Difference is that most players don't really choose to abuse the ELO system, it's just how it works. You play against people who are online at the same time and you play people on certain maps which might really impact your rating. Also ELO fluctuates so much, even the time when the admins look at the ladder have a big impact on the system. This is something very different than seeding someone higher or lower on purpose.Let's be slightly critical here. In an ideal world no one would abuse the ELO system either, yet here we are complaining about how ELO is not a good way to determine entry/seeding.
I wouldn't really call ACCM/happyhappy weak and Tatoh/Hera average, but ok. Then Viper reaches the semi's (not the finals) where he will have to play TheMax/Yo most likely. If he loses that, he most likely won't be seeded first in the next tournament. Even if he loses the final, he most likely will get seeded below the winner, so how does he not deserve to get first seed if he wins against the 4th or 5th seed and the 2nd or 3rd seed?That is the paradox: if he wins, is it cause he deserves it or cause he had to beat weaker players and save strong civs for later rounds?
Think of it like this : viper reaches the final beating 2 weak players and an average one; how many players could've reached the final like that? Not only viper, that is for sure...
Which esport organiser seeds teams based on rated games and not on past tournament achievements?well this is for each to decide for themselves ; for me , obviously , it isn't a good thing and my opinion is backed by other e sports (much larger) organizers ..but hey, biased fans (a tautology) will conveniently agree with these seedings, i don't expect them not to