Good question. I was one who wanted him gone, but now view that as a mistake.

Lots of things converged.

- Stoops and Brown amped up recruiting to levels far above what they had been earlier in RC's tenure. We were no longer getting all of the choicest cuts of beef.

- Our facilities had fallen behind the times, exacerbating the effects of the above.

- You know how our defense has been the problem lately? It was the offense under Slocum. He and Bob Davie could field some hellacious defenses, but we would still lose games 14-10. He would never fully turn that over to a high-power OC, simply because he did not like the risk/reward calculations.

- Tech had become an issue. They had been a thorn in his side in the 90's, as we lost too many games to Tech teams we should have beaten handily. Just one of those things. Then, in 2000, Leach showed up and took that to another level. When an offensive mind is sticking it to a defensive coach that is perceived as unable (or, worse, unwilling) to amp up his team's production, he has problems.

Slocum was widely respected for the defenses he produced. I still remember an article in some magazine (I think it was Sport) that analyzed five specific college football plays that simply could not be countered if the team that ran it executed it correctly. One of them was a Florida play under Spurrier. The only defensive play was one of Slocum's blitzes.

His problem was that he was (fairly or unfairly) perceived as someone who could not put together the coaches, schemes, and players to be effective on the other side of the ball.