In 2011, all South Carolina needed to do was defeat a rebuilding Auburn team at home.
In 2012, all LSU needed to do was not give up a touchdown at the end of either half to defeat Alabama.
Schedules weren't a significant factor in division placement in 2013. Auburn beat Georgia; LSU did not. If LSU had not lost to Ole Miss, then perhaps I'd consider an argument for Alabama not playing Georgia factoring into division placement. However, that still wouldn't fix anything. LSU would have to defeat Alabama, which is changing even more history, in order to win a tiebreaker against Auburn.

Back to LSU, Alabama played Florida from 2008-2011 and is playing them this season. 2013 Florida was pretty unhealthy when they faced LSU and finished 4-8 anyways. Does LSU have a good argument for 2012? No. They faced Towson the week before traveling to the Swamp; they got South Carolina in Death Valley and dominated. They dominated Texas A&M in College Station. Florida was the 1st game of a tough stretch, so scheduling really didn't factor into this loss. LSU had little problem with the next two Top 10 opponents that they faced. Then LSU had a bye. Afterwards, LSU impressed against their 3rd Top 10 opponent in a 4 week span. Allowing a late touchdown in each half and missing other opportunities factored heavily into LSU's loss. LSU easily could have won this game and perhaps the division, but they blew it. Scheduling is a poor excuse for this loss too.

2012 Texas A&M was a new member to the league, and no one could have honestly predicted their season. Their school hasn't had an issue with scheduling imbalance. Florida outplayed Texas A&M fair and square in the second half to win the game by 3. LSU outplayed Texas A&M after the Aggies went up 12-0. If the Aggies found the means to win either of those games, then they would have been SEC West Champs. Aggies don't truly belong in the scheduling discussion, but their 2012 season needed to be mentioned anyways.

The only recent arguments for scheduling are 2012 South Carolina and Florida.

Georgia, LSU, at Florida, then a high-octane Tennessee at home was a rough stretch. South Carolina won their Super Bowl, got dominated in Death Valley (the game wasn't as close as score appears), then got embarrassed in the Swamp. South Carolina claims that key players were sick with the flu and unprepared versus Florida; that's a tough break. Georgia didn't have to play "anyone" from the SEC West and their 2 tough games were spaced out.

2012 Florida went 3-1 versus Top 10 SEC opponents during the regular season. 2012 Georgia went 1-1, with the 1 loss being a 35-7 blowout loss. Georgia was a Top 3 East team, but whether or not they were the best is up for debate. South Carolina made a fool of their team. Florida had several more impressive wins. Georgia won the East due to scheduling and a few lucky bounces. Georgia caught enough breaks to defeat Tennessee and Florida. Losing to either would have made up for the scheduling imbalance between East teams in 2012.

I imagine that most of us have heard the saying: "To be the best, you have to beat the best." Even if your schedule features a couple of tougher cross division opponents, you're going to have defeat a tough cross division opponent to win the conference either way. Beating a good opponent is a great experience for your team: it can boost confidence and make your team better as long as they stay focused.

Ultimately, 2012 seems to be the only year worthy of scheduling controversy. Is 1 out of the past 7 seasons reason enough for all the threads that have been made about scheduling?