As MSU fans, do we like Slive?...

[MedDawg]

I'm pretty sure we didn't like Roy Kramer, but it seems we haven't complained about "Birmingham" as much the past few years. Not since Cam Newton, anyway.

 

[121Josey]

I liked Kramer. $lime is no Kramer.

 

[esplanade91]

Slive is the sports politician edition of Dan Camp. He's a big pile of **** and we all know he's a big pile of **** but based on his resume of work are we really going to complain what this big pile of **** has done? At any point during his tenure do you think he has screwed us out of a national title (he didn't prevent Cam from coming here, only screwed us after) or feel like we deserved a better bowl than we got? His pile of shittiness hasn't 17d us yet. Ask again probably at the end of this season.

 

[rabiddawg]

Slive only cares about the big dogs of the league. His pompous stance when chastising State for the sCam kNewton ordeal was all I needed to see from him.

 

[DerHntr]

I don't like him. The handling of the Newton situation was ridiculous. I have no doubt he would have reacted differently if you flipped the names of the two schools involved.

 

[thatsbaseball]

No

 

[Chesusdog]

Meh, slightly better than Hitler

Seriously though, screw that guy. He's a bastard whose primary interest is making sure the big boys don't get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

 

[Shamoan]

slive is a clown, but he is probably the right guy for the job at the current time. not my kinda person at all, but his slicker than owl **** act is probably what we need during this expansion/sec network deal...in other words, i see him as a necessary evil.

i did like the end of all the in-fighting that he clearly lead the way in, but the other side of that is that **** that should probably get out, never does and gets swept under the rug. with that in mind, the sec's stance on increasing player benefits is not that surprising.

 

[johnson86-1]

I'm pretty sure we didn't like Roy Kramer, but it seems we haven't complained about "Birmingham" as much the past few years. Not since Cam Newton, anyway.

We are never going to like the SEC Commissioner because unless and until MSU becomes a nationwide brand, we are not going to be his priority. The question is whether he increases the SEC pie as much as possible while screwing over MSU as little as possible. The Cam Newton situation was bad, but I'm not sure how else he could have handled that given the hand he was dealt, unless your position is that he should have basically kept Newton out of the SEC, in which case maybe no SEC team wins a championship that year.

The SEC tourney game against UK was awful, but I'm not sure that was a league driven thing as much as it is a refs are naturally biased for big names thing.

Overall, I will ***** about Slive, but I will also recognize that the SEC is getting much stronger while State is at least not being treated any worse.

 

[ReadyReady]

slivewatchesvernadobreakrecord.jpg

 

[rabiddawg]

" The Cam Newton situation was bad, but I'm not sure how else he could have handled that given the hand he was dealt, unless your position is that he should have basically kept Newton out of the SEC, in which case maybe no SEC team wins a championship that year. "

He could have handled it by actually upholding the SEC Conference's rule stating that a player shopped by parents to one school is ineligible at all conference schools. I could have gave two ***** if it meant Auburn didn't win the BCS that year.

He invented the "father shopped him but Cam didn't know" deal to keep him eligible.

 

[Dawgzilla]

" The Cam Newton situation was bad, but I'm not sure how else he could have handled that given the hand he was dealt, unless your position is that he should have basically kept Newton out of the SEC, in which case maybe no SEC team wins a championship that year. "

He could have handled it by actually upholding the SEC Conference's rule stating that a player shopped by parents to one school is ineligible at all conference schools. I could have gave two ***** if it meant Auburn didn't win the BCS that year.

He invented the "father shopped him but Cam didn't know" deal to keep him eligible.

Now that time has passed, I think Slive did the right thing with the Cam situation, I just don't like the way he went about it.

When the facts first started coming out, there was controversy over whether a family member asking for money really was an NCAA violation. I was listening to tons of talk radio back then to try to get the scoop, and the compliance lawyers all said the NCAA rules didn't mention family members, and there were split opinions as to whether having a family member ask for money and get turned down would actually threaten a player's eligibility. I actually posted on an Auburn board before their Georgia game that Auburn's best course of action would be to declare Cam ineligible and demand that the NCAA rule on whether having a family member or friend ask for money was in fact an NCAA violation. I was mocked on that board, of course, and then that's exactly what Auburn wound up doing after the Alabama game.

But of course, having a family member ask for money was a clear violation of the SEC Bylaws. Its right there in black and white. So what is Slive to do? He was in a really tough situation, since that particular bylaw had never been applied to suspend a player before, and now he was being confronted with the possibility of suspending the leading Heisman trophy candidate and star player of an undefeated conference team. Not only is he looking at damaging the conference, but also potential lawsuits from Auburn and the Newtons.

Maybe I'm wrong, and its probably totally moot, but I like to think that if he had been faced with the question in August, then Slive would not have hesitated to suspend a new, relatively unknown JC transfer for a game or two at the beginning of the season. He has suspended plenty of players over the years for various violations regardless of that player's fame and importance. However, I can certainly see his hesitation to suspend a player that the NCAA has said did not technically violate any of its rules.

What bugged me, though, was Slive's claim that there was nothing he could do in the situation. That was a blatant lie. He certainly had the power to suspend Cam, he just decided not too. Emmert's hands were tied, just as he claimed. Cam had not violated NCAA rules, and Emmert does not have commissioner powers to just suspend players because he doesn't like what they did (and both Slive and Emmert said that they didn't like the situation at all and that the NCAA rules should be amended to make this situation a violation). But Slive DOES have vast powers to suspend players, particularly when there has been a direct violation of SEC bylaws. I'm okay with him choosing not to use his power, but to claim that he couldn't use his power was dishonest.

We also don't know all the facts about why this dragged on for so long. MSU reported it January, the SEC questioned Auburn about it in the Summer, and then apparently just accepted Auburn's internal investigation and claims that there was nothing to see and didn't report anything to the NCAA. And, of course, Slive tried to blame MSU for the delay in getting the investigation started. So, I am kinda curious about the SEC office's apparent disinterest in pursuing the matter, but we don't have the whole story there.

 

[johnson86-1]

" The Cam Newton situation was bad, but I'm not sure how else he could have handled that given the hand he was dealt, unless your position is that he should have basically kept Newton out of the SEC, in which case maybe no SEC team wins a championship that year. "

He could have handled it by actually upholding the SEC Conference's rule stating that a player shopped by parents to one school is ineligible at all conference schools. I could have gave two ***** if it meant Auburn didn't win the BCS that year.

He invented the "father shopped him but Cam didn't know" deal to keep him eligible.

That's all true, but I suspect he views his job as doing what is best for the SEC more than it is playing judge/cop. He is always going to sweep things under the rug unless letting it go will damage the league's reputation beyond what is gained from sweeping something under the rug. Him ignoring/bending the rules to keep Cam eligible probably added an extra couple of million to each schools bottom line. He probably views it as the NCAA's job to worry about fairness and following rules.