Spencer Hall, aka Orson Swindle, has an interesting piece on the SEC/Big Ten speed myth. The article is entitled Debunking myths about speed in the SEC and Big Ten, but then there’s this:

In terms of players we see for the combine, the best-conditioned and prepared athletes by conference come in this order: the SEC, the Big 12, the Pac-10 is just a little bit under that, and then the Big Ten brings up the rear.

[Mark Sutton, strength coach at D1 Sports Training] casually framed one of the only rational explanations for the persistent and partially inaccurate perception of the SEC speed myth/Big Ten Sloth Legend: The emphasis on speed training, explosive Olympic-style movements in the weight room, and a noticeable bleedover between the disciplines of track and field and football.

Doesn’t that sort of support the speed myth? And then there’s this:

Bringing us to the thorny point of talent development. Tossing out kooky, unempirical theories such as hot weather making players faster or WOO-WEE DEM SOUTHERN BOYZ KEN RUN, you’re left with what happens to the players after they get to the program. In the SEC, the emphasis will be developing the player’s speed. According to some trainers, the top Big Ten programs focus more on adding muscle.

The difference a training program makes may be marginal when you compare the uniformly elite talent recruited by top college programs, but margins are where smallish teams like West Virginia beat teams like Oklahoma in bowl games, and where Ohio State might lose a crucial step on the edge in high-profile debacles against SEC teams.

So … if the SEC focuses on speed and the Big Ten focuses on strength, then wouldn’t that, well, tend to make the SEC faster? We’re obviously not interested in advocating for the speed myth, but this article seems to explain it, not debunk it.