It also encourages the lower seeds to perform well. You would want to avoid ending up as the 16 seed if at all possible under the normal seeding system. Under your seeding system, the 9 seed faces the 1 seed instead, while the 16 seed only faces the 8 seed. You run into a position where everyone would rather get the lowest seed they could get while still making the tournament so long as they don't get the 9th seed.
8/16 would be the most desirable spots. Followed by 7/15. Then 6/14, 5/13, and so on. Not only does this not really make sense, since seeds are supposed to reward performance, it creates a situation where since people aren't striving for the top seeds, and would rather underperform and get lower seeds, making the seeds utterly meaningless.
Further, if we throw all that out, and pretend competitors would still strive for the top seeds even though it wouldn't benefit them, there's still another problem. It's much easier for a 16 seed to pull a fluke against an 8 seed than a 1 seed. So the 16 seed makes it out of the first round, even though they may not necessarily be more talented, and they're faced with higher seeds now. This lowers the level of competition in the later rounds. Whereas the first round was perfectly balanced, with everyone facing a seed 8 spots lower or higher, we could end up with gross mismatches from the second round on, potentially making the first round the most exciting. Worse yet, it's much more possible in this format to have a large number of upsets in the first round, which could lead to the rest of the tournament featuring lower seeds, probably competing at a lower level. A tournament should, ideally, get more competitive and exciting with each round.
To make a long story short, your method of seeding encourages anarchy rather than honest competition.
--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/81/1768646.jpg