I agree. Briles was innovative on offense. His defenses were comical, but I get it. Everyone has their own risk tolerance. His was super-high.Ghostrider said:
Briles team would have put 100 on Aranda's.
And he would appreciate it.Ghostrider said:
Briles team would have put 100 on Aranda's.
Testify! Fact...! The SEC didn't have 400+-500 yards of offense in their games until they incorporated some of his offense in their schemes. They adapted.FLBear5630 said:I agree. Briles was innovative on offense. His defenses were comical, but I get it. Everyone has their own risk tolerance. His was super-high.Ghostrider said:
Briles team would have put 100 on Aranda's.
Briles would be a non-starter, period. However, there are other Coaches that share his philosophies on offense. One of those guys from even the D2 ranks would be a breath of fresh air.
Soooo, where's your vitriol towards your Christian University??? Oh yeah, let's don't get in the bushes, $$$$$$$$ and more steeples on the horizon. No blasphemy towards the "expletive" Baptists. The BOR should rot in Hell.cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
ImABearToo said:
And Briles had already kicked him out of the program. From all of the settlements BU paid out to victims, were any of the players responsible for those alleged acts ever mentioned by name?
Yep Trump as all politician rely on the generals publics ignorance and fear.Russell Gym said:
Trump has an excellent chance of being re-elected. Nothing he or any else can say or do will slow down his popularity.
Briles will never return to Baylor.
I have no affiliation or connection to the University, im merely a fan of the sports team, therefore i dont really care about it, but, literally in the post of mine that you have quoted, i said "Baylor as a University was rotten" im not really sure what else you are looking for, unless you just have a list of talking points and dont really bother to read the posts of people who dont mindlessly agree with youBBWCBear said:Soooo, where's your vitriol towards your Christian University??? Oh yeah, let's don't get in the bushes, $$$$$$$$ and more steeples on the horizon. No blasphemy towards the "expletive" Baptists. The BOR should rot in Hell.cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
a contributing reason why there were so few convictions (though there were 2) is because Briles and his staff tried to cover things upScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
Killing Floor said:
Not convicted of anything. And NCAA fully exonerated him of all (all) allegations and that (that) is why Grambling State was able to offer and hire him as football offensive coordinator. He resigned because of outsider outrage and didn't want to be a distraction.
We can agree the treatment of many young people at Baylor is wrong. But let's take a second and sort this out.
Great coach engaged in questionable human resource scrutiny sentenced to life without a job. Seems reasonable.
ImABearToo said:
He's the only jailbird from the hundreds of players that came through Baylor under Briles. And Art ratted him out. Several failed trials, "liar liar pants on fire!" Settlements galore, would love the names of the alleged purps.
It's mindless false comments like this that have been made so repetitively, the public has simply been gaslighted about Briles. There was no evidence that he tried to cover up sexual assault. On the other hand, he encouraged people to involve the police. The evidence shows that he was incredibly bothered by the accusations he heard and that he had compassion on the victims, but he was then criticized for simply suggesting that the police get involved and not following proper Title 9 protocols - of which we had none.cms186 said:a contributing reason why there were so few convictions (though there were 2) is because Briles and his staff tried to cover things upScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
Describe the coverup. So far Baylor and several other schools that have looked at hiring Briles have not found these coverups to be true.cms186 said:a contributing reason why there were so few convictions (though there were 2) is because Briles and his staff tried to cover things upScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
Ghostrider said:Describe the coverup. So far Baylor and several other schools that have looked at hiring Briles have not found these coverups to be true.cms186 said:a contributing reason why there were so few convictions (though there were 2) is because Briles and his staff tried to cover things upScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
BScms186 said:a contributing reason why there were so few convictions (though there were 2) is because Briles and his staff tried to cover things upScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
ScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
jikespingleton said:ScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
There were two rape convictions. Ukwuachu and that scumbag Elliot. A third player, Oakman was accused of rape but not convicted.
So, we had 3 players accused of rape - that is bad enough and would cost most coaches their jobs, even if none were convicted.
jikespingleton said:ScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
We had 3 players formally accused of rape:
- There was 1 rape conviction (That scumbag Elliot).
- 1 sexual assault conviction (Ukwuachu).
- A third player, Oakman was accused of rape but not convicted.
Before anyone replies that Ukwuachu's case was overturned - The final outcome was conviction of sexual assault.
Having 3 players accused of rape is cause enough for termination, whether they were convicted or not. I'm not saying that Briles hid any of that and I don't think he did. Unfortunately, he and dishonest abe lincoln did try to cover up a lot of other things, including assault, battery, brandishing a firearm against a student and so forth.
If Briles had set expectations for behavior and followed through with penalties aka consequence, we would have probably seen a good 7-10 additional players get kicked off of his teams over the years and Briles would have not been terminated. Briles was unable to do that and the school used his overall lack of discipline as a means to can him.
How many downs did Ukwuachu play for Baylor?jikespingleton said:ScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
We had 3 players formally accused of rape:
- There was 1 rape conviction (That scumbag Elliot).
- 1 sexual assault conviction (Ukwuachu).
- A third player, Oakman was accused of rape but not convicted.
Before anyone replies that Ukwuachu's case was overturned - The final outcome was conviction of sexual assault.
Having 3 players accused of rape is cause enough for termination, whether they were convicted or not. I'm not saying that Briles hid any of that and I don't think he did. Unfortunately, he and dishonest abe lincoln did try to cover up a lot of other things, including assault, battery, brandishing a firearm against a student and so forth.
If Briles had set expectations for behavior and followed through with penalties aka consequence, we would have probably seen a good 7-10 additional players get kicked off of his teams over the years and Briles would have not been terminated. Briles was unable to do that and the school used his overall lack of discipline as a means to can him.
Mitch Blood Green said:Married A Horn said:
Everything should be in place for those worried about past issues. His product on the field was the best and most entertaining ever. Enough with this losing crap!
Why would Briles do that?
Ghostrider said:Describe the coverup. So far Baylor and several other schools that have looked at hiring Briles have not found these coverups to be true.cms186 said:a contributing reason why there were so few convictions (though there were 2) is because Briles and his staff tried to cover things upScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
theres one that specifically names BrilesQuote:
In one of the recently discovered cases, an alleged victim who was a Baylor student told Outside the Lines that she notified football team chaplain Wes Yeary about what she had reported to Waco police in April 2014: that her boyfriend, a Bears football player, had physically assaulted her on two occasions. The woman said Briles and university president Ken Starr were also told of her allegations. The woman told Outside the Lines that neither Briles nor the university disciplined her ex-boyfriend.
it was not Briles job to play Judge and Jury, it was his job to pass any reportsd of abuse top the relevent authorities, which he rarely didScottS said:jikespingleton said:ScottS said:cms186 said:it was institutional, Baylor as a University was rotten, Briles was just a part of that, he wasnt the sole architect of it, it wasnt just the Football team, but the Football team and Briles were a significant part of it.FLBear5630 said:cms186 said:
Seriously disgusting that after everything we, as a fanbase, have been through because of Briles, some people would still welcome him back with open arms because they think it might win us a few more games of Football
Briles didnt care about what his players were doing, he had a duty of care that he just completely disregarded, but lets set aside his repugnant morals and his lip service to Christianity (some of you have done that anyway) and look at it from a purely Football point of view:
His Offence might have been cutting edge at the time, but Football has moved on and lets not forget, whilst his brand of Football was certainly exciting, in arguably the 2 biggest games of his tenure (the Cotton Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl) Briles chunked it through bad preparation and game management. Briles has been out of College Football for nearly 10 years and will be severely out of touch with the game, many coaching staff he might want to hire wont want to work with him and many players he might want to recruit wont want to come play for him because of his richly deserved reputation of being a morally bankrupt *******.
So yeah, stfu about Briles coming back here because even the most ardent Briles fanboi knows with 100% certainty that it will NEVER, EVER happen and nor should it. Utterly disgusted that fans of a supposedly Christian school would even contemplate wanting someone as morally bankrupt as him ever associated with the University again.
What exactly is truth and what is scapegoat? I need someone that was here to fill me in. From the outside it looked like it was an institutional issue, not just football. I really do not have a good enough grasp to pass judgement.
There was 1 conviction. That's it. And the person with the conviction wasn't named Briles. You like you act like Briles raped 100 women.
We had 3 players formally accused of rape:
- There was 1 rape conviction (That scumbag Elliot).
- 1 sexual assault conviction (Ukwuachu).
- A third player, Oakman was accused of rape but not convicted.
Before anyone replies that Ukwuachu's case was overturned - The final outcome was conviction of sexual assault.
Having 3 players accused of rape is cause enough for termination, whether they were convicted or not. I'm not saying that Briles hid any of that and I don't think he did. Unfortunately, he and dishonest abe lincoln did try to cover up a lot of other things, including assault, battery, brandishing a firearm against a student and so forth.
If Briles had set expectations for behavior and followed through with penalties aka consequence, we would have probably seen a good 7-10 additional players get kicked off of his teams over the years and Briles would have not been terminated. Briles was unable to do that and the school used his overall lack of discipline as a means to can him.
The problem here is that accusations can be FALSE. Look at what happened to Oakman. How is it Briles fault that players are getting falsely accused??
While I agree with you in a general sense that due process is a critical component of Law, there are two headwinds that are faced.historian said:
Then those administrations that would fire such a coach would be stupid & cowardly. No one should be punished over an accusation. That's why we have constitutional protections like due process.
