[M T]

Pac 12 has 1, 5 and 8 seeds, all on the same side of the bracket.

Pac-12 also has the #14 seed (on the other side of the bracket), and two three other teams.

Seeding and AVCA rank Nov 30:
1. USC (2)
2. Minnesota (4)
3. Texas (3)
4. Nebraska (5)
5. Washington (1)
6. Wisconsin (10)
7. Penn St. ( 8 )
8. Stanford (6)
9. Kansas (9)
10. Texas A&M (15)
11. Florida (16)
12. Ohio St (14)
13. BYU (11)
14. UCLA (12)
15. Louisville (18)
16. Creighton  (> 25)

These two teams were ranked in the top-16 but not seeded in the top 16.
Hawaii (7)
Colorado State (13)

There were 23 at-large teams that were not seeded in the top-16.

Beyond the 4 seeded teams, these PAC-12 teams are also in the tournament, but unseeded:  Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon.

Using only the top-16 seeded teams, seeding of teams west of Central Time zone relative to the AVCA rankings of Nov 30:
    +1, -4, -2, -2, -2    (Hawaii  -10-,  Colorado State  -4-)
Central & Eastern Time zone times
    +2, 0, +1, +4, +1, 0, +5, +5, +2, +3, +10+
It sure looks like either the seeding or the rankings have a geographical component.

I notice that the two top seeds of the Big Ten got split into opposite sides of the bracket (if seeded as #4 and #5, they would be on the same side).  I notice that the two top seeds of the Big 12 got split into opposite sides of the bracket (same as their rank would give them).  SEC top 2 seeds are on the same side of the bracket, but their 3rd seed is on the opposite side.  PAC-12 top 3 seeds are on the same side of the bracket (by ranking, the top 2 teams would be on different sides), but their 4th seed is on the opposite side.

What do you think about putting the #1 ranked team as seed #5 so it has to play the #2 ranked team no later than the semi-finals?

Criminal?  Probably not.  Something that seems extremely unfair to the athletes?  Definitely. 

[M T]

Pac 12 has 1, 5 and 8 seeds, all on the same side of the bracket.

Pac-12 also has the #14 seed (on the other side of the bracket), and two three other teams.

Seeding and AVCA rank Nov 30:
1. USC (2)
2. Minnesota (4)
3. Texas (3)
4. Nebraska (5)
5. Washington (1)
6. Wisconsin (10)
7. Penn St. ( 8 )
8. Stanford (6)
9. Kansas (9)
10. Texas A&M (15)
11. Florida (16)
12. Ohio St (14)
13. BYU (11)
14. UCLA (12)
15. Louisville (18)
16. Creighton  (> 25)

These two teams were ranked in the top-16 but not seeded in the top 16.
Hawaii (7)
Colorado State (13)

There were 23 at-large teams that were not seeded in the top-16.

Beyond the 4 seeded teams, these PAC-12 teams are also in the tournament, but unseeded:  Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon.

Using only the top-16 seeded teams, seeding of teams west of Central Time zone relative to the AVCA rankings of Nov 30:
    +1, -4, -2, -2, -2    (Hawaii  -10-,  Colorado State  -4-)
Central & Eastern Time zone times
    +2, 0, +1, +4, +1, 0, +5, +5, +2, +3, +10+
It sure looks like either the seeding or the rankings have a geographical component.

I notice that the two top seeds of the Big Ten got split into opposite sides of the bracket (if seeded as #4 and #5, they would be on the same side).  I notice that the two top seeds of the Big 12 got split into opposite sides of the bracket (same as their rank would give them).  SEC top 2 seeds are on the same side of the bracket, but their 3rd seed is on the opposite side.  PAC-12 top 3 seeds are on the same side of the bracket (by ranking, the top 2 teams would be on different sides), but their 4th seed is on the opposite side.

What do you think about putting the #1 ranked team as seed #5 so it has to play the #2 ranked team no later than the semi-finals?

Criminal?  Probably not.  Something that seems extremely unfair to the athletes?  Definitely.