And put them in order. 

Team A
overall: 24-3
vs top 100: 18-3
vs top 50: 12-3
vs top 25: 5-2
vs top 10: 1-2

Team B
overall: 24-4
vs top 100: 20-3
vs top 50: 13-2
vs top 25: 5-1
vs top 10: 3-1

Team C
overall: 26-3
vs top 100: 16-3
vs top 50: 9-3
vs top 25: 5-2
vs top 10: 3-1

Team D
overall: 23-6
vs top 100: 16-6
vs top 50: 11-6
vs top 25: 4-5
vs top 10: 2-5

Team E
overall: 28-1
vs top 100: 13-1
vs top 50: 8-1
vs top 25: 4-1
vs top 10: 2-0

(RPI/SOS is intentionally not included--I feel like we can make a pretty reasonable call on which of these should be 1-seeds without looking at RPI/SOS beyond the information given). 

Team B has the only "bad loss" in the entire group (vs. a 100+) and has another kinda bad loss vs. a 51-100 team. I'd say they're probably not the 1 seed.

They do have a lot of top 50 wins, though.  My next choice would be team D, based on their high amount of losses.  

I tend to agree with that reasoning. I would probably go with team D as the 2 seed, but both are decent choices. Any guess for who is the #1 overall seed? 

BTW, I'm not sure if head-to-head enters into the seeding, but in case it does, 

Team A is 1-0 against Team D
Team B is 1-0 against Team C
Team B is 1-1 against team D
Team C is 3-0 against team D
Team E is 2-0 against team A

Team D had a tough schedule. 

E, B, A, C. i left off D because their W/L against top 50 is demonstrably the worst of the 4 and my understanding is that its weighted more than wins v. 51 and up.

ECBAD

E has the best record overall and is pretty good against top 25.
D has the worst record against Top 25

I put B over A because B has a winnning record against the top 10 and A does not so 3-1 verse 1-2 excuses the bad loss, 

I left out D because they have the worst record against the top 10 albiet the most games, so I would assume they have one of the highest SOS of the group and therefore HD is going to put them as a 1 seed, however they don't deserve it unless they are in a superconf.

My guess is that D is not a 1 seed.

Some good guesses by all. Consensus seems to be E as the #1 overall, D as the #2, and A, B, and C too close to call as the other three one seeds. 

How it actually happened? A is the #1 overall. B, C, and D are the remaining 1-seeds. E forgot to schedule, playing nobody in non-con before dominating a solid conference. They are a 2-seed. 

I coach D (Dallas) and don't think I should be a 1-seed. However, I do think I have a top five team (five of my six losses are to one-seeds), and that the 2-seed in my region should be easier than E (Hiram), who looks like a clear choice for the best team in Rupp D3. 

The PR is pretty good, but it does overweight good top-to-bottom scheduling, as I find out constantly. I am a pretty good scheduler, so I am almost always overseeded and then upset in the NT. I honestly don't think I've ever won a title from a seed line other than 1. This is just another (really, really clear) example of how top-to-bottom scheduling is overrated relative to sheer top-end dominance. 

I'm very happy A is the #1 overall seed, they should be.  12 wins against the top 50 and no bad losses is a better resume than everyone else. 

I think listing the vs. top 25 and vs. top 10 is a bit misleading, as I don't think those are given even close to as much weight as 1-50 and 51-100.

If I were listing resumes for seeding, I'd look at 
-Wins vs. 1-50 RPI
-Record vs. 51-100 RPI
-Losses vs. 101+ RPI 

I think looking at those 3, you'd get a pretty good feel for what team would be seeded higher.  

By your criteria, we have

A
12 wins vs top 50
0 losses vs 100+
6-0 vs 50-100

B
13 wins vs top 50
1 loss vs 100+
7-1 vs 50-100

C
9 wins vs top 50
0 losses vs 100+
7-0 vs 50-100

D
11 wins vs top 50
0 losses vs 100+ 
5-0 vs 50-100

E
8 wins vs top 50
0 losses vs 100+
5-0 vs 50-100

Judging from those pieces of information, it looks like the proper ordering is A, D, B/C, E. This is a lot closer to what it actually looked like, so you're probably on to something. But honestly, I'd take 8-1 vs the top 50 over 11-6 vs the top 50 any day. Would probably take 8-1 over 12-3 too. Which I guess indicates that my thinking is not close to WIS' on this issue, given that the team that went 8-1 vs the top 50 (and swept the #1 overall seed) was a 2-seed.