[SamM]

Blake,
I believe it is implied that B would be losing the match without the consent of C. Why would C agree to a strategy that leads to them eventually losing in the eliminations to the A-B alliance?

I do not see a situation where the purposeful loss strategy would be both viable and morally acceptable. Either B discretely informs A they will try to lose the match leading A & B "colluding", something I believe would generally be defined as amoral(and possibly against the rules of the given game). Or B does not inform A of their intentions, B looks very weak in the final match before pairing, likely leading to C being picked over B.