SEC press release for Elston Suspension:

This action was the result of a flagrant and dangerous act which occurred at the 3:18 mark in the fourth quarter. The action is in violation of Rule 9-1-4 of the NCAA Football Rule Book, which reads, “No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder,” and Rule 9-1-3 which states, “No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet.”

This action is taken in accordance with Southeastern Conference Constitution, Article 4.4.2 (d) which states that a student-athlete may be suspended if it is determined that the student-athlete has committed a flagrant or unsportsmanlike act.

To me, the issue is that Elston should not have been suspended because others in the league were not after similar infractions of the above cited rules. Additionally, other players, including Dial committed offenses that were arguably more "flagrant and unsportsmanlike," thus more deserving of suspension under Article 4.4.2(d). Dial violated rule 9-1-3. Certainly, Dial is not the only player who had a hit as or more "flagrant" than Elston's. His was simply the one on the biggest stage with the biggest implication of a possible suspension.

Slive had a knee jerk reaction with Elston due to another players injury. His refusal to act against Dial, his delay in making this decision, and his previous decision to allow a letter of apology stand as punishment for another Alabama player create an appearance of favoritism.

I think he just stepped in it with Elston. Not upset about Dial not being suspended, but his hit is as suspension worthy as Elston's because he violated 9-1-3.