This weekend I played in a strong open swiss tournament and was in the running for first, but lost in the last round to GM Ben Finegold. He had White, but that wasn't really a factor: I got a perfectly good position out of the opening, and only mistakes in the ending cost me the game. Still, it would have been nice to have White, and I've heard many players lament that they "always" get Black against titled or significantly higher-rated opponents.
It's likely an exaggeration and a bit of a selection effect (they "forget" when they're White, but each Black game confirms the "always" narrative), but I think there's something to it. To the extent that there is some truth to it, the lamenter should probably stop complaining. Here's why. Aside from the luck of something like a first-round pairing against a strong player, you'll have to do some winning to play them. Now, the question is this: other than in cases where you're overwhelmingly stronger than your opponents, are you likelier to win your games when you're White, or when you're Black? With White, naturally. Let's say you're likely to face a big gun in round 4 of a tournament, when you're 3-0. If you've had two Blacks, you're less likely to have gone 3-0, even if you were a favorite in all your games. It's a lot easier to have done it with two Whites. But then, guess what? You're due for Black against the big gun!
This probably holds for the round 3 situation as well. Let's assume you're in the top half of the draw, but not a top player yourself. In round 1 you're probably going to beat whoever you're playing, and in round 2 you'll get a more challenging opponent, but one you're a moderate favorite against. If you had Black in round 1, then you're more likely to win in round 2, but to suffer in round 3 with Black against a very good player. If you've got Black in round 2, then you might win and succeed, but your chances of getting nicked go up as well.
If all this is correct, then the reason the lamenter should cease his song of woe is simple: if he weren't due for Black in their game with the better player, he would have been less likely to face the better player in the first place. (And note the irony: his previous opponent may have been a victim of the same sort.)
Hopefully someone will (or maybe already has) worked out the math of the situation, but this seems like a plausible account of why non-top seeds will more often wind up with Black in the big games with the favorites in open swisses in the mid-to-late rounds.
[Note: Comments are again possible, but I will moderate them before they appear. Other solutions are being considered, so stay tuned.]