As Uconn has proved time and again, the 'strength' of a conference is not very important in the overall picture of WCBB.
What is important in my evaluation is the strength of the top of a league, whether that be 1 team, 2 teams, or more. The ACC with the addition of ND and Louisville has been a 'very strong' conference because it had two top 10 teams and a few more top 25 teams, and now NCSt has replaced a down ND. The Big10 and Big12 have generally been weak conferences with a single dominant team - not yet sold on IU or WV and OSU and TX aren't cutting it. SEC has rotated a couple of teams but with SC and MSSt/TA&M have had that multiple top 10 and a few top 25 team strength. The Pac12 has had a resurgence - the question in my mind is have the teams other than Stanford faded, or is this year just a downward blip in their upward trajectory? The next few years will tell. The Old BE with Uconn and ND/Louisville/Rutgers/WV etc. had that 2+ top 10/a few other top25 format - the AAC and new BE do not.
The reality is that most of the time (9 out 10 say) top 5 teams should beat all ranked teams outside the top 10, and should never lose to an unranked team, and if they don't play any teams in the top 10 their records are completely suspect. I would probably extend that to top 8 teams most years - this year being a little weird. This idea that playing 15 teams in the 'top 50' makes a great resume is hog wash if they haven't won games against top 10 teams. The women's game does not have an homogeneous top 50, they don't have an homogeneous top 25, they often don't have an homogeneous top 8. SOS becomes a blunt implement in such a stratified universe - it isn't great in men's sports, it is almost meaningless in women's. When looking at top ten teams in WCBB the teams should be evaluated based on huge blocks of teams - top 10, next 15, next 50, next 270 for top 25 teams, for lower ranked teams shift the blocks downward.