[Lil' Lavery]

Even with many of the best bots beeing seeded low, they were still picked high. I mean, just look at you. 233 was one of the best bots in Archimedes, thats why you were picked 5th. 71 was picked 3rd, and 173 was picked 4th(or maybe 6th, cant remember, but they declined). At championships there are enough bots that we would need more QF matches to truly get a good feel of alliance selection, but at regionals it works fine. In most situations (there are a few where it doesnt, like 67 getting last place) the best bots are seeded high up at regionals. Once again, look at your story in Colorado, you were the #1 seed and 118 was the #2. 233 and 118 where clearly the best bots there.
If you allowed alliances to be picked in the fashion you suggest, you would result with 2 or 3 dominant alliances, no point in even having the other 5. Do you really think it would be fair to have alliances like 233, 173, and 217? Maybe a combination of 179, 71, and 245 could beat that, but not many other Archimedes teams would even have a chance. It would be even more crippling at the regional level, where there typically arnt more than 4 or 5 REALLY good teams.
Plus think of the chaos it would cause. There would be no way that each team could agree on their dream alliance. Say team A wanted to be with B and C, but B wanted to be with D and E. Then C wanted to be with A and D, and not B. And then E wanted C and A. Team F wanted A and E. ect. ect. ect.
Nobody would be able to agree on anything, and it would be a long and tedious process.