This is a little tough to digest as it's about both NCAA resumes and the poll. I suppose some voters may go through some kind of analysis on teams but I think you really nailed it early on that we lost those 3 games and that keeps you out. And to continue down that road of poll simplicity, the only way to get back in is to keep winning and have teams ahead of you lose and drop out (which is what did happen) though this can take a long time when you have that many losses. The other way is to get a big win over a ranked team ahead of you. We could have done that against AZ but lost. Win that game and we're already in and moving up.
Using the resume discussion to rank teams, well I suppose some pollsters may do that but probably not many. And it's really not a great way to rank teams - that's how you get Loyola as an 8 seed when they were top 10 in some analytic models. Going to NET was the NCAA's way to try and respond to the demand of many to use a better system but for reasons only they can fathom they insist on sticking with this old "resume" junk. The problems are many but just a couple are the Loyola example where you just don't have enough Q1/Q2 data points. Another is the arbitrary cutoffs for those quadrants, so beating the 75th ranked team on the road has the same value as beating the 20th ranked team. Or the #1 ranked team. And then there's the whole comparison of these "resumes" that can get pretty unwieldy. They usually do an OK job getting the big stuff right but there's got to be a better way.