What about other sexual assaults non-athletes who gets fired for bringing them to campus?

Eball said:

---

What about other sexual assaults non-athletes who gets fired for bringing them to campus?

---

No one cares. They didnt contribute to beating ut on the football field...so double standard away.

Redbrickbear said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

ScottS said:

---

cms186 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Again,

I am not going to relitigate the Art Briles buyout/termination (however you want to describe it)....and I have admitted it was the right of the Regents to move in a different direction with the football program HC.

But look up the history of the Big 10 schools and the SEC schools and get back to us on that bolded point.

Go look up Phil Fulmer at Tennessee as an example.

Just in 2005 alone he had 11 players in trouble with the law..... "Eleven Tennessee football players have been either arrested or cited for crimes ranging from aggravated assault to underage drinking to sexual assault..."

He even got a joke award named after him.

[The Fulmer Cup is awarded prior to the start of the regular season to the college football program whose players, during the off-season, collectively accumulate the most points; points are assigned for negative law enforcement contacts (a.k.a arrests,) and are scaled for severity of alleged offense.

To be eligible for Fulmer Cup points, a player must, a) be on the program's roster (no alumni or verbal commitments,) and, b) commit the offense(s) during the off-season.

Points are assessed based upon the severity of each alleged offense, on a scale of 1 (for "drankin', suspended license, and assorted petty misdemeanors") to 5 for murder.... Points are accumulative, and thus a player who steals a pig (petit theft, 1 point) then a car (3 points,) sexually assaults said pig (bestiality, 4 points) before drunkingly wrecking the stolen vehicle (DUI, 2 points) would be assessed a total of 10 points.]


Fulmer was HC from 1992 to 2008 at Tennessee....and they got rid of him because he had lost his coaching touch...not because he was running and out of control program with bad guys.

---

Vols doubled down with Butch Jones, who actually did what Briles was accused of, attempting to covering up sexual assaults. He threatened a player who witnessed one by two other players. Jones is still coaching, without a scratch.

Redbrickbear said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

ScottS said:

---

cms186 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

But look up the history of the Big 10 schools and the SEC schools

---

I get what you are saying. Why is it that so many scumbag programs get a pass but Baylor & Briles seem to have taken years of flak for stuff that happens elsewhere? I will tell you why.

Someone high up in the Baylor food chain deliberately gave stories to the WSJ (and other outlets) - stories that trashed this schools image and reputation. The allegations stuck because there was a litany of real issues. Maybe not sexual assault, but real problem within the program. So, the program was an easy target to throw under the bus.

I would venture to guess that not one administration in the history of the SEC or Big 10 has ever done such a moronic, stupid thing.

jikespingleton said:

---

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.

---

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.

The first is the fact that Baylor's administration decided to put this in public, trying to deflect blame. Once that was done, it was subject to the court of public opinion - which needs far less evidence to convict.

The second problem is that plenty of bad stuff was going on that wasn't sexual assault. So any time that someone tries to point out specifics that put Briles and Baylor in a better light, those positions are immediately weakened by all of the non-sexual assaults, but assaults nonetheless, that happened. The general public isn't going to care about the nuance between the two.

---

The court of public opinion often relies on gossip & outright lies. It has no authority, except to destroy people unjustly, & is the opposite of justice. Essentially, it's another version of the infamous "high tech lynch mob."

jikespingleton said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Eball said:

---

What about other sexual assaults non-athletes who gets fired for bringing them to campus?

---

They didnt contribute to beating ut on the football field...so double standard away.

---

This is one of those ignorant takes that makes it's way back to the surface once in a while.

Beating ut and ou has nothing to do with the end result of the Briles era.

It was the lack of accountability within the administration as a whole, as well as that of Briles when he ran this program.

---

You'll never convince me, or I imagine most people, that Briles beating ut had no impact. Tons was self inflicted as you said, which is why we also want to change the bor. But to say ut and their media power (espn) had no bearing is just naive.

Married A Horn said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Eball said:

---

What about other sexual assaults non-athletes who gets fired for bringing them to campus?

---

They didnt contribute to beating ut on the football field...so double standard away.

---

This is one of those ignorant takes that makes it's way back to the surface once in a while.

Beating ut and ou has nothing to do with the end result of the Briles era.

It was the lack of accountability within the administration as a whole, as well as that of Briles when he ran this program.

---

You'll never convince me, or I imagine most people, that Briles beating ut had no impact. Tons was self inflicted as you said, which is why we also want to change the bor. But to say ut and their media power (espn) had no bearing is just naive.

---

As an example look what happened under patterson watch and nobody ever cared because they never threatened the establishment. Half the time they were going 7-6 at best till he was fired after revealing his statue

Bear8084 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Eball said:

---

What about other sexual assaults non-athletes who gets fired for bringing them to campus?

---

They didnt contribute to beating ut on the football field...so double standard away.

---

This is one of those ignorant takes that makes it's way back to the surface once in a while.

Beating ut and ou has nothing to do with the end result of the Briles era.

It was the lack of accountability within the administration as a whole, as well as that of Briles when he ran this program.

---

You'll never convince me, or I imagine most people, that Briles beating ut had no impact. Tons was self inflicted as you said, which is why we also want to change the bor. But to say ut and their media power (espn) had no bearing is just naive.

---

As an example look what happened under patterson watch and nobody ever cared because they never threatened the establishment. Half the time they were going 7-6 at best till he was fired after revealing his statue

---

Briles was 4-3 vs. Texas.

Patterson went 7-3 vs. Texas.

---

Not the point. They never threatened the establishment. Briles was completely changing ut and ou top end recuirting on offense. Tcu never even won a title (a real one) nor came close to sniffing back to back titles. Not regularly beat top 10 teams every year.

Well under Briles I don't remember articles like the following...

Texas St saying UTSA was harder and better than Baylor...

https://www.si.com/college/group-five/aac/texas-states-gj-kinne-says-utsa-game-was-harder-than-baylor-win-san-antonio-football

But, the faithful will chalk it up to click bait or some other reason why these articles don't matter.

Married A Horn said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Eball said:

---

What about other sexual assaults non-athletes who gets fired for bringing them to campus?

---

They didnt contribute to beating ut on the football field...so double standard away.

---

This is one of those ignorant takes that makes it's way back to the surface once in a while.

Beating ut and ou has nothing to do with the end result of the Briles era.

It was the lack of accountability within the administration as a whole, as well as that of Briles when he ran this program.

---

You'll never convince me, or I imagine most people, that Briles beating ut had no impact. Tons was self inflicted as you said, which is why we also want to change the bor. But to say ut and their media power (espn) had no bearing is just naive.

---

As an example look what happened under patterson watch and nobody ever cared because they never threatened the establishment. Half the time they were going 7-6 at best till he was fired after revealing his statue

---

Briles was 4-3 vs. Texas.

Patterson went 7-3 vs. Texas.

---

Not the point. They never threatened the establishment. Briles was completely changing ut and ou top end recuirting on offense. Tcu never even won a title (a real one) nor came close to sniffing back to back titles. Not regularly beat top 10 teams every year.

---

To be fair, Briles best recruiting class has 3 blue chips, so claiming that top end offensive reciting was setting up shop at Baylor is a bit of a stretch.

---

And what happened to his last class when we imploded? They all signed with ut. Made me sick.

---

3 blue chips in a year? How many blue chips have we signed in the last 3 years?

We are a Christian school and people love to see a Christian fail.

cms186 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

ScottS said:

---

cms186 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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??

---

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 did

---

no it wasn't his job. He advised anyone to go to the authorities. He is a football coach, not the police.

Also, who goes to a football coach if they were molested or anything? Who doesn't go to the police?

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Eball said:

---

What about other sexual assaults non-athletes who gets fired for bringing them to campus?

---

They didnt contribute to beating ut on the football field...so double standard away.

---

This is one of those ignorant takes that makes it's way back to the surface once in a while.

Beating ut and ou has nothing to do with the end result of the Briles era.

It was the lack of accountability within the administration as a whole, as well as that of Briles when he ran this program.

---

You'll never convince me, or I imagine most people, that Briles beating ut had no impact. Tons was self inflicted as you said, which is why we also want to change the bor. But to say ut and their media power (espn) had no bearing is just naive.

---

As an example look what happened under patterson watch and nobody ever cared because they never threatened the establishment. Half the time they were going 7-6 at best till he was fired after revealing his statue

---

Briles was 4-3 vs. Texas.

Patterson went 7-3 vs. Texas.

---

Not the point. They never threatened the establishment. Briles was completely changing ut and ou top end recuirting on offense. Tcu never even won a title (a real one) nor came close to sniffing back to back titles. Not regularly beat top 10 teams every year.

---

To be fair, Briles best recruiting class has 3 blue chips, so claiming that top end offensive reciting was setting up shop at Baylor is a bit of a stretch.

---

And what happened to his last class when we imploded? They all signed with ut. Made me sick.

---

3 blue chips in a year? How many blue chips have we signed in the last 3 years?

---

For the last 3 cycles - 2023, 2022, and 2021? According to 247, 16 in total. In regard to Briles' best class, the number looks like it's 5 in the 2014 class, so I stand corrected in regard to the literal number.

---

So BU has signed 16 blue chips and lost to Texas St?? Not only that Texas St said UTSA was harder to play and better. That sounds pretty bad.

The next question would be how many left?

Ghostrider said:

---

cms186 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

ScottS said:

---

cms186 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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??

---

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 did

---

no it wasn't his job. He advised anyone to go to the authorities. He is a football coach, not the police.

Also, who goes to a football coach if they were molested or anything? Who doesn't go to the police?

---

This is the biggest red flag to me. The only reason I can think of is to just get kids kicked off the team and not have to go thru due process. Art should have never even been told until the cops notified him or Baylor.

Its crazy to get raped and then run to your local football coach for help.

Red flags all day.

Again, you are all or nothing. No one is saying that. But keep calling everyone dimwitted. Really wins people over.

Bring Back Briles!

Bring back Briles

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Well under Briles I don't remember articles like the following...

Texas St saying UTSA was harder and better than Baylor...

https://www.si.com/college/group-five/aac/texas-states-gj-kinne-says-utsa-game-was-harder-than-baylor-win-san-antonio-football

But, the faithful will chalk it up to click bait or some other reason why these articles don't matter.

---

Back then we were beating those team easily but you had national media saying we were playing easy teams. Something most P5 teams do.

---

Yeah, now the easy teams are saying we are not as hard to play as a G5 school.

---

The BOR won

Enjoy the wokeness