I agree.
Why do the "have nots" even bother?
Take Kentucky. A founding member of the SEC, since 1933. Was in the precursor to the SEC as well (Southern Conf). The Wildcats have ONE conference title (1950). One. In 87 years of football. One conference title. What are they doing?
.
Mississippi State? You have to go back even further for their ONLY SEC championship (1941). One.
.
Ole Miss has SIX! Wow, six, that's great. Except that they have none since 1963. 57 years with nothing to celebrate. 57 "We'll get 'em next years".
.
The newbies (Mizzou and A&M) have an excuse. The relative newbies' (Carolina, Arkansas) excuses are fleeting. The Cocks aren't just a have-not in the SEC, but they're also playing "little brother" to their in-state rival. Mizzou came in and BAM, went to Atlanta TWICE in their first 3 years in the SEC. But they've fallen back down to earth. They haven't had to worry about visiting Atlanta since.
.
Vanderbilt has never, and I'll predict - will never, win the SEC. They made the mistake of being great 20 years before the SEC existed. The 'Dores were good when the Ivy League was crowning national champions every year, lol. Why do they bother?
.
Of course, circa 1990, the same could be said for Florida. Not really, because 1984 happened, but still. I'm not ragging on these programs, I'm earnestly asking what their plans are. What are they doing, honestly?
.
Anyway, the more I see the chasm growing between P5 and G5 programs, the more it's revealed that there may be a larger chasm between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' among football programs. I know there are other sports, but football carries the checkbook for entire athletic programs (some, not all).
.
I'm just rambling. But imagine all of the haves of the sport to separate from their dead-weight conference brethren. Wouldn't that be something?