Someone claimed yesterday the polls mean nothing and it’s all about Net now. I’m just trying to point out Net is probably the starting point the committee uses as a first sort, but the other 13 factors they use are needed to have more accurate seedlings. A system that treats a win against the 29th ranked team the same as one against the 3rd ranked team is imperfect.
That was me, and I share your doubts about NET, and your sense of the need for other factors. It is imperfect. But it is the primary tool they use, as I read the “rule book.” You could call that “the starting point,” but if the committee departs too far from it, they risk being accused of partiality.
On the other hand, they have to depart from it, not because it’s imperfect, but because the seedings are not simply about rankings. They have to avoid matching conference opponents against each other too soon, and avoid geographic problems. I think — just guessing here — this is their primary reason for introducing other measures, including the dreaded “eye test.”
Also, imperfect as NET seems now, it will seem less so at the end of February. LSU will have found a spot somewhat more plausible and closer to reality in the NET by then.
Last season, the committee had UConn as a #2 seed in the Hartford region. This was a compromise (lower seed, home region) between their likely suspicion that we were better than appearances up to that moment, and the more real accomplishments of a team like NC St. Events showed this to be a reasonable compromise. A sign of it is how much complaining about it there was on all sides afterwards.
.