"Strategic" Alliance selection

[JABot67]

1. Yes, at least for the first and second picks. The #1 seeded team usually talks to the team it wants to pick as its first selection. Often, the two teams will compare their lists of teams and combine them so they both agree on the same list for their potential second picks. If the #2 team thinks it's obvious who the #1 team will pick, then the #2 team will talk to the team that it wants as its first selection, after the #1 seeded team has picked its first selection. The third ranked team can do the same thing, although it is a little bit more variable whether or not they will get the team they want.

2. Usually this does not occur, and sometimes it will be the complete opposite. An example is the Curie alliance selections in 2007. Team 1732 (#1) knew that 330 (#2) wanted to pick 1114 (#5 I think) so they chose 1114, who declined. That way, 330 could not pick them. Then they picked 330, who also declined, and then picked the #8 seeded 67, who accepted. By earning the #1 seed, 1732 had the ability to break up a potentially powerful alliance, and then created a powerful alliance of its own. It's all strategy.

3. I don't think I've ever heard of a team not choosing another team because a lower seeded team wanted to pick that team. It's not strategically sound.