[Suneet]

Match fixing, where the two alliances have decided who is going to win to the match beforehand, is clearly unfair and unethical. Asking an alliance to lose a match but get a reasonably high score by cooperating is uncompetitive behavior.
That said, I wish to differentiate match fixing from the possibility of an agreement between matches that goes like this:

"We'll both have the human players make stacks of six (seven?). You don't knock over our stack, and we won't knock yours. You knock ours, and we'll knock yours. May the best alliance win."

This way, the outcome of the match is NOT determined beforehand, and both alliances have the advantage of a possibly very high score. Also, one always runs the risk of the other alliance breaking the pact, in which case one must knock over the opposing stack ASAP.

We have scored 292 with this arrangement (I was coaching). No one in the match was a stacker, so that's not a bad score.(though technically our robot can make a stack of 2 if needed) I hope no one thinks of such matches as "fixed". When no robot can stack, this is an excellent way for both alliances to take a shot at a good score, and the outcome is indeterminate every match.

<edit>

You know, we discussed the above arrangement with Jason Morrella at Sacramento, and though he wouldn't branded it as the most gracious and professional thing to do, he wouldn't brand it as non-gracious and professional, either. He was kinda neutral... But he certainly found it acceptable. (not illegal)

</edit>