And after thinking about it, is it that bad that the new kids can stand a chance against the advnaced players even though we're ALL new at brawl?
It depends on personal opinion, really, and how you look at it. Nintendo has a large history of loving to "even the playing field" between players in their games, even though it is largely likely that the players who are winning are winning because they're playing better. From "chump charity" in, I believe, every Mario Party game to slowing down the lead racer in Mario Kart, and including highly beneficial items that are more likely to spawn for people in last place, like lightning, the Blue Shell, and now Bullet Bill (or whatever the item's official name is).
They like to give players who are losing
another chance, in general. The thing is, though, those losing players already had
a chance, and they didn't make good on it. So the question, of course, is do they deserve that second chance? Does a losing player deserve to be given additional chances solely because they're losing? Why shouldn't there just be the incentive to get better, so that you don't lose anymore?
It's "good" superficially, to consider it as "giving everyone an equal chance," but that's not really correct. Nintendo has a habit of giving losing players
more than an equal chance at success, and that's pretty obviously unfair to winning players. It's important to realize that this is not the distribution of an "equal" chance opportunity to win. An equal chance would be to give no players benefits over the others, ever.
I race my way to the front, but once I'm there, all i get are single green shells and bananas while the people behind me get bullet bills, blue shells, and lightning every other item. I work hard to win every minigame to keep my opponent low on coins, but near the end of the game, they're awarded "chump charity" coins, which just happen to give them enough to afford the star they're 3 steps away from now, taking the lead over me.
This type of game behavior creates a regular flux in who leads at any given time, but it is important to realize that this does not make it, necessarily, an "equal" playing field. In professional sports, when the best team in the league plays the worst team, the best team doesn't have to play on their knees, or wearing lots of weights to slow them down. Why should worse players be given extra consideration? They'll lose because they're worse. Better players win. That's the entire foundation of fair competition.