1. Is this the best SEC of the past few years? The conference is usually head and shoulders above the rest, but for the past few years, it's often seemed like there was a lot of separation between the elite and the rest of the upper tier. This year, that's not the case, as the conference's top six teams are all really good and have basically beaten each other. Some critics seemed to think that this meant that the conference lacks elite teams this year, but after a weekend when the conference flexed some serious muscle in OOC play, that perception has hit the road. And it's not just the top six. Vandy, Ole Miss, and Miss. St. round out a deep crop of bowl teams. Interestingly, all of this success has been achieved without the help of two of the conference's blue bloods (Auburn and Tennessee) and its most storied mid-tier program (Arkansas). Instead, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even Vandy are having great years. It's been an exciting year for the conference. You have to go back to at least 2006 for a year when there was this much parity. Notice that parity didn't hurt the conference's representative in the national title game that year, by the way. I don't think it will this year, either, and I would also expect the conference to have an overall dominant run in the bowls.
2. The SEC winner is a lock for the national title game, right? Last week, I wondered if Oregon might work its way back into the mix if it could get to the Pac-10 Championship Game and win. UCLA didn't hold up its end of the bargain, and I can no longer see a scenario in which Georgia wins the SEC but doesn't get into the BCS Championship Game. So, it looks like it's Alabama vs. ND or Georgia vs. ND.
3. Are the folks who are enamored with Kent St. missing the fact that the Golden Flashes lost a blowout to Kentucky? Seriously, good for Kent St. for winning since then, but this talk of them being a potential BCS Buster is out of hand.