Talk:Michael Slive

BCS

Isn't he BCS coordinator? By JACK CAREY USA TODAY GLENDALE, Ariz. - Bowl Championship Series coordinator Mike Slive, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, said Monday he remains open to looking at different models for the BCS in the future.

Proposed Changes

Since the page is under semi-protection, I would like to propose the following changes to be made to the page to 'clean it up' somewhat.

In talking with InShanee, I agree that the line 'He has also been compared to Emperor Palpatine of Star Wars.' should be removed. Since that statement was only made once, it really serves no purpose.

I would also like to propose the following changes to the Controversy section in order to eliminate any bias:

On November 8, 2012, Tulane University's safety, Devon Walker, fractured his spine after a hit to his helmet in the game against Tulsa. Following the news coverage of what took place, the SEC suspended University of Mississippi's Trae Elson for violation of NCAA rule 9-1-4 which states, 'No player shall target and initiate contact to he head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow, or shoulder', as well as NCAA rule 9-1-3 which states, 'No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet'. In addition, the SEC suspended University of South Carolina's DJ Swearinger for a violation of the Player Safety rules as well.

However, controversy arose during the SEC Championship game on December 1, 2012, between the University of Alabama and University of Georgia, when Alabama player Quinton Dial hit Georgia's Aaron Murray in a helmet-to-helmet hit. There was no penalty flag thrown on the play for the hit. Steve Shaw, the SEC Supervisor of Football Officials, stated that the officials missed the call and a flag should have been thrown. On December 14, 2012, the SEC office released a statement indicating that Quinton Dial would not be suspend and that Alabama football coach, Nick Saban, would handle it internally. This meant that Quinton Dial would not miss the BCS National Championship Game on November 7, 2012, against Notre Dame.

The lack of a suspension against the Alabama football player has led members of the media to criticize how the SEC office treats different teams in the league. Jeff Schultz of the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote that the league's decision to not suspend Quinton Dial 'looks fishy, especially given the proximity to BCS championship game'. ESPN's Edward Aschoff was also critical of the inconsistency with how the SEC office chose not to suspend the Alabama player. Frank Schwab of Yahoo Sports also called into question the SEC's handling of Quinton Dial and speculated the reason Dial wasn't suspended was due to the upcoming BCS National Championship Game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SECFootballFan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming from an outsider (and aside from the fact those links would need to be made into footnotes in the actual article), I've still got some reservations. For one thing, I'm not a fan of that first paragraph. It seems like it's just background, and the citation you have linked in the first sentence of the second paragraph ("controversy") mentions Elston and Swearinger (with supporting links), so I'd think we could probably handwave that paragraph with a line in the second paragraph about the rule having been enforced in the past, and maybe a footnote back to the "controversy" link with the info.

More importantly, though, you've got a full three paragraphs there, but no mention of the article's topic, Michael Slive. I do understand you're talking about 'The SEC under Michael Slive', but (speaking as an outsider again) I don't know how easily one would conflate 'The SEC's decsion' with 'Michael Slive's decision'. Are there any links out there with Slive commenting on any of the suspensions, or the surrounding controversy? InShaneee (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Mike Slive is actually the judge when it comes to suspensions - so anytime someone is suspended in the SEC it is his direct ruling. I'll work on this a bit more to clarify that he is the one that actually makes the ruling on the supsensions. Great feedback, and it's appreciated. 98.251.248.28 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2013

Controversey section is complete fabrication and character assisnation from a disgruntled fanbase (Ole Miss) who can't see that Slive may have saved the life of the player they are blindly angry about. One column (which is an opinion) does not justify addition of this section. Flemming87 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Slive makes right call to not suspend Dial: http://capstonereport.com/2012/12/14/breaking-sec-wont-suspend-quinton-dial-for-hit-on-aaron-murray/18466/

So there. Just as reliable as any source posted. This controversy section should be removed immediately. It has no merit. Flemming87 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the section to bring it in line with what the provided sources actually say, and removed a lot of the weasel wording. If subsequent consensus among editors agrees that the section should be removed completely I will not object. I've also removed the contentious label "controversy" and renamed it to something more factual. I'll also add the {{undue}} tag to the section, as I don't believe that discussion of this "controversy" should dwarf discussion of the rest of Mr. Slive's biography. I realize that that may not completely satisfy you, but unless there is some consensus among multiple editors I'm not inclined to completely remove cited text from the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Kuyabribri - do you even know the actual definition of the word "controversy"? Publishing a quote from a biased source (an Alabama supported paper) isn't the same as a source from unbiased person that has no affiliation with the article. Further, your edit is wrong - the initial entry of the NCAA just instituting those rules were inaccurate, as is your change that you made. Also, media members not affiliated with the University of Alabama have all come to the same conclusion - the SEC was protecting Alabama. Only the media members that write for papers supporting Alabama (such as the link you have in the talk section) claim otherwise.

Your edit is completely wrong and should be reverted back. You may not like the reality of it, but it is still reality. Either remove it completely or put it back to where it is accurate. Right now, it's inaccurate and takes away from the reality of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.248.28 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)