Mike Slive, who passed away yesterday, by all accounts appears to have been a genuinely admired fellow who certainly played a significant role in college sports over the last two decades. So I’m not trying to crap on his grave here, but damn, this ain’t right.
Leave it to an ESPN pundit to (1) patronize the South — “perceived” regional product, really? — and (2) praise Slive for turning the conference in a national direction. I’m sure Mickey is thrilled by that, but if you don’t mind, I think I’ll cling to my fading perception as long as I can. Those CFP brackets will be here soon enough.
Get The Picture 
Winning made the SEC the national power it is. Other steps may have helped; but at the end of the day – Winning drives it all…
LikeLike
Not all… there’s the passion of its fan base, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think they go hand in hand….
LikeLike
The league of Southern gentlemen bestows thanks upon the illustrious patron of the new South – the esteemed General Ulysses S. Grant, the defender of Carolinian virginity, noble forefather of the Georgian soft drink, home improvement and airline empire.
LikeLike
I’m not really offended. I think he’s just saying Slive made the SEC a national draw and created more SEC fans nationally in addition to being a Southern thing. In fact, that might account for some of the players we have been able to pull out of the northeast.
LikeLike
Charlie Trippi disagrees. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I read Burns’ tweet the “perceived regional product” line was more of a shot at those outside of the footprint IMO. I do think Slive helped ESPN, et al., see that the SEC was more than just a regional product.
LikeLike
Christ, college football has been a regional product. That’s not perception; that’s been its basic strength. That’s all being slowly pissed away as ESPN leads the conferences on a money chase for the casual sports fan who tunes in when he/she is told it’s important.
These people are deluded into thinking they can have both, when the reality is that they’re competing marketing strategies. And folks like Slive and his peers should know better after watching what March Madness expansion over four decades has done to emasculate college basketball’s regular season.
Slive may be a wonderful man, but he’s got something to answer for regarding the aftermath of the last round of conference expansion.
LikeLike
Yep. I still forget that Missouri is a conference game sometimes.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree that the nationalization of CFB is a net-negative, but from Peter Burns’ point of view of course he loves that nationalization. He’s a host on a national show covering the SEC.
LikeLike
Kinda thought that was the point to my post… 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I kinda thought Burns was sniffing at the SEC as something less than the real college football powers.
LikeLike
agree…well put.
LikeLike
“Slive may be a wonderful man….” I appreciate your good manners and bless you for them Senator, but I’m one who didn’t think Mike Slive was so wonderful. “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” What Slive has left behind is a cancer that will kill not only SEC football, but all of college football as we know it. It was all about money with Slive. The rest of us are left reap what he has sown.
LikeLike
A very deserved compliment to
An individual who definitely had a big hand in making the SEC the great national conference it is today.
LikeLike
Nobody moves to the North to retire.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Slive’s main achievement was ending the friendly fire between institutions and getting everyone rowing in the same direction. That’s not insignificant.
On the flip side, turning the SEC essentially into two sister conferences to make it a more attractive cable product kind of sucked. But at least we’re not stuck with Rutgers or West Virginia as the concept of regional, wired broadcast cable disappears in the rear view mirror.
His successor, Sankey, is a blithering idiot who blends all of Slive’s weaknesses with none of Slive’s strengths.
Slive could charm media types enormously. They loved him. And he got a lot of glowing press as a result.
LikeLike
Given $live came close to sacrificing the Deep South’s Oldest Rivalry at the altar of conference expansion, I’m not a fan of the suits in Birmingham.
Other than that, it sounds like Slive was liked and good guy … Rest In Peace.
LikeLike
R.I.P. Mike Slive. Also
A Great big Thanks for the great memories and R.I.P.
Andy Johnson
LikeLike
RIP Andy
What an athlete you were!
LikeLike
Yes….RIP Andy Johnson….a DGD.
LikeLike
RIP Slive but as I recall, Roy Kramer is a yankee and far more instrumental in building the SEC to what it is today.
He was beating the drum for years on creating a format that would allow the SEC to prove its superiority. This didn’t happen overnight but the process began in 1999 and he was proven right during the run of the 2K’s.
LikeLike
Nice guy, but…
Wasn’t Boyd McWhorter the visionary behind the first conference championship game? That has been the key to the perception of the SEC as a national powerhouse. But, hell, we all knew we were special way before that.
I will give Slive whatever credit he is due for inflicting F-Bomb and Tiny Tears on us every Saturday on the SEC Network.
LikeLike
I don’t really agree with your concern here, in that SEC football, more than any other conference, will always retain its regional identity among the fanbase while welcoming the money from carpet-bagging fans from Montana who finally recognize our helmet, Senator. 😉
I think Slive was right on expansion and right on the playoff, which will not become the unwieldy thing that the Big Dance is. From a safety standpoint alone, the biggest the playoff will expand is to 8 teams, though I believe 6 teams, with a bye for the top two seeds in which seeds 3 & 4 play seeds 6 & 5 in their home stadiums, is the best compromise.
While adding UNC or VATech would’ve been better for the SEC than adding Mizzou, technically, given the contentious nature of Missouri’s place in helping to cause the Civil War and how the state sent boys to fight on both sides, you can make a much better case that Missouri is on the border of South and Midwest, and thus belonging to both than strictly being Midwest. A much better case than the B1G can make for Maryland or New Jersey fitting into their footprint.
I think, Good Senator, this is a classic case of Old Man Yells at Cloud.
LikeLike
Yeah? Think the SECCG is as important today as it was a few years ago? Alabama’s won two national titles w/o winning the conference.
The Big 12 just added a conference championship game even though it plays a round-robin conference schedule, because of CFP entry concerns.
Respectfully, you have no idea where the CFP is headed. The idea that there’s some sort of “safety standpoint” built in pure conjecture. What drives the post season has been, is and will always be money. Which is why every tournament the people running college sports operate has grown its field over time.
If there’s been a limiter on postseason growth, it’s been regionalism. That’s being chucked aside.
LikeLike
No, I do not believe the SECCG is as important as it was a few years ago.
I believe it’s MORE important than it was a few years ago.
The SECCG, more than any other CG from the other conferences, acts as a playoff quarterfinal. Last year, had Auburn won the SECCG with two losses, they were still guaranteed a spot in the playoff. Where do you see that possibility in any other conference, Senator?
You win the SEC Title, even with two losses, and the likelihood of making the playoff is better than other conference champions making the playoff with one loss. Who else can say that?
This is thanks to the work Mike Slive did.
Alabama made the playoff because even though they lost to Auburn in Auburn, they were still one of the best four teams in the nation, if not the best. Had they been matched against Oklahoma, who knows what would’ve happened, but they beat Clemson and then beat us (because Chaney and Kirby shut down the offense with 12 minutes remaining and only a 13 point lead like a couple of play not to lose idiots).
They deserved to be there. I’m sorry, but I’d rather have a one-loss Bama who is good than an overrated Ohio State just because the Suckeyes won their conference.
It’s about the best teams, and isn’t that what we should want? The best teams are not always conference champions. It happens. Best teams is logical and rational.
LikeLike
I agree, but what does that have to do with winning your conference?
LikeLike
It’s possible to have both.
I see the SECCG as more important than it ever was because of the work Slive did. The SEC is more likely to put a two-loss conference champion in the playoff than any other conference, and that’s proof enough of that point.
The SEC is also the first conference to have two teams in the playoff based on the strength of the conference overall, compared to the B1G last year which was supremely overrated by talking heads like Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell. So the committee did its job and picked the four best teams as opposed to what idiot sports blabbers said they should do.
The system works, and the system works in our favor because at the end of the day, for the last 20 years or so, the SEC has been the best conference with the most important CG, and eventually, hopefully, this will work in the Dawg’s favor sooner rather than later.
To put it another way, if SC somehow beats us by one point at home, but loses to Florida and Clemson, goes to the SECCG and loses to a one-loss Bama team, but we win every other game on our schedule, including at LSU to a team who only lost to Bama and us and including Auburn who only lost to LSU and and us, and we make the playoff as the fourth seed, but beat Bama in the semifinal and beat the Suckeyes for the National Title, are you going to complain that we didn’t win the SEC title, or be happy we won the whole damn thing?
I’m gonna be happy we won the whole damn thing.
It’s literally having your cake and eating it, too. The SECCG is the most important CG, more important than every before. The SEC is also of such quality that even in a relative down year, you could say the SEC had three of the top-6 or 7 teams in the entire nation.
LikeLike
I’m beginning to think you don’t understand your own argument. You’ve just made the case as to why the natty has overshadowed the conference. And you’re right. There’s no “it’s possible to have both” here. If there were, I wouldn’t have heard some Dawg fans complain about how the end of the national title game made the 2017 season ultimately a disappointment for them.
By the way, statistically speaking, the SEC wasn’t the strongest conference last year, as the bottom half the conference declined significantly.
LikeLike
No, I’m saying we can have it both ways.
The SECCG remains the strongest, stronger than ever and the most meaningful because it’s the only CG that can reasonably put a two-loss team into the playoff.
The conference as a whole remains the strongest at the top, so if you finish with a great record but lose out on the opportunity to win your division, you can still make the playoff. Think of the Dawgs in 2007.
We have it both ways. You say the SECCG isn’t as meaningful as it was. I say it’s more, because a two-loss SECCG has as good a chance of making the playoff than some one loss champions of other conferences.
This is thanks to the work Slive did. He built-up the SEC and capitalized on the regional insanity we all feel for the SEC in ways Kramer never dreamed possible. Slive fostered the identity and convinced all of us lunatics to not only feel pride for our teams, but the SEC as a whole. I know some Dawgs fans who will actually root for Florida to win their bowl game to “prove” our brand of football is better than “their” brand of football. That never happened 20 years ago, but it happens now. That’s powerful stuff.
Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree on the point of the SECCG. I don’t see how a non-SEC champion making the playoff lessens the impact of the SECCG when the game itself acts as a de facto quarterfinal for the playoff in which even a two-lose SEC Champ can make it when that doesn’t apply to any other conference’s CG.
LikeLike
It’s never done that, so that is pure speculation on your part.
And when the CFP expands the field to eight, it’ll be a moot point.
LikeLike
And when the CFP expands to sixteen……..
LikeLike
Missouri in 2012 isn’t the South or East. Texas A&M at least is in the South. The addition of Missouri was a dumb move, and the decision to put them in the East was idiotic.
LikeLike
People here in Texas will argue about it being in the South. It’s in the southern half of the US, sure, but it’s not in “The South”. Neither is Missouri.
LikeLike
I would agree with you except the Republic of Texas did decide to leave the Union with the other Southern states. A&M is a way better fit culturally to the SEC than Missouri.
LikeLike
Again, traditionally, Missouri is on the border of the South and the Midwest, and you can make a argument it belongs to both. That’s not up for debate.
You are correct about them being in the East, though the argument there is to protect traditional rivalries in Bama-Urnge and UGA-Auburn. Given the other solution, I’m happy with Mizzou being in the East.
LikeLike
Culturally, Missouri doesn’t fit. It may geographically be on the border of the Midwest and the South, but that’s it. Slive screwed up the 2012 expansion by not having a school who fit culturally and geographically into the footprint. Is it a better fit than West Virginia in the Big XII, Maryland or Rutgers in the B1G or Colorado in the Pac 12? Yes, but that doesn’t make it good decision. The suits in Birmingham should have had a VT, UNC or NC State lined up to join the SEC with Texas A&M.
As it is now, the SEC should be renamed the CTZC, the Central Time Zone Conference.
LikeLike
You’re putting together a wish list without the facts to back it up. Yes, those names would’ve been better, as I stated, but they were never going to happen.
VATech, UNC, and NC State were on the cusp of signing-over their third tier rights for something like 20 years to the ACC, which happened because Maryland left for the B1G. Also, the VA General Assembly would never have allowed VATech to leave UVA and the ACC after they spent all that political capital to get them into the ACC in the first place when the Big East collapsed. And there’s no way UNC leaves the conference it founded or Duke, and there’s no way NC State leaves traditional rivals all within a couple of hours drive.
Would those three teams leave now? Yeah, because money; at least with VATech and NC State. I don’t think UNC ever leaves the ACC. But at the point in 2012, the SEC Network and the extra cash were a pipe dream. It’s a moot point as it is, because those third tier rights are tied up with the ACC for decades.
Mizzou was the best fit available, and again, I have no problem with them at all.
LikeLike
I threw those 3 out as examples. Other schools within the footprint (Clemson, Miami and Florida State) were better fits than Missouri.
My point is that $live and his cronies in Birmingham had no plan to balance the divisions when they added A&M by adding a true eastern member.
LikeLike
Your other three examples are terrible. The point of expansion is EXPANSION.
Those three examples expand nothing as far as footprint goes, and the SEC has said numerous times that they are rightfully never going to add schools in states in which they already have a presence. It makes no sense, fiscally or otherwise.
Clemson, FSU, and Miami literally add nothing substantial to the SEC as a business. No new recruiting territory, no new revenue streams for the SECN. Nothing.
LikeLike
You still haven’t addressed the central point. Missouri is a terrible cultural fit with the rest of the conference. No one except for you from a fan’s perspective seems to think Missouri was a great addition to the conference.
On the Miami point, the ACC certainly thought South Florida was a good place to expand even though FSU was already in their league.
I agree with you about Clemson and FSU … they weren’t net adds for the SEC. Miami? We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
LikeLike
First of all it is not no one other than Matt as I agree with him.
Second if Missouri is not a good cultural fit then neither is Vandy or UGA for that matter. Mizzou could be our sister school.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt, Georgia and Florida are cultural fits because they are Southern schools and charter members of the SEC. Sorry, but Missouri is an outstanding Midwestern university that was invited to be in an athletic conference made up of Southern universities.
LikeLike
Ahh. I see. When you say cultural you mean geographic. Gotcha.
LikeLike
Geography is part of it.
LikeLike
Based on the criteria you have given Tech was in the SEC and is located in the south. If you think they would be a good cultural fit I do not think you know what that word means.
LikeLike
Isn’t Miami also a terrible cultural fit? Have you been to South Florida? It is nothing like the rest of the south. I would argue Missouri is more like the south than Miami.
LikeLike
Not great either … but I would still take the Hurricanes over Missouri
LikeLike
In Florida, the further south you go, the more north you are!
LikeLike
It is not that they lacked a plan. They lacked a team. Every single example you have used is a non-starter. Picking up the farthest east Big 12 school was a success.
LikeLike
If you lacked a selection for balance, don’t expand. I hate that we play Missouri. They add nothing to the conference other than to keep the conference at an even number. They take up a spot on the schedule that could be a more compelling match-up. We came dangerously close in 2014 to being forced to give up Auburn as an annual game in exchange for a yearly game with Missouri.
LikeLike
Your solution is don’t expand? Smh. Do you recall seeing a post here in the last week regarding member payouts by conference and the SEC at the top. That is thanks to expansion. That is the money keeping the SEC at the top on the field.
LikeLike
If it’s about money, then rip the Band-Aid off. Move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West, and either end the Iron Bowl or the Third Saturday in October as an annual game, or add a 9th conference game. As it is, the SEC looks stupid calling Missouri the “East.”
LikeLike
You could always just rename the divisions. 😉
LikeLike
Like Leaders and Legends 😉
LikeLike
Or we could have the best of both worlds by keeping the traditional rivalry games, expand the conference, make more money, and somehow manage to not let it get to you that you think we look stupid over a conference name.
LikeLike
Planting a million pine trees and having sweet tea on the menu would go a long way to the mizzou maybe fitting in. Personally, I think West Virginia or Virginia would have been a good move. CoMo is pretty nice and there is a bit of a southern vibe there but St. Louis and KC? Hell no
LikeLiked by 1 person
Football in the actual “North” has not been noted since Army won the national title in 1946. Not really much of a college presence in any sport at all up that way aside from Syracuse and Nova in basketball.
LikeLike
If you mean Northeast it is fair to say that Penn State is a serious football school. Ohio State and Michigan are considered by many to be Northern Football schools as well.
LikeLike