I cannot believe what I am reading here!
For those that think that any kind of agreement between opponents is OK, consider this scenario:
If you are the #1 seed who got there without any agreements with your opponents, would you like it if you lost the chance to choose first (something you had truly earned) because the #2 seed made and agreement with their opponent to keep the score high? Even if the #2 seed did not agree on the outcome (who wins and loses) it still hurts the #1 because the #2 seed artificially increased their opportunity to get higher points and the #1 seed had to earn their points the hard way.
Does the #1 seed deserve this treatment and lack of respect from the #2 seed?? Obviously not; therefore IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!
If FIRST came out and said that agreements are allowed (which they didn't), then the game would become a game of who can negotiate the best agreements instead of a robotic competition. Geez, is that what we want?
If you still don't agree, the fact that so many teams were doing a petition about this and blowing the whistle on those that are doing it should indicate to you that something MUST be wrong with it.