[LeelandS]

I was crunching some numbers earlier today (a lot of numbers...), and something I thought I'd take a look at was how rankings would have turned out if coopertition points did not effect qualification score. Let me tell you, there was a BIG difference. In fact, none of the top 8 teams would have come up in the same order, and with the exception of 772 at Smoky Mountain, 4161 in San Diego, 247 at Gull Lake, and 341 at Hatboro-Horsham, the number one seeded team would have been different. And teams as far down as the 7th Seed could have become 1st seed (3568 at Kettering). So, given these numbers, it's understandable why some teams would decline. If you can't beat a top seeded team, the best you can do is deny them the top spot. It goes without saying, that's what a lot of teams are willing to do. Simply put, it's not a nice or GP thing.

However, what a lot of teams didn't seem to realize, and this also came from the numbers, the top few spots were rarely determined by more than a hand full of qualification points (2-4, usually). And the tiers (what I've called the clusters 4-5 teams with the same number of qualification points), could easily have been totally changed by just one balance of the coopertition bridge. Teams could have advanced by leaps and bounds if they had chosen to cooperate more.

Yeah, it's understandable why teams would want to not balance. It gives some a better chance to come out on top (especially if the stronger teams have had a run of bad luck and are losing). That being said, you make no friends, and don't guarentee yourself a better finish by turning down balancing.

tl;dr: Just balance. You make more friends, look nicer to teams looking for a good balancer, and you rank higher. Those things come in order of how important I think they are.