I'm replying to these posts from the offseason thread in the new playoff format thread where it seems to fit better.

First, to expand on why I think the ASA article understates the advantage of finishing 2 over 3:

My first assumption is all his calculations are correct, and I'm using his first set of numbers that assumes all teams are equally good to isolate the benefit of seeding. Under the old system, the 2 spot formerly had a 25% chance of winning the conference while the 3 spot had 16. He calls this a 9 pct. point advantage. Under the new system the 2 seed has 19% and the 3 seed has 14%. He calls this a 5 point advantage. It looks like the advantage has been cut nearly in half. But that's not the right way to look at it. If you want to determine solely the benefit of the 2 seed over the 3 seed, I think you have to measure their relative share of their combined chance of winning the conference. Under the old system, the 2 and 3 seeds had a combined 41% chance, of which 25 belonged to the 2 seed, which meant the 2 seed had 61% of their shared chance of winning. Now those same seeds have a combined 33% chance, of which 19 belongs to the 2 seed, giving it 58% of their shared chance of winning. That's not nearly as big a drop as the article makes it seem.

Now let's apply this measure to every single spot: the advantage of 1 over 2, of 2 over 3, etc. By the math,

Shwafta is right. Here is how they stack up in order.

1-2 68% of shared chance of winning belongs to higher seed

4-5 63%

2-3 58%

3-4 58%

6-7 55%

5-6 50%