You know, I've gone back and forth over the years as to whether or not "floating" is a legitimate strategy. On the one hand, you can say a floater doesn't deserve to win because another person or group did all the work and the floater did virtually nothing. On the other hand, could attaching yourself to a strong player or group be a strategy in itself? Does a person have to continually win comps and wear a target to earn the right to win the game? Or, is aligning yourself with a comp beast/power player, staying in their circle of trust, discussing strategy and voting to support them a valid way to play?
These types of players, such as Brittany, can make it pretty far in the game. And if the final two came down to Michael and Brittany, who would the jury vote for? Would it be Michael who won the most comps and made the most moves? Or did Michael evict too many jury members through his HOH and veto wins? Did he tick off too many people who would rather not give him their final votes? It could go either way. Still, I don't necessarily see a player like Brittany as unworthy of winning. True, she has been less active in the game. But it's kept her in the house and just under the radar. I see that as a viable strategy to get to the end.
