[gblake]

... Using your "brainpower" to do things correctly from the start will always trump trying to squeeze the system for what it's worth.

I'm pretty sure that what I am talking about is using your brainpower at every step of the way, so I guess we agree about that.

... if the #1 seed recognises that it was your team that caused the alliance to lose.

In the scenario I outlined, the team in question wishes to ally with the #2 seed and the #2 seed wishes to ally with them. Without any loss of generality one can assume that both of those teams have discussed the strategy and see merit in it. The goal of the strategy is to prevent the #1 seed from using FIRST's drafting rules (or some off-season events' rules) to deny #2 and the team in question the opportunity to ally.

Also, in the scenario I outlined, the one team does not cause the alliance to lose. The allied trio of teams all agree with and actively support using the strategy. If they don't then it doesn't get used. I tried to make that clear when I described the scenario.

Mathematical analysis will always have the inherent flaw that it cannot predict human behavior.

Then it is a good thing that employing this strategy does not depend on human behavior, except for the one possiblity that the #1 seed will pick the team in question, from the pool, with their first pick. Otherwise, the #2 and this team get to form the alliance they think will win the tournament.

Blake