I disagree somewhat(not entirely). A regular season of 10 home games against inferior competition before conference play leaves you 10 - 0 (think Virginia), a conference schedule that is half home games and has at least 5 or 6 schools that aren't all that great and a 20 win season is not surprising.
How you play in the NCAA tournament SHOULD have greater emphasis. Imagine Notre Dame barely making the tournament but the opposite occurred and Olivia Miles missed most of the regular season but was healthy in time for the tournament and resulted in a deep run. Is that team worthy of a higher ranking because of how they play in the tournament rather than how they played before?
I also disagree that some teams "don't belong" in the final four and others should be ranked higher. You had to beat some good teams to get there - either on their home court or on a neutral court - so imo you belong there. It's not about winning "most" of your games - that's what determines if you make the tournament, your seeding, whether you host or not - all good reasons to win most of your games. It's about win or be eliminated when everything's on the line. If a team makes it to the Sweet 16, Elite 8 or whatever, then that's where they should be ranked at the end.
But that's not how polls work.