I would argue against the ACC putting out as much talent (this past draft the SEC had 38 players drafted, the ACC 35, they were the top 2 conferences in that regard though). In fact, the SEC has had more draft picks than any other conference in 12 of the past 14 seasons. But, lets assume that is true. Surely you won't argue that the ACC has as good of teams as the SEC, despite the fact you think they put out as much talent. So if two conferences have similar talent and similar recruiting areas, why does one produce 5 straight national champions, 3 out 5 Heisman winners, while the other is regarded as possibly the 5th best BCS conference? It has to go to the SEC schools willing to put more money into their coaches than the other conferences, would you not agree? As I have already pointed out, UNC, UVA, GT (the 3 best public Universities in the conference, and 3 of the best in the country) lower their admissions standards for athletes, just like other similar schools like Florida, UCLA, Cal, and Michigan. Schools like DUke, Wake, Vandy, etc do not do that, and outside of Wake being a decent program, always struggle on the field. So, you can't really argue that is the reason. What you can argue, is that of 20 highest paid coaches in the country, the SEC has 7 of them. The Big 12 has 3, THe Big 10 has 4 (though this list is from April, and Tressel is one of those 4), ACC 3, Pac 10 3. I think the answer is simple. THe SEC schools are more willing to pay big money for their coaching talent, and at the college level the coaches are ultimately more important than the players.