Mike writes a nice article, with a lot of interesting information, but the notion that the SEC retains the "mastery of the rest of the world" is quite a false note.
Yes, their won-loss record is pretty good. And truth be told, the SEC has bounced back from their long slide, but they are hardly mastering the world. They aren't even the top conference. Based upon Sagarin metrics, the B12 is stronger.
The SEC often gets an undeserved reputation. Tennessee often plays a strong schedule and Tennessee plays in the SEC, so the SEC must generally play a strong schedule, right?
Wrong.
Not a single SEC school has a strength of schedule in the top 10 (although Tennessee isn't far off that mark, and will move up when the SEC starts playing each other, but the general SEC OOC schedules are usually weak). Kentucky is the only other team whose SOS breaks the top 25. Only four teams have an SOS in the top 100. There are as many team, fours with an SOS in the 300's. (Compare to AAC with zero team playing that weak a schedule) That's a recipe for piling up wins.
The SEC does have five wins against the top 25, but they also have 7 losses. That's really not bad, but like the ill fated dynasty call of another team, when you talk about "mastery of the rest of the world", you shouldn't be under .500 against top 25 teams.
They aren't even the top conference in terms of number of wins against the top 25. That would be the AAC with 6.
The SEC can point out they have three different teams with a win against the Top 25, but so can the ACC. And the Pac-12 has four, count em, four teams with a win over the top 25.
So yes, the SEC is doing well, but no way no how can they be characterized as achieving, or even coming close to "mastery of the rest of the world". Maybe they ought to send a team, or two to the Final Four, an achievement they haven't accomplished this decade, before talking about mastery of the word.