(Seemingly) Irrational alliance selection decisions?

[Brian Maher]

I was looking at alliance selection results from this season and reflected on how things played out at a few events. I noticed that there are quite a few selection decisions that I couldn't figure out the reasoning behind. I understand that teams don't always make the best decision. With a problem anywhere near as challenging as alliance selection, that's to be expected. However, occasionally teams just make strange picks. I'm sure you've all seen such selections.

In a similar vein, I've seen quite a few teams who've been declined and then advanced further than the team who declined them, especially in scorched-earth scenarios (i.e. high alliance captain picks other alliance captains who decline in order to keep them from partnering up). In those cases, it often seems like the declining team would have been better off accepting.

My questions for everyone:

• Why do teams behave (seemingly, to an outsider) irrationally during alliance selection?
• Has anyone noticed any patterns or common fallacies*?
• How frequently do teams make the "right pick" or something close to it? Is there a way to quantify/measure this?

*Aside from a lack of scouting data. I know from first-hand experience that it can cause problems for an alliance captain.