WHO want to re-elect this guy Mike Slive next time?

[aucat 69]

I wish all SEC coaches consider to send him a letter of compliment!

[WarTiger 3,910]

that sentence makes absolutely no sense... speak english please.

[Justin5 20]

I'm not putting it on Slive. The rules make him leave the room when they discuss SEC teams.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

I'll say this, then move quickly out of the way.

We don't know what sort of efforts Slive made on the SEC's behalf or not...I don't see that as anyone on the selection committee's job. Their job is to select the best 34 at-large teams they can. Period.

I mentioned this in another thread, but it bears repeating...here is what the SEC did in non-conference play this year:

Against the RPI top 100: 15-28

Against the RPI top 50: 8-23

...and then you throw in this litany of bad losses:

* Kentucky losing to VMI (RPI 128)

* Alabama losing to Mercer (RPI 181)

* Auburn losing to Mercer (RPI 181)

* Ole Miss losing to Southern Miss (RPI 161)

* Vanderbilt losing to Illinois-Chicago (RPI 167)

* South Carolina losing to College of Charleston (RPI 103)

* Arkansas losing to Missouri State (RPI 211)

* Mississippi State losing to Charlotte (RPI 209) and San Diego (RPI 192).

I could include MSU's loss to Texas Tech (RPI 119) and Vandy's loss to Georgia Tech (RPI 139), too, but they were at least from major conferences.

That doesn't add up to a whole lot of respect. The SEC was the #6 RPI conference, worst among the major conferences, for a reason.

More particular to , we were 0-3 against the RPI top 100 in non-league play and lost to the only three quality tournament teams we played in the non-conference. That hurt us...badly...along with the poor performance of the SEC as a whole.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

I think Slive is awful, just awful, at his job. But that opinion didn't come from just this March. It comes from his complete lack of public support for Auburn in 2004. It comes from his lack of leadership in refining the BCS (in stark contrast to Roy Kramer... who basically made all the other conferences accept the BCS because he said so). It comes from his completely inane claim that he's had something to do with "cleaning the SEC up," when in reality the SEC is NOT "clean" (see: Bama on the cusp of probation again). It comes from the rise of bad relations within the conference without comment from the conference office (Lane Kiffin taking jabs at everyone in the conference, the odd Nutt stuff... he clearly had a deal with Ole Miss well before he was out at Arkansas, etc.).

The conference is less civil and no more compliant with NCAA rules now than it was when he arrived. Under his watch, an undefeated football team was denied a chance to PLAY FOR a national title, and he said nothing. The Big Ten commissioner has routinely taken pot shots at the SEC for having "lower standards," and he's said basically nothing. Now? The conference basketball champion is given an EIGHT SEED. Really? LSU's season was closer to Wisconsin's than it was to Michigan State's? Really? Winning the SEC by 3 games puts you somewhere between Washington and Arizona? Really Mike? I think LSU's seeding (something Mike would have been in the room for) is a MUCH bigger slap in the SEC's face than only getting 2 at-large bids (even though that's BS as well).

Maybe I was spoiled by Roy Kramer's dominance of major college athletics for so many years, but Mike Slive has done about as good a job of replacing a legend as Ron Zook did. Has he been a complete disaster that destroyed the conference? No. But he certainly hasn't done any spectacular either and getting rid of him certainly wouldn't hurt you.

[subterranean_jack 112]

I think Slive is awful, just awful, at his job. But that opinion didn't come from just this March. It comes from his complete lack of public support for Auburn in 2004. It comes from his lack of leadership in refining the BCS (in stark contrast to Roy Kramer... who basically made all the other conferences accept the BCS because he said so). It comes from his completely inane claim that he's had something to do with "cleaning the SEC up," when in reality the SEC is NOT "clean" (see: Bama on the cusp of probation again). It comes from the rise of bad relations within the conference without comment from the conference office (Lane Kiffin taking jabs at everyone in the conference, the odd Nutt stuff... he clearly had a deal with Ole Miss well before he was out at Arkansas, etc.).

The conference is less civil and no more compliant with NCAA rules now than it was when he arrived. Under his watch, an undefeated football team was denied a chance to PLAY FOR a national title, and he said nothing. The Big Ten commissioner has routinely taken pot shots at the SEC for having "lower standards," and he's said basically nothing. Now? The conference basketball champion is given an EIGHT SEED. Really? LSU's season was closer to Wisconsin's than it was to Michigan State's? Really? Winning the SEC by 3 games puts you somewhere between Washington and Arizona? Really Mike? I think LSU's seeding (something Mike would have been in the room for) is a MUCH bigger slap in the SEC's face than only getting 2 at-large bids (even though that's BS as well).

Maybe I was spoiled by Roy Kramer's dominance of major college athletics for so many years, but Mike Slive has done about as good a job of replacing a legend as Ron Zook did. Has he been a complete disaster that destroyed the conference? No. But he certainly hasn't done any spectacular either and getting rid of him certainly wouldn't hurt you.

The SEC deserves better.