... but overdog teams coached by someone with a clue will likely beat it even more.
I gave you specific example (ie : Vampire for example) but there are other. You choose to ignore them or explain data to prove me wrong.
Understand that people don't need to prove your meandering feelings wrong - you need to prove them right. That's especially true when you're declaring something contrary to the established norm.
Now, that said, here's the regression line for Vampire win rates based on TV advantage across the entire time CRP was used on FUMBBL:
Shockingly enough, it's not a downward slope toward 0... it's the usual "things get better for us as our TV advantage increases" pattern.
I do not say it is the majority of situation, I just maintain it is not insignifiant either.
Then prove it with data. Until you do that what you're basing it on is feeling, and that's stupid.
ie : Are you absolutely sure :
a 1250 Chaos team is so much better than a 1100 elves or Skavens team with a wizard ?
a 2250 vampire is better and win in most case against a 2100 Chaos, 2100 chaos dwarves,2100 Necris o or a 2000 Skavens ?
Those aren't questions about whether TV advantage is better or worse, those are questions about whether the roster is better or worse than another roster at different TV levels. The real questions are "whether the lower TV team wins more than higher TV teams of the same roster in that situation".
As for all these ultra-specific questions: I know how this game (not BB) works... you're going to want to subdivide things ad nauseum in order to forward a lame god-of-the-gaps argument, culminating in "but what about when vampires play wood elves on the second tuesday when both coaches are in china?" or some such crap, looking for some combination where you can say "well, that proves I'm right" solely on dint of there not being enough data to do serious analysis at such a minute level.
Your trying to make me look like a fool, is not just unfair, it make me believe you have data but have not done a deep analysis of them. I don't have access to your data, yes, doesn't mean what I say based on experience is necerrally stupid.
No, you're making yourself look like a fool, and I don't mean the fact that you consistently use "your" in place of "you're" and can't spell "necessarily". If you think I've done the analysis wrong then its on you to do it right. If you don't know how to do the analysis then you're talking out your ass when you accuse me of doing it wrong since the only "evidence" you have is that it doesn't match what you decided was true based on anecdote. That alone makes you a fool.
Your not trying to discuss but just make your absolute truth the truth. So you obviously do not want to understand that some nuances do exist.
"Nuance" means... when you've decided something is true but the data says you're wrong? There's a whole lot of "nuance" in the world, mostly forwarded by uneducated folks.