I didn't see the directive; just passing on what I heard second hand. But, don't you think the fact that PC has the toughest SOS (by a pretty wide margin, mind you) would make it much more difficult to lead in the "best record" category, and a couple more losses makes the human polls, at least, more likely to rank them below strong teams with fewer losses?The directive was to consider all factors, not to weight W-L record over all others.
SOS is the only factor PC leads in. How does that make them the "clear #1 seed."?
Garner/Van Meter have the best record, Western leads in most other categories.
Guessing PC just wants to be on the opposite side of the bracket from Western and vise-versa. Actual 1 or 2 is of more interest to the fans.
I'm not sure what other factors you're considering for WC aside from human and computer polls. Both of those are biased in one way or another. I love BCMoore, and his system is extremely structured and objective, but his calculations give weight to different factors that others might consider more or less important than the weight he gave to them.
So, my point stands. PC has a strong argument for the #1 seed. They might get it; they probably won't. And, yes, I'd prefer to be on the opposite side of WC's bracket, though I'm pretty sure PC understands that to win the championship they'll have to beat three very good teams.