Started By
Message
Is Slive hated as much as Beebe?
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:33 am
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:33 am
So, Dan Beebe is pretty much fired from his gig Disgruntled-12. I can understand why - he has pretty much run that conference into the ground by letting Texas control the money.
I see on this board, over and over, negative comments about Slive. (no, I'm not providing links, just do a search for "Slive" and you'll find pages of threads with people using the term "Mike Sleazeball Slive")
Why is that? He is the figure head of one of the top 2 conferences in the country (personally, I feel it is top, but Pac-12 programs do make a ton of money for their schools too and they are the media darlings). Is he really doing a poor job, or is the negativity stemming from different decisions he's made that have impacted certain teams? It seems to me, each school in the SEC are treated fairly within the conference - no issues compared to how Texas runs the show.
If Slive is so terrible, what could someone do in his place to improve the conference. Personally, I find it difficult to see room for improvement - the conference is healthy financially, has a decent TV deal in place, and is highly competitive. What more can be done for improvement?
I see on this board, over and over, negative comments about Slive. (no, I'm not providing links, just do a search for "Slive" and you'll find pages of threads with people using the term "Mike Sleazeball Slive")
Why is that? He is the figure head of one of the top 2 conferences in the country (personally, I feel it is top, but Pac-12 programs do make a ton of money for their schools too and they are the media darlings). Is he really doing a poor job, or is the negativity stemming from different decisions he's made that have impacted certain teams? It seems to me, each school in the SEC are treated fairly within the conference - no issues compared to how Texas runs the show.
If Slive is so terrible, what could someone do in his place to improve the conference. Personally, I find it difficult to see room for improvement - the conference is healthy financially, has a decent TV deal in place, and is highly competitive. What more can be done for improvement?
8
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:34 am to TxHillsTiger
For the most part, I think most people (including school administrators) have the utmost confidence in Slive leading the conference.
Fans will complain at times no matter who is in charge.
Fans will complain at times no matter who is in charge.
This post was edited on 9/23/11 at 10:35 am
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:35 am to JPLSU1981
HE RIGS GAMES FOR AUBURN AND ALABAMA, YO.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:36 am to TxHillsTiger
He's going to piss off a lot of Alabama and Tennessee fans, if this move of Texas A&M to the SECw (and Auburn to the SECe) causes an end to The Third Saturday in October.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:36 am to TxHillsTiger
The accomplishments of the SEC teams under his watch speak for themselves. I've got no problem wih him.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:36 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
He's going to piss off a lot of Alabama and Tennessee fans, if this move of Texas A&M to the SECw (and Auburn to the SECe) causes an end to The Third Saturday in October.
I guess it could always be scheduled as OOC game if that happened.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:37 am to TxHillsTiger
The only people that really don't like Slive are fans that think he helps fix games by sending directives to officials (i.e. LSU fans) or by protecting Cam Newton (i.e. mostly everyone but AU fans, but especially MSU and Bama fans). The conference has thrived under his leadership. How much credit he deserves for that is up for debate.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:37 am to TxHillsTiger
anything was an improvement over Roy Kramer
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:43 am to WDE24
quote:
or by protecting Cam Newton
Didn't Slive make Cam ineligible?
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:44 am to TxHillsTiger
I don't like Slive.
Some of the most recent things I disagree with
- Conference expansion
- Pushing to raises academic requirements for incoming
- New over signing rules
- Cam Newton decision.
Some of the most recent things I disagree with
- Conference expansion
- Pushing to raises academic requirements for incoming
- New over signing rules
- Cam Newton decision.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:44 am to I Bleed Garnet
quote:no
Didn't Slive make Cam ineligible?
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:45 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
e's going to piss off a lot of Alabama and Tennessee fans, if this move of Texas A&M to the SECw (and Auburn to the SECe) causes an end to The Third Saturday in October.
I can see and appreciate that. And as an LSU fan, I am probably as biased as the next, because I think adding A&M and a WVU or Missouri would actually be better for the conference in the long run, even if it does cause some old-time rivalries to take a breather.
Also, because LSU really has no legitimate rivalry game (where both LSU and the rival feel the game is "THE" game that must be played each year) - I'm curious: do you think the Bama/TN game is more important to the conference than say, more revenue and the potential for forcing NCAA to create a play-off system? My thinking, if/when the 'super-conferences' are created, the NCAA will be forced to create a playoff system. If that does occur, we could finally see a potential of two SEC teams playing for the National Title.
Sorry - I didn't mean to hi-jack my own thread and turn it into a conference expansion discussion.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:46 am to bona fide
quote:
Cam Newton decision
So that was his decision
but agree with these
quote:
Pushing to raises academic requirements for incoming
- New over signing rules
This post was edited on 9/23/11 at 10:47 am
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:50 am to TxHillsTiger
quote:
do you think the Bama/TN game is more important to the conference than say, more revenue
Yes, game more important
quote:
and the potential for forcing NCAA to create a play-off system?
Don't want playoff system
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:52 am to TxHillsTiger
Maybe Bama and UT can convince 2 other schools that adding 2 teams from the west isn't the best idea.
It would take 9 votes to add Mizzou, I think.
It would take 9 votes to add Mizzou, I think.
This post was edited on 9/23/11 at 10:54 am
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:53 am to WDE24
I thought the SEC made him ineligible and the NCAA came in and ruled him eligible.
my bad that was Auburn.
my bad that was Auburn.
This post was edited on 9/23/11 at 10:55 am
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:53 am to TxHillsTiger
Slive has a lot of national respect and I would think he has the confidence of all the SEC Presidents. i don't believe that he is part of some dark conspiracy for or against any school. Beebe on the other hand carried too much water for Texas, which is why OU wanted a change. His roots are from the west coast, but he made a name for himself as the NCAA Director of Enforcement during the SMU death penalty. I'm surprised that they wanted him, because he'd know what goes on in Texas. (although I've heard that the NCAA only uncovered a fraction of SMU's violations.)
Posted on 9/23/11 at 10:57 am to I Bleed Garnet
slive doesn't have jack shite to do with the success of the sec (except for keeping cam eligible last year). slive has nothing to do with the sec winning nc and that is what has made the conf. no. 1.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 11:00 am to TxHillsTiger
quote:
do you think the Bama/TN game is more important to the conference than say, more revenue and the potential for forcing NCAA to create a play-off system?
Obviously the current state of the rivalry isn't, but if Tennessee ever returns to full strength, the game would see massive ratings. Much in the same manner as the Alabama-Florida games of the past three years have seen. That being said, I'm not in favor of a play-off, so I wouldn't support expansion for those reasons.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 11:04 am to Larry Hollins
Teams that win usually are teams that are considered the "haves" in terms of money. Slive is certainly a part of how the conference generates and distributes the revenue that keeps the member institutions happy. This money is part of what allows the SEC teams to be superior to other conference groups top to bottom, which is why the SEC is No. 1.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News