The SEC is laughing right now. That said, except for Vandy, Georgia, Florida, and A&M, most of the SEC is comprised of very large community colleges that generate tens of millions of dollars off of the backs of indentured servants who play a very dangerous sport.
Alabama and Missouri aren't bad schools either. I realize many SEC schools fall outside of top 100 rankings in several publications, but they aren't horrible schools or large "community colleges." The reason many assume these are horrible schools is that they are land grant schools (LSU, Ark, MSU, UT, UK, Auburn and USC-e) that still hold true to the land grant mission allowing equal opportunity for admission to their state's students. The other reason may be the stereotype that people from the south aren't very sharp. I technically live in the mid Atlantic (some say south) and many northern transplants are presumptuous in their assumption on northern versus southern intellect.
Some other land grant schools similarly ranked to/right on par with SEC schools are Maine, Rhode Island, WVU, NDSU, SDSU, KSU, Oklahoma State, NMSU, Colorado State, Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, Nevada-Reno, Montana State, Idaho, Oregon State, Washington State, Hawaii and Alaska-Fairbanks. Other than the knocks I hear against WVU, I rarely (if ever) hear people knocking these other schools.
Most of the highly ranked land grant universities are in the B1G, in the mid Atlantic/Northeast, Texas and California. Most of the land grants located in states that are much wealthier and more populated compared the ones in the SEC and others I listed above... Clemson being the exception to this rule. Basically, if you have the population and the money, you probably have a higher ranked school.
Besides, I'm sure many classified my alma mater as a large community college way back when I was there. In the good old days, they'd let anyone in like me
. Had their standards been what they are today, I would have ended up somewhere else.