[cadandcookies]

Generally, a smart team. A "good team" with a "good robot" that isn't as familiar with the game is liable to rack up penalties and be out of touch with common and uncommon strategies.

That being said, as the OP points out, most "good teams" with good robots are also smart about how they approach the game and competition. This is why we know them as good teams.

Of course, this all depends on your definition of a "good team"-- if by good team, you mean competitive, then we're basically arguing if a team that is by definition good at the game is going to a team that is, again, by definition, nebulously "smart" about their approach. If, on the other, hand, by a "good team," you mean a team that focuses on the Chairman's Award, then their on-field performance is relatively random taken as a whole (I wish I had a statistic on this-- someone either back me up or disprove me here). Then, the smart team wins.

Ultimately the issue is that the terms aren't really well defined and they aren't even mutually exclusive.