Strength of schedule has to matter. Alabama had more wins than any other team in softball, but they had played a weaker schedule. I think that the only problem is that Alabama beat a few of the teams ranked higher than them.
IMO, after the initial rankings the committee should have then looked at head to head and made adjustments. Unlike college football, college softball powerhouses play each other all over the country because they play more games.
IMO, based on every factor including head to head, Alabama should have been ranked 6th going into the tournament (ahead of Florida and MN). IMO, putting them ahead of the PAC teams, OU or FSU would have been a bad move. They played tougher schedules and still had great winning percentages.
SOS matters, but it can't be everything. I've never believed a team should get extra credit for playing a tough schedule with mostly losses. In football, for example, a team can play the 30th ranked SOS and go 12-0, while another team plays the 1st ranked SOS but goes 8-4. Which is the more impressive team? Which deserves a better postseason draw? I'm going with the 12-0 team every time.
In basketball, baseball, and softball, there are more teams and more games played. So an SOS of 60 isn't terrible. It's not great, but it's not terrible. And if you go 56-6 against that schedule, you've proven more to me than if you've played a top 10 schedule and went 45-17. Especially when you played head to head and the first team won the series.
It's not that I think a 12-0 UCF, with an SOS in the 80s, deserves to be in the playoffs. There is a balance, and SOS should matter, but when it's fairly close, wins should matter more. I've probably not communicated my point very well. I'm jumping from sport to sport, but for example, I've always found basketball to be such a farce. You play a great schedule but go 16-14 against it and get in the tournament over a team that wins 25 games against a so so schedule? I've never agreed with that logic.