[M T]

Region placements for #1 and #2 seeds are now strictly geographical. That is, the top #1 seed gets placed in the closest regional, then the second #1 seed in the closest remaining regional, etc., and then the same for the #2 seeds. Unfortunately, when one conference has both a #1 and #2 seed, this method often puts them in the same regional, something most people seem to feel is undesirable. E.g., two years ago Baylor had to face TAMU for the 4th time in the same season in the regional final.

I don't think conference membership are supposed to be considered at all, beyond the basic fact that some conferences get an automatic bid for the conference champ. But I haven't read the selection/seeding principles document, and of course don't know any unwritten rules the committee may apply when they have choices.

The document governing this year's seeding is at
  http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa/re...edures.pdf
It reads like IRS instructions.  I compared it to the 2009 document.  Most of the changes involved wording changes regarding the number of votes needed for decisions, moving away from a presumption of a particular committee size.  There was one new clause:  " If possible, a higher seeded team will not play on a lower seeded team’s home floor an inordinate number of times."  But no changes to geographical placement. 

However, I didn't find wording that exactly matched what you said regarding geography.  Instead I find these two competing paragraphs:

The committee will attempt to assign each team to the
most geographically compatible regional and first‐
/second‐round site, by order of the s‐curve. When
multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s‐curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.
...
If possible, teams from the same conference shall not be
placed in the same region in Line Nos. 1‐4.

As I read that, if a conference has a team seeded #1 to #4 (on line 1) and a team seeded #5, the committee is allowed to choose whether to place the #5 team in the same region (first rule) or in a different region (second rule).  My naive reading would have been that the second rule ("if possible") trumps the first rule ("will attempt")

In Feb 2011, Charlie Creme wrote
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/st...id=6122381

Texas A&M is next and of the remaining regions, Dallas is the closest. However, putting the Aggies there with Baylor as the No. 1 would violate a major principle -- that no more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 in a region, unless a conference has five or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. (The committee actually violated this principle in 2008 when it placed UConn and Rutgers as the 1-2 in the same region without there being five teams from the Big East among those top seeds. Following the outcry, that mistake is unlikely to ever happen again.)

and followed up with this a month later after the committee did it again
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/tournament...id=6216888

But, this year … it happened again.

Baylor is the No. 1 and Texas A&M is the No. 2 in the Dallas Regional. Why? The answer all week will certainly be what it was in 2008 -- keeping teams in more geographically friendly regions and all else be damned. Why, then, the change in philosophy each of the past two years? It doesn't make sense. The fix is easy. Flip-flop the pods that A&M and Notre Dame are in. The Aggies play into Dayton, the Irish play into Dallas. Is that really such a big deal when it avoids the top teams in arguably the top conference potentially meeting before the Final Four for a fourth time?
...
This exact same issue happens in the Spokane Regional this year with Stanford as the No. 1 and UCLA as the No. 3. It's completely unnecessary. Fans don't want it, coaches don't want it and the media doesn't want it.

[M T]

Region placements for #1 and #2 seeds are now strictly geographical. That is, the top #1 seed gets placed in the closest regional, then the second #1 seed in the closest remaining regional, etc., and then the same for the #2 seeds. Unfortunately, when one conference has both a #1 and #2 seed, this method often puts them in the same regional, something most people seem to feel is undesirable. E.g., two years ago Baylor had to face TAMU for the 4th time in the same season in the regional final.

I don't think conference membership are supposed to be considered at all, beyond the basic fact that some conferences get an automatic bid for the conference champ. But I haven't read the selection/seeding principles document, and of course don't know any unwritten rules the committee may apply when they have choices.

The document governing this year's seeding is at
  http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa/re...edures.pdf
It reads like IRS instructions.  I compared it to the 2009 document.  Most of the changes involved wording changes regarding the number of votes needed for decisions, moving away from a presumption of a particular committee size.  There was one new clause:  " If possible, a higher seeded team will not play on a lower seeded team’s home floor an inordinate number of times."  But no changes to geographical placement. 

However, I didn't find wording that exactly matched what you said regarding geography.  Instead I find these two competing paragraphs:

The committee will attempt to assign each team to the
most geographically compatible regional and first‐
/second‐round site, by order of the s‐curve. When
multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s‐curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.
...
If possible, teams from the same conference shall not be
placed in the same region in Line Nos. 1‐4.

As I read that, if a conference has a team seeded #1 to #4 (on line 1) and a team seeded #5, the committee is allowed to choose whether to place the #5 team in the same region (first rule) or in a different region (second rule).  My naive reading would have been that the second rule ("if possible") trumps the first rule ("will attempt")

In Feb 2011, Charlie Creme wrote
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/st...id=6122381

Texas A&M is next and of the remaining regions, Dallas is the closest. However, putting the Aggies there with Baylor as the No. 1 would violate a major principle -- that no more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 in a region, unless a conference has five or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. (The committee actually violated this principle in 2008 when it placed UConn and Rutgers as the 1-2 in the same region without there being five teams from the Big East among those top seeds. Following the outcry, that mistake is unlikely to ever happen again.)

and followed up with this a month later after the committee did it again
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/tournament...id=6216888

But, this year … it happened again.

Baylor is the No. 1 and Texas A&M is the No. 2 in the Dallas Regional. Why? The answer all week will certainly be what it was in 2008 -- keeping teams in more geographically friendly regions and all else be damned. Why, then, the change in philosophy each of the past two years? It doesn't make sense. The fix is easy. Flip-flop the pods that A&M and Notre Dame are in. The Aggies play into Dayton, the Irish play into Dallas. Is that really such a big deal when it avoids the top teams in arguably the top conference potentially meeting before the Final Four for a fourth time?
...
This exact same issue happens in the Spokane Regional this year with Stanford as the No. 1 and UCLA as the No. 3. It's completely unnecessary. Fans don't want it, coaches don't want it and the media doesn't want it.