Well that year they at least WON something. The ensuing 11-2 trio of seasons didn't yield anything of substance.
Yeah, that was a weird one. Because that 2010 team was no doubt the worst of the four. But, as you pointed out, that was a bad SEC East, which allowed a 9-3 team (5-3 in conference) to win it. That team beat No. 1 Bama and then lost to UK.
The next three we odd and somehow very Spurrier-y in the sense that SC went 6-2 in conference three times, had the tiebreaker with the SEC East champ three times and didn't win it.
The 2011 team tripped up against a mid-Auburn team ahead of a needed QB switch. Then their permanent opponent was a top-5 team and that was that.
The 2012 team whipped UGA, but lost a tight one at Death Valley in their rotating cross division game (bad break there), then got the wrong end of one of those gross Muschamp games with that one good Muschamp team. (Florida scored 44 points on 2.8 yards per play, owing to like three SC fumbles when backed up)
The 2013 team finally lost to UGA, but was still in line for Atlanta until it Spurrier-style biffed it late to a not-good UT team.
Now I suppose if they had won the division any of those years, they only likely would've been competitive in the last SEC title game. And then we'd be hearing that they beat up on a weak SEC East anyway. In some ways, by definition if none of UT/UGA/UF are able to win the division, the SEC East can't be that strong.
And the sleeping giant thing is, of course, silly. UF and UGA were the sleeping giants that already got woken up. SC is a good football state, but small, and has Clemson as a top choice for a lot of talent going back decades. It's unlikely to outspend
UT/UGA/UF over a long term, and unlikely to pull choice kids in neighboring Georgia. So it's gotta win some battles in over-recruited NC, pick off second-tier Ga and Florida kids and hope things alight. This a sleeping giant does not make. 
