Determining the relative strength of the Juco conferences is not rocket science.  More talent means better teams.  Sure there can be differences at particular programs due to history and coaching, but talent still wins out.

Texas as 23 million people and just a few football jucos.  Prep football is big in the state.  There is a tendency for whatever talent is there to be developed.  The Texas schools average the best. 

Mississippi has lots of talent but not as much as Texas and they have about about 1/14 the population per juco.  How would you expect them to be better on average?  Something in the water?  However, they do give full scholarships.  That makes a huge difference in talent.

Kansas has tradition and gets 12 out of state recruits per team.  They get some really, really good players from South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and places that don't have juco football.  That is the only way the better Kansas teams can compete with the Texas teams.  The lesser Kansas teams can't.  However, the Kansas schools give only partial scholarships.  That is why you never see a Mississippi kid at a Kansas juco.

What about California?  Lots of people, but less emphasis on high school football, and no scholarships.  Then they have 8 bazillion schools playing football.  They have lots of talent but it is spread around.  Under what theory would the average team be able to compete with the average Texas team?  Magic?  Special something in the soil or water? 

This is not meant as a criticism of any area or league.  It is just the way it is.  The Kansas schools play the Texas schools one game at the start of the year.  They rotate the opponents.  It is a credit to the Jayhawk Conference teams that they compete as well as they do.  However, they are not as good.  (OK, I'm not talking about you, Butler) 

It would be very interesting to see the Mississippi schools man up and play the Texas schools once a year like the Jayhawk does.