The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Actually this violates T7 and T8. They deal with intentionally playing below one's ability, which I presume includes the selection of defenses that are known to be difficult for a particular set of opponents.

An alternate interpretation:

Recognizing that working with the other alliance to select mutually beneficial defenses could benefit one's ranking and then NOT choosing to do so is intentionally playing below one's ability.

I view it as a potential source of coopertition. The argument to apply T7 or T8 to this type of agreement is like saying an agreement to attempt a coop balance in 2012 was playing beneath ones ability. Yes by performing the balance you removed the opportunity to gain a "match win advantage" from scoring more balls or balancing on a point scoring bridge, but it was worthwhile because ranking points are the ranking criteria.

It's a very similar mechanic to the 6 v 0 matches in 2010. Opposing alliances could agree to work together to benefit everyone's ranking. This was partially mitigated by the change to the 5 point ranking bonus for match wins (added after week 1 play).

This year there will still be matches where one alliance may think "If I agree to this I will likely lose, but maybe get the breach. If I don't agree I will likely win by placing XXX defenses against the opponent, but am less likely to breach. Therefore I will not agree." But in general, it could benefit the ranking of both alliances to collaborate on their defense selections.