Southeastern Conference Talent Level a Common Misconception

Year in and year out, there is a misconception about the Southeastern Conference. Every year, well-educated and informed people are fooled into believing there is a huge talent gap between the teams. This is simply false. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Alabama is going to be the No. 1 team in most preseason polls. They are the defending national champions, and this is only right. Are they actually better for 2010 than all of the other SEC teams?

Florida was the preseason No. 1 team in 2009. They returned almost their entire national championship team from 2008. The consensus was that they would be the undefeated national champions in 2009. 

For the 2008 season, Georgia was the preseason No. 1 team. They had manhandled Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl and had the majority of their team returning. National champions LSU had lost much of their team to graduation.

I could go back through a decade of missed preseason predictions for the SEC. Why is it so hard for the same pundits who pick most conferences so well to constantly miss the SEC?

There were eight SEC teams ranked in the top 25 recruiting classes in the nation, according to Rivals this year. Similar results are found in Scouts and ESPN. This is not a rare occurrence, but the norm in the SEC. 

While I do not necessarily agree with the exact ranking of each class by the recruiting services, they do get the top 30 or so classes right the majority of the time. They might have No. 12 and No. 5 wrong, but both No. 12 and No. 5 belong in the top classes.

I would agree that a team that constantly recruits classes in the top 25 in the nation is getting great talent. Is the No. 1 class that much better than the No. 25? I can't answer this. I would say sometimes yes and sometimes no. 

In the SEC, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, and Georgia have always recruited top 25 classes. It has been a norm for these teams for most of the last century. You will find most of these teams in the top 20 list for total wins in college football history.

Considering that most of these teams have been in a conference together for most of that time, one would have to consider them fairly evenly matched for the last 100 years or so. Every one of these teams has won the SEC in the last decade.

Why would there all of a sudden be a perception that there is a huge talent differential in the SEC? I cannot answer this; it is simply not logical.

Is there a huge coaching differential in the SEC? One-fourth of the coaches currently in the SEC have national titles on their resume. I would think not. Even more have national titles as coordinators and assistant coaches. 

No team has repeated as the SEC champion in over a decade. During that time there have been 6 different SEC teams win the conference championship. Why would a logical person think that trend will change in 2010? Why did they think it would change in 2009?

In 2010 one can assume that Tennessee and Florida will have a tough time. Both teams lost a wealth of talent on both sides of the ball, and Tennessee has a new head coach. What makes people think LSU, Auburn, Georgia have all simply stagnated and not improved for 2010?

All of these teams lost games last season. Florida lost a few in 2007, as well. They won the SEC and national title in 2008. So what makes people think these teams are simply going to maintain for 2010?

There is another player or two in this mix as well. Arkansas and Ole Miss had pretty decent football teams in 2009. I do not think either will win the SEC, but they are both in the same division with Alabama and will be formidable adversaries. 

Alabama has the least favorable schedule in the SEC for 2010. They play LSU, Arkansas, Auburn, Ole Miss, and Florida—all likely top 25 teams in 2010—and they play six of them after a bye week. This is a difficult path indeed.

For fans out there, I would simply suggest that you assume the preseason polls to be wrong on the SEC. History tells us they have been more often than not. There are likely three and possibly four teams that have a much better chance of winning the SEC in 2010 than Alabama.

Another factor in the equation. Did Alabama dominate the SEC in 2009? The answer is no. They played well enough to win and pulled out three games in the regular season that could have easily gone either way. 

Alabama lost more players in the offseason than two of those teams. Who were those teams? LSU and Auburn and both are in the same division. Both of these teams were younger than Alabama in 2009 and recruited as well as Alabama in 2010. Why would they be easier to defeat in 2010?

The truth is that the SEC was in rebuilding mode in 2009. Ole Miss, Alabama, Kentucky, and Florida were peaking out for 2009. Only two of these teams are traditional SEC powers, and they are the two that won out.

In 2010, Alabama is rebuilding their defense but will be formidable as they have the players to do this. LSU and Auburn will be cycling toward their peaks with Arkansas. I expect Alabama, Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas all to finish the 2010 season in the top 20 and they are all in one SEC division.

I know there will be pundits who will say that there is a big talent differential in Alabama's favor. It is simply not true. Both LSU and Auburn proved they could play competitively with the "best Alabama team in history" in 2009 when they were rebuilding.

In fact, they played more competitive games with Alabama than Eastern Division winner Florida and national title runner-up Texas. LSU and Auburn will be much improved in 2010. Will Alabama?

I took a lot of heat when I wrote a similar article about the 2009 Florida Gators. I did not think they would repeat as SEC champions. I thought Alabama had an easier path to improvement than the largely peaked out Florida team.

I think the 2010 Alabama team is different in some ways. Their offense is largely returning. Their defense is rebuilding. Alabama's weakness on offense in 2009 was their offensive line and quarterback. They are replacing two members of that offensive line, and the quarterback is the same with a year of experience.

Both LSU and Auburn gave the Alabama offensive line fits in 2009. They were simply faster and more agile. Alabama has gotten bigger and stronger on offensive line but also slower. Both Auburn and LSU have gotten bigger and stronger at defensive tackle and even faster at defensive end.

The Alabama defensive line was able to largely overpower the LSU offensive line in 2009. The Alabama defensive line will be more agile in 2010, but less powerful.

The Auburn offensive line was able to handle the Alabama defensive line in 2009. They had more success rushing than any other team. That entire offensive line is back for 2010 with a lot of added strength and depth.

In 2009, most pundits had Ole Miss ranked in the top 10 in the nation. I was largely ridiculed for writing that they were to weak on both lines to win in the SEC. I think the SEC will be won in the trenches this year.

I think both LSU and Auburn will have an advantage on both lines over Alabama for 2010. I base this on the fact that Auburn has their lines back and intact with added depth, and they beat Alabama on both sides of the ball last season until depth wore them down. LSU has better talent on both lines in 2010.

Does this mean Alabama will not win the SEC? No, it does not. It simply means that none of the pundits have the slightest idea of what team will win the SEC West. The chances go down from there on them knowing what team will win the SEC.