“I probably better not comment on that... I need to stay away from that. I don’t want to get into any type of trouble or conflict with the conference office.”
That is to say, if I do say what I am thinking and feeling about this whole situation, the SEC won't like it and I will get in trouble. I like the spirit.
Many neutral parties, like Mr. SEC, are laughing at the inference many Georgia bloggers/fans are putting out there about whether the SEC is withholding any punishment of Fairley because it would diminish the chance of Auburn beating Alabama, thereby reducing the chance that an SEC team goes to the national title game. And, I must admit, it does sound like a "homer" position to take.
But this isn't the first time the inference has been put out there. For instance, I remember many "fans" taking a similar position last season when it appeared that the "big dogs" in the conference were getting preferential treatment from SEC officials during games (I can think of the Florida-Mississippi State game off the top of my head). Further, I heard Slive speak at a club meeting last year and left there thinking, of all things, "this guy would stop at nothing to keep an SEC team from getting to the title game." This mainly came from his reaction to questions about a playoff ("why would I support one when an SEC team has gone to the title game three years in a row without one?" - paraphrased) and his frankness regarding television deals and bowl appearances. I felt good about that conclusion at the time, but now it keeps creeping back into my mind as I see the Newton and Fairley situations play out.
At that meeting, when I heard Slive speak about the BCS and the ESPN deals, the other conclusion I made was "this guy is all about the bottomline... dolla, dolla billz".... ("Billz" actually had a "z" at the end - as I was thinking it... because I'm cool and in touch with pop culture). Which, again, I assume is his job and what his priority should be. Slive is a lawyer, and he knows how to artfully answer questions in the media, how to refrain from commenting on about anything, and how to word his answers to carefully keep himself from getting trapped later. That's probably in the best interest of the conference. But, make no mistake about it, Mike Slive is slick.
Therefore, having said all that and knowing what Slive's priorities are, I frankly cannot just assume that "the best interest of the conference," which - for his purposes - is the financial and power positions of the conference, was not at the forefront of his thought process as he and his staff considered the Fairley hits - because there was more than one, folks.
After all, if Slive and the SEC "recommended" or "suggested" that UGA suspend Ben Jones earlier this season for a chop block, I cannot imagine that the same recommendation was NOT made involving Nick Fairley, unless there were other motives involved. And, to be fair, maybe Slive DID make that recommendation to Auburn - that they suspend Fairley like Georgia did Jones. But if he did, and Auburn chose to do nothing about it (or at least chose not to suspend the player but handle it some other way, like "don't do that again, big guy"), then what does that say about Auburn? Moreover, what does it say about Slive? Either Slive will let coaches and athletic directors defy him in the face of his recommendations, or he simply allows such defiance if it is "in the best interests of the conference," right? I don't know which is worse...
Maybe it isn't a conspiracy after all. Maybe the SEC just doesn't think Fairley's type of play is reprehensible. But given the actions we've seen regarding this type of play recently from the NFL, which would arguably be in a better position to allow rough play in light of the fact that the players are getting PAID to endure such hits (enter Cam Newton joke here), isn't there a duty for a COLLEGE conference to protect defenseless "student athletes" from the egregious assaults from other players that could cause serious injury? After all, due to Fairley's play, Murray is laid up healing from blindside, defenseless shots and may not get to play in his next game. And yet Ben Jones's contact with a larger, defensive player is what the SEC has chosen to "crack down" on?
Conspiracy theory or no, it all stinks. And the SEC and Slive are the ones who could have prevented it from stinking. So I don't think McGarity and Georgia fans are overreacting at all to the non-action by the SEC. And I don't think they are out-of-place in trying to put a reason behind the SEC's decision, regardless of how outlandish it may seem to some.
No comments:
Post a Comment