The "Big Six"

Quite a bit of the conference expansion talk here has related to how the SEC would settle permanent opponents were the conference to expand to 14 teams. One of the arguments I've seen related to this is that the "Big Six" -- LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee -- should be compelled to play one another as permanent opponents in fairness to the rest of the league and particularly to one another in their race to the division title.

My question... why is this particular group the Big Six?

LSU and Florida have won two national titles in the past decade each, and additionally each won its respective division during that run, losing the SECCG in the process. They've earned their spot.

Alabama and Auburn also clearly deserve their spot. Each has a national title, multiple BCS bowl wins and plenty of recent success -- they're clearly among the SEC's and the nation's best.

It's the last two which I question. Georgia seems to be rather inconsistent of late; 2006 was awful, 2007 and 2008 were wonderful, 2009 and 2010 were forgettable. They're starting to get on a roll here in 2011 and are poised for big things in the next couple of years if they can keep it going, so there's no doubt that they have the ability to be one of the Big Six. If they achieve and maintain the success they appear to be on the cusp of achieving, then they've certainly earned a spot as well, but I feel like their recent inconsistency has taken them a step back.

And Tennessee... 42-34 since 2005. That's an average record per year of about 7-5. One divisional title to show for it, no BCS games in that stretch and no end to their woes in sight. Does Tennessee really merit being considered on the same level as the other five? Arkansas is 45-31 in that stretch, has a divisional title and a BCS appearance to show for it and is on the rise in the conference; why not consider Arkansas in that group?