So, now that the SEC hasn't even been in the national title game in 3 years, what's their take? I'm sure it isn't "The Big Ten is better than us." I bet they're talking about their depth and how hard it truly is to win in their conference, and when they get to the playoff, they are just too beat up to continue.
Three things are what I am reading and hearing.
1). For the first time in probably 25+ years, the B1G has the coaching advantage. Gone are the days of when it was Urban Meyer (and then a significant gap) and then somebody else.
Now, as these staffs are ultimately picked apart (as good staffs almost always are) we'll see if the advantages remain as robust as they are now. But outside of Kirby and Lane, I think the SEC's middle class of coaches has regressed.
2). If you're looking for the league to respond - they already have. Brian Kelly - gone, Billy Napier - gone, Hugh Freeze - gone, Sam Pittman - gone, Stoops - gone, KDB and Shane Beamer have the hottest of hot seats imaginable. Sark's has been turned up as well (although less hot than theirs.
3). The one I don't yet know the answer to is how the IU model will replicate moving forward. Michigan's success was discarded because they cheated, so there was no copy-cat method.
Ohio State's success is credited because they simply had better players than anyone and got lava hot at the exact right time (public opinion, not BigWoof sentiment). Hard for many to replicate.
IU is different though. Getting upperclassmen and loading a roster with experienced talent is one thing, coaching them up in an effective way is another.
Long story short - people will grumble and hibernate until baseball starts.