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

[Nemo]

Let's pretend it's a simple binary choice with known outcomes in each case. Reality is probabilistic, but similar enough:

Choice 1: Make agreement with opposing alliance to choose easier defenses. Results in achieving a "capture" and get an extra ranking point.

Choice 2: Don't make the defenses agreement with opponents. Results in no capture and no extra ranking point.

If you have that choice available and don't take it, then you're not really doing your best to rank highly. If all six teams agree to something like that, I don't see how anybody can fault them for it. If one or more teams has their reasons for not wanting to make such an agreement, I don't see any problem in that case, either.

This is basically what KrazyKarl is saying above, and I agree with him.

It would be a strange departure for FIRST to tell teams they can't talk to opposing alliances to agree on certain things before a match. That was required in 2012, and in other years it has been useful. Example, in 2010 you could agree with opponents to play all offense and no defense, because high scoring matches (with loser scoring >0 goals) were better for everybody's rankings than low scoring matches, win or lose.