If you cared to pay attention, you would know that I am well aware that the ASC plays in to the coaches ranking.
Seeds and predictions are all quite different animals. Seeds are based off results, which rankings try to take in to account as well. Predictions are typically well off because then you have more of an opinion factored in and you are able to take in to account who you THINK the best at the weight is. Aaron Brooks as the 3 seed made sense. He popped out as the 3 seed in the seeding formula. He had a worse RPI, worse winning percentage, less quality wins and worse results against common opponents (Coleman for Keckeisen). The seeding formula is a formula. The only opinion based thing on opinion there is Coaches Ranking, which I am pretty sure he was #1 on still.
You keep saying there is precedence and using a piss-poor example. Brooks had actually lost and that dropped him down on a lot of criteria, especially since his match count was less than the other guys with one loss (Hidlay/Keckeisen). The same will be said for Mesenbrink if he takes a loss. There are quite a few other guys that will have a better winning percentage because of his match count.
For example, if O'Toole and Carr both go 1-1 on the way out, with one of them winning the title, the one who loses will lose the conference title criteria of the seeding formula to an undefeated Mesenbrink. He also loses winning percentage. Those are two that he is already behind on.
Here is a thread that Nomad had started last year regarding this...