Better for what, exactly? IMO, a win can never be worse than a loss for field selection purposes. The two can be neutral for sure. It’s different to say, you don’t penalize a team for a close loss to Purdue relative to a win over Columbia. But at the end of the day, in a vacuum - which resume is better?Sure, which is the stated goal. A one point loss to Purdue is better than a one point win over IUPUI. Nobody wants to use the NET as the sole (or even main) criteria for picking the field. It's a useful sorting tool.
The NET tells you who is better (usually) but it doesn't tell you who has the better resume.
A) 27-3 midmajor resume with 25 Q4 wins, and wins over Maryland and Rutgers. Blowout losses to Kansas and Purdue. Close loss in conference tourney finals on neutral floor.
Or
B) B-10 team with 16-15 record - those same wins over Maryland and Rutgers - no other wins over field teams (but obviously better other wins than team A). Losses to Kansas and Purdue by 1 point.
Team A gets an at large bid. Team B does not.