I saw a link in one of the Blogs last week that took me to a nice little article in the So Cal student newspaper.  In this article, the author claimed that the current perception that So Cal's dominance over the Pac 10 was no longer impressive because of the talent gap between So Cal and the rest of the Pac 10.  The author also claimed that this was Pete Carrol's fault. 

The crux of the argument basically said that because of So Cal's dominance on the field and on the recruiting trail, the rest of the conference as deteriorated into mediocrity.  Because of this mediocrity, beating up on the rest of the Pac 10 didn't impress poll voters anymore and hurts So Cal's standings nationally.  Or at least, that's the perception.  (Side note: The fact that Oregon State could win the conference if they win out kinda debunks this argument, by that's not the point here)

Why am I talking about this on an SEC blog or a USC blog?

Good question, with the performance we've seen out of Fla for the last couple of weeks (Average margin of victory for the last 6 games: 44.33) and the fact that many of the big play makers are underclassmen,  I start to wonder when this type of on field dominance is going to end for Fla.  If that's the case, does Fla do to the SEC what So Cal has done (supposedly) to the Pac 10?  I don't think so.  But its scary to think about.

Right now the SEC is the conference that recruits want to be in.  Many of our bigger teams are known for recruiting nationally.  If it stops being a hard fought conference, does that change?  I hope not.  One of the things I like about being a USC and SEC fan is that you never know who the top teams are going to be every year.