To be fair, I'm fairly certain MOST tournaments do have seeding for the reason that teams that performed better in the normal season, as it rewards those with better performances. Does finishing number one on the ladder mean nothing? Regardless of the race they choose to pick, I think its safe to say the person that wins the ladder will almost all of the time be better then whoever qualifies with the worst record.Denied? And what about the other people who might have to play either one of them in other rounds? Are they not being "denied" if we suddenly start seeding? Sorry, but that makes little sense to me: you're assuming performance which we are yet to measure.One of them is getting denied at least hundred euro they probably otherwise get.Seeding exists so that "the best" do not meet each other until later rounds. But we're not playing "the best" of the same against each other, we're playing "the best" of each race against each other, and the whole point of the KO tournament is to find out which of those is "the best". They're already seeded within their own race since they came top. To that end we basically have a whole bunch of #1 seeds. The ladder competition is really 16 individual competitions and the top 1 of each competition advances.Seeding in tournaments exist in many games for obvious reasons.
There are plenty of examples of tournaments where there is no seeding (e.g. the FA cup).
Since these better players will be the ones that place higher on the ladder, seeding makes it less likely that the best players will have to face each other early on. Obviously you want the best players to be the ones who win the tourney. Seeding helps make that happen. Not seeding at all implies that how high you place in the ladder isn't indicative of skill at all; only how you stack up against others of your race. To me, that just doesn't seem like it is the case.