[Don Wright]

This year we have the interesting experience that teams really have two opportunities to affect the ranking of the other teams at the event.

The first is traditional: to win matches. This has a negative affect on the opposing alliance and a positive affect on you.

The second is non-traditional: to mess up their chance at the co-op bridge. This has a negative affect on both the opposing alliance, and your alliance.

By choosing to do the second, you accept the negative affect on you to bring down the other alliance. I don't think this is similar to the 6-0 of the past because when the opposing team choose to score for the other team, they were actually scoring for themselves (taking the loss, but raising their ranking score). In this case, it's just a net loss for you (and them) when you screw up the co-op bridge on purpose. It only brings everyone involved down.

IMHO...and maybe not of my team, this discussion is solely to try and justify actions of a few select teams in FIRST who would go to this length to try and stop certain "powerhouse" teams from teaming up at a competition because they know they can't beat them otherwise (and won't be picked by them). I honestly believe that there are only a handful of teams in FIRST that have used tactics such as these and I believe that the FIRST community for the most part knows who these teams are and have reflective opinions of them.

If you can't beat them, you can either keep reaching higher or try and bring them down to your level. How would you rather be known?