Yes... just like others have looked down on other players who made it to the end, but didn't have to do anything. Yes his path is 'in the game' - but that doesn't mean you have to respect it or value it the same as someone who played a different course.
Think about it... this season came down to one challenge and a fire making challenge. That's garbage.
Well, that's Survivor. If you want a show that ends satisfyingly and rewards the best player, don't count on this show.
For me, it's akin to being on a real life jury. If you're asked to convict someone, you base that decision on the law. Did they do the crime and therefore should be punished as per the law. You're not supposed to acquit because you disagree with the law.
The format of this season said that a player who is voted out can come back at the last minute. You don't vote against him because you think it's a stupid twist. He endured exile, he executed good gameplay when he needed to, and won challenges when he needed to. He won based on the rules the show established.
Don't get me wrong. This was a very problematic season. How can it possibly be fair that the eventual winner got to spend weeks and weeks sequestered with the jury? There was no gameplay, no backstabbing, just a long time to build friendships and relationships.
The jury may have rewarded Chris in part for enduring EOE. It's totally unfair because they have a bias, having experienced it themselves. The jury rewarded Chris's game because it was the game they played. So much bias at play.
As noted before, the hardest part of the game is voting people out in a way that they will still vote for you to win. We know the format generates a degree of bitterness among the jury. The EOE format put anyone but Chris in a terrible position.
If they do this again, they should at least make it that exiled players live with the tribe. If Gavin had the same chance to spend 24/7 with the jury, this could have gone differently.