Interesting read as to how the SEC rose to prominence. The article suggests it was a combination of luck and timing. Several good points are made to back that up.
A couple of things are left out, in my opinion. First, even though the B1G has won more championships than the SEC, the gap closed fast after the SEC and ESPN made a TV deal. I don’t think that is entirely coincidental.
Second, after the SEC got its *** kicked in several nationally televised intersectional games in the 70s, the SEC began their campaign of “we are the best.” The campaign would go through several iterations such as “SEC speed” and, 8 years ago, “It just means more,” but the campaign was relentless and never lost sight of the goal. Part of that goal was to suggest that every team in the SEC was stronger because of conference competition. “If we lose, it is because we beat each other up.” When the SEC began this campaign they were probably the 3rd strongest conference. But, 30 years later, it finally paid off. The beauty of the campaign is that it seems to influence both humans and computers into believing the conference is strong top to bottom. A Clemson or an FSU generally has more to prove because humans and computers believe they are anomalies within a weak conference. They are always considered a one off event and any loss for them is devastating for national rankings whereas not so much for a top rated SEC team.
Having waged a successful campaign for decades, and then finally turning the corner, the SEC now has the very real advantage of attracting the best recruits, the best coaches, and the best TV contracts. But this was not always the case, and never inevitable. Money, resources and an outstanding PR campaign made the difference. A lesson the ACC has yet to learn.
