I've gone through the process I described above for the #1 seed "pool." For that pool, I use the teams ranked #1 through #6 in the ARPI. For the "record against teams already selected for the bracket" criterion, I considered results against all teams in the bracket. For that criterion, I ranked the teams as follows: 1 Stanford 2 Florida State 3 BYU 4 Penn State 5 UCLA 6 San Diego State After my first run through using all the criteria, I had the teams as follows: Stanford ahead of 5 teams Florida State 1.5 BYU 1.5 UCLA 1 San Diego State 1 Penn State 0 I then selected Stanford, Florida State, and BYU for #1 seeds and limited the system to comparing the remaining three teams. After my second run, I had those three teams as follows: UCLA 1 Penn State 0 San Diego State 0 The question is, why did the Committee give Penn State the fourth #1 seed? It could have been simply based on the "record against teams already selected for the bracket" criterion. Based on what I observed last year in the Committee's giving Tennessee a #4 seed though ranked #25, however, I have another possible reason. One of the things the Committee receives, as part of the Team Sheets, is each team's conference's average ARPI and the rank of that ARPI among conferences. My guess is that, when it comes to seeding, the Committee takes the conferences' ratings and ranks into consideration. Here are the average ARPI ratings for the top 8 conferences this year: 1. ACC .6047 2. Pac 12 .5863 3. Big Ten .5772 4. SEC .5726 5. Big 12 .5699 6. West Coast .5697 7. Big East .5490 8. Mountain West .5337 Combined with Penn State's record against teams already selected, the Committee may have felt it was more appropriate to give a #1 seed to Penn State, as a representative of the third-ranked Big Ten, than to give two of the #1 seeds to the second-ranked Pac 12 or a seed to the eighth-ranked Mountain West. Also, if you look closely at the average ratings of the SEC, Big 12, and West Coast conferences, they are very close so BYU could be seen as a representative of that group. I haven't done the remaining seed "pods" yet, and won't until later, so I can't say why those seeds worked out as they did. Under my system, with San Diego State and UCLA not getting #1 seeds they would go into the #2 seed pool and they may fare differently there than they did in the #1 pool due to matchups, common opponents, and so on. I think the above rationale, however, could explain the #1 seeds.