Robemcdo said:

---

I'm not sure I quite understand this UT thing.

It seems to me a Texas boy who grows up to be a football coach would see the head coaching job at UT as the holy grail ..likely a childhood dream.

So Art has some success at Baylor . Texas tries to pry him away. Art going to Texas would likely make them an immediate national power. They get top 10 classes based on their name alone .

Yet he chose to stay at Baylor. He turned down likely a job every Texas coach would kill for ...to stay at Baylor. And Baylor fans hate him for it .

48-45...and we wonder why

---

Another thing on coaches and other schools - was Rhule not under contract at Temple? Before being shone the lights of Liberty this past weekend most on this board couldn't stop talking about the "steal" BU got with Rhule.
What's the difference?

PS: is Temple still upset?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

George Truett said:

---

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

---

Sooner or later Baylor is going to have to explain EXACTLY why they fired Briles.

We now know it wasn't because he had contact with anyone who reported to him directly claiming to be the victim of sexual assault or that he directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials.

If they fired him for INDIRECTLY discouraging an ALLEGED victim of sexual assault...then Baylor has some SERIOUS explaining to do. Specifically why any assistant coach etc. hasn't been named in any lawsuits or guilty under title IX.

If I find out that they took the word of hearsay as fact...then I'm going to be VERY ANGRY.

---

They have explained. The letter doesn't say he's innocent. The letter addresses only a few direct actions.

The bottom line was that his program was especially negligent on following Title IX.

He himself put it best when he said that he was captain of the ship. He was the person ultimately responsible. That's a higher level than direct involvement.

---

Again blaming Briles for a university wide failure. HOW CAN HE FOLLOW TITLE IX WHEN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY IS NOT FOLLOWING TITLE IX? BOR thinking is we failed at implementing TITLE IX as a university how do we cover this up. Well we can't let the whole university take blame because that means they will know that our good upper middle-class white boys were raping people. Yeah that would hurt our sparkling clean image at Church. Let's blame it on those thug football players. We don't like their haircuts and tattoos anyway. Their parents don't go to our churches anyway.

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

REX said:

---

Another thing on coaches and other schools - was Rhule not under contract at Temple? Before being shone the lights of Liberty this past weekend most on this board couldn't stop talking about the "steal" BU got with Rhule.

---

We certainly did get a Steele...

Applemac_G4 said:

---

REX said:

---

Another thing on coaches and other schools - was Rhule not under contract at Temple? Before being shone the lights of Liberty this past weekend most on this board couldn't stop talking about the "steal" BU got with Rhule.

---

We certainly did get a Steele...

---

Not even close. I understand being mad about Briles and how that all went down, but there is no comparison between Rhule and Steele.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Not even close. I understand being mad about Briles and how that all went down, but there is no comparison between Rhule and Steele.

---

Yeah, I'm not willing to throw Rhule under the bus just because I think we royally screwed up en route to his hiring.

Plus, we need him to be good if we don't want to have a real chance of playing outside P5 in 5-10 years.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Agree, but I'm not sure what the remedy is. Unfortunately, I don't think the problem is with the structure of the Board or how it operates, which are issues that could be addressed. Lots of private institutions have boards as large as ours. And I'm guessing it's not uncommon for a core group to be more involved in the oversight of the school and a number of them to pretty much just be yes men. Our problem is that we let a group of people who seem to be given to poor decision making be the ones in charge. There are any number of intelligent, accomplished, wise Baylor graduates who actually live out their Christian principles who we could've put in charge. Instead, we've been run by a sleazy Austin lobbyist, a guy whose banking abilities appear to be on par with George Bailey's Uncle Billy, and DFW's premier plastic peni$ peddler. As Malcolm Gladwell would be quick to point out, intelligence and financial success aren't all that correlated, so putting the biggest donors on the board doesn't guarantee that we get a really smart group of people. But short of pulling transcripts or giving aptitude tests to potential board members, I'm not sure how we make sure this doesn't happen again.

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

Did someone write that in an official capacity, or did you just make it up?
edit: I see, that's from a court document. Never mind.
It's also largely a false narrative.

I think the board missed one issue that kind of painted the way a number of alumni saw their actions- some people didn't like or trust them before all of this. When the chairman of the board is gleefully describing hunting down alumni he doesn't like with a rifle and calling them terrorists, it's a little hard to believe in their competence, professionalism and the honesty of their desire to stay true to the 'Mission'.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

So instead of taking a risk that we lose a bunch of money (a risk that could have easily been managed, if it was ever really a risk to begin with), we decided to make certain that we lose a bunch of money. And likely way more than we could've ever lost in a lawsuit. Brilliant.

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

This paragraph just makes me want to vomit. For starters, no one is buying that they "had no choice". At this point they had already told us that several regents voted against it and admitted that a group of our largest donors heard what they had to say and still tried to get them to reconsider. That's pretty much proof that there were other options (and it would be hard to argue at this point that any of them could've turned out worse). They didn't have to do this, they simply chose to. But apparently, they were so absurdly clueless that they were surprised when the alumni didn't all pat them on the back for firing Briles when they didn't have to. So then they decided to change the narrative to "we had no choice", but since that wasn't really the case, the best they could do was pull a handful of text messages out of context and then make a HUGE reach to try to pin the VB case on Briles. And apparently they didn't think we would be able to see right through it. Their lack of self-awareness is truly astounding.

LBKBEAR said:

---

I think the board missed one issue that kind of painted the way a number of alumni saw their actions- some people didn't like or trust them before all of this. When the chairman of the board is gleefully describing hunting down alumni he doesn't like with a rifle and calling them terrorists, it's a little hard to believe in their competence, professionalism and the honesty of their desire to stay true to the 'Mission'.

---

BOOM. This right here. that deserves 2 or 3 pretty little blue stars. With this scandal coming right on the heels of the BAA debacle, alumni confidence in the board (at least mine) was shaky at best. It is incredibly hard to believe that no one on the board, especially those on the athletics committee, had no clue about what was going on. And yet, there they all sit, in their righteousness and piety. Not one of them had the cajones to act before the media storm began, to resign when the PH report was made, or to really clean house as they should have.

Shame on all of them.

Robemcdo said:

---

Shouldn't a coach have their players backs . I'm sure that's exactly what he told their mothers when he sat across the kitchen table recruiting them . #honour

---

If by getting my back you mean protecting me so that I can commit a crime or do something unethical, no.

And if that's your definition he shouldn't be a coach.

#integrity

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

This paragraph just makes me want to vomit. For starters, no one is buying that they "had no choice". At this point they had already told us that several regents voted against it and admitted that a group of our largest donors heard what they had to say and still tried to get them to reconsider. That's pretty much proof that there were other options (and it would be hard to argue at this point that any of them could've turned out worse). They didn't have to do this, they simply chose to. But apparently, they were so absurdly clueless that they were surprised when the alumni didn't all pat them on the back for firing Briles when they didn't have to. So then they decided to change the narrative to "we had no choice", but since that wasn't really the case, the best they could do was pull a handful of text messages out of context and then make a HUGE reach to try to pint the VB case on Briles. And apparently they didn't think we would be able to see right through it. Their lack of self-awareness is truly astounding.

---

Very well said. Sums it all up nicely.

There is a certain recent letter provided by the Baylor General Counsel to a "Coach Briles" at the beginning of this thread. But yeah hey Briles kept his mouth shut with the whole bringing up a lawsuit deal for fear of the truth coming out.




Let us know if you have any more epiphanies.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

---

"They"? Pretty sure that was just one claim, and was never official. Not surprising since the BOR has been about as forthright as Congress explaining their pay raises, but we never did get a straight story on how many wanted Art gone, who, and what they were told in making the decision.

This BOR is self appointed, no accountability is required, and they meet under the Cone of Silence.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

the Boi ckmba

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

Did someone write that in an official capacity, or did you just make it up?
edit: I see, that's from a court document. Never mind.
It's also largely a false narrative.

---

Shouldn't we expect our Baylor management to direct their attorneys to use truthful statements in lawsuit filings? You know, the Christian Mission and all that.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Easy. Appoint regents who don't accept bold, bullies as spirit - filled leaders. You should be a regent because you bring an expertise to the board. It could be experience in organizations and businesses. It could be important knowledge or representation of a region or constituency. But you are appointed to help lead not silently follow.

NoBSU said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Easy. Appoint regents who don't accept bold, bullies as spirit - filled leaders. You should be a regent because you bring an expertise to the board. It could be experience in organizations and businesses. It could be important knowledge or representation of a region or constituency. But you are appointed to help lead not silently follow.

---

There are some good regents.

But I'd still say half think it's a post church social event where they are being rewarded for singing the company song.

The board needs change agents, with prior board experience, with a preference for people that have university experience.

Robemcdo said:

---

I'm not sure I quite understand this UT thing.

It seems to me a Texas boy who grows up to be a football coach would see the head coaching job at UT as the holy grail ..likely a childhood dream.

So Art has some success at Baylor . Texas tries to pry him away. Art going to Texas would likely make them an immediate national power. They get top 10 classes based on their name alone .

Yet he chose to stay at Baylor. He turned down likely a job every Texas coach would kill for ...to stay at Baylor. And Baylor fans hate him for it .

48-45...and we wonder why

---

Let's say a professional baseball manager grew up in Oakland, California. His formative years were the 1970's, so say he was raised a die-hard Oakland A's fan. Played college ball, a little minor league ball, and worked his way up the coaching ranks. Lands a good job managing the San Francisco Giants. Has good teams and wins two World Series. The LA Dodger job comes up. Great talent and lots of money. The Dodgers want him.

1. His heart from state heritage has always been with the Oakland Athletics.
2. He owes some level of loyalty to the players and fans of the Giants, but the bottom line is that it is a business. If he even talks to the Dodgers and the Giants learn of it, then he burns bridges.
3. Some dang Canadian is going to think the Dodgers job is the ultimate job for a California raised baseball manager.
4. Some idiot Baylor graduate from Missouri is going compare anything from California to something in Texas.

NoBSU said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

Did someone write that in an official capacity, or did you just make it up?
edit: I see, that's from a court document. Never mind.
It's also largely a false narrative.

---

Shouldn't we expect our Baylor management to direct their attorneys to use truthful statements in lawsuit filings? You know, the Christian Mission and all that.

---

Expect it? Yes, we should.
Has it happened? I see no evidence of that, especially in light of their behavior in the BAA case.
And, of course, now we have involved the lawyers, so there's that.
If you think pleadings in a lawsuit should be taken as gospel, well I can't help you.

NoBSU said:

---

Shouldn't we expect our Baylor management to direct their attorneys to use truthful statements in lawsuit filings? You know, the Christian Mission and all that.

---

You mean their personal attorneys defending a personal lawsuit?

ScrappyPaws said:

---

X, you make little to no sense most of the time... Not sure if you know that. I'm no robe toucher but I think if my school wrongfully destroys a man's reputation, no matter what money he made or success he had, they need to get the narrative straight. Someone with some balls needs to force some BOR resignations and release a statement that says look, we fired him because he was the CEO and some bad stuff happened but the media and ESPN, thanks in part to some terrible communication on our part, have portrayed the man as Satan incarnate and that's just flat out false. He never played an accused player. He never covered up sexual assault or rape. The regents and administration involved in this debacle have been removed or stepped down. We're moving on and we believe Briles deserves that opportunity as well.

---

Scrappy, he burned bridges with television and those writing the checks. He chose the route and they are paying him back.

Robe, life is a two way street. Briles' reputation indicates it is his way or the highway. Apparently, the big money tv people think he pissed all over them and they won't forget it. He needed help with his situation and no one is there for good reason.

Baylor needs to separate from Briles. The King is tv and they don't want to do business with him around anymore. He cost them money while they bought the CFP to guarantee these crappy 6-6 coaching jobs get bowl bonuses and other stupid packages these schools give to these coaches. Tv made these coaches rich.

The board of regents and RR types will slide off the board and faculty. They know going quietly won't get them killed by the Worldwide Leader and everyone else that is annoyed at our situation (like the Big 12 conference as a whole) for making sure their broadcasts became a disciplinary summary at Baylor.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

There are some good regents.

---

Not at Baylor, at least not from what I can observe.

NoBSU said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

Did someone write that in an official capacity, or did you just make it up?
edit: I see, that's from a court document. Never mind.
It's also largely a false narrative.

---

Shouldn't we expect our Baylor management to direct their attorneys to use truthful statements in lawsuit filings? You know, the Christian Mission and all that.

---

I have been waiting for someone to point out all the factual errors. So much better than a smug and dismissive - that's from a court document.

As you know, since the bor controls all the information, that can only happen through the process of discovery in one of these lawsuits. Baylor is settling the lawsuits as fast as it can. I think it is reasonable to think that one of the reasons for the settlements is to avoid discovery.

Keyser Soze said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

Did someone write that in an official capacity, or did you just make it up?
edit: I see, that's from a court document. Never mind.
It's also largely a false narrative.

---

Shouldn't we expect our Baylor management to direct their attorneys to use truthful statements in lawsuit filings? You know, the Christian Mission and all that.

---

I have been waiting for someone to point out all the factual errors. So much better than a smug and dismissive - that's from a court document.

---

And as been pointed out, the statement is not a statement of facts. but is just an argument. Just because it was printed as part of a court filing does not make it so.

Beaneater said:

---

As you know, since the bor controls all the information, that can only happen through the process of discovery in one of these lawsuits. Baylor is settling the lawsuits as fast as it can. I think it is reasonable to think that one of the reasons for the settlements is to avoid discovery.

---

With the clowns we have on the BOR, it could just be force of habit by now.

Keyser Soze said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

Did someone write that in an official capacity, or did you just make it up?
edit: I see, that's from a court document. Never mind.
It's also largely a false narrative.

---

Shouldn't we expect our Baylor management to direct their attorneys to use truthful statements in lawsuit filings? You know, the Christian Mission and all that.

---

I have been waiting for someone to point out all the factual errors. So much better than a smug and dismissive - that's from a court document.

---

I don't have really have the time right now to explain how that particular court document uses a variety of rhetorical techniques to create a one-sided and very incomplete narrative of the situation at Baylor University it purports to describe. It is the purpose of a document of that type to advocate rather than inform. I'm a little surprised, although I suppose I should not be, that you don't seem to understand that reality.

Court pleadings are not conclusive, but they do have some validity after not getting tossed on a MSJ. Or getting the attorney sanctioned for a frivolous pleading. Not conclusive, but enough to advance the argument.

And yeah, I think the recent settlements are a direct result of BU being forced to comply with discovery requests lately.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

One of the flaws all of us have done is look for the one silver bullet that got Briles. It is just not there. It is the pattern, a pattern that was followed with Title IX problems and other problems like the items listed above.

---

I agree there is no silver bullet. It is a cloud. There was enough in that cloud that you could justify firing him. You also didn't have to fire him. There were people making that point.

But we did. Then, in order to make it look like we *had* to fire him, we ran a smear campaign (which smeared all of us, like it or not). We ran it a little too far, and now we've had to back off with the letter of "exoneration."

---

Agree they did not "have" to fire, but I do think they should have.

They said the vote was 26-6

The problem is that you now know for certain that Briles has a horrible track record for discipline . What would the liability be for any future Title IX violation at the hands of a football player? You likely would need to take the Hernandez settlement and add a zero to the number. That is a risk that is hard to take.

---

If you have a system in place and follow it, the liability for a football player would be no more than the liability for a fraternity president's Title IX violation. The nature of Title IX guidance means that you will face some potential for liability no matter what because it requires you to do things that are not really possible, but the presence of football players on campus does not change anything.

You said it is not the BOR/Baylor's fault that people are stupid. Fine. I ask again, whose fault is it that the BOR/Baylor is stupid?

---

Obviously themselves - they are very human and full of flaws like the rest of us.

No defense here, but it is really easy to sit at a keyboard and be a critic. (and that goes for me too)

---

Exactly. So job one for the institution is to figure out how and why they have behaved stupidly and what they can do to prevent behaving stupidly in the future. Baylor doesn't need to just get by. There are too many challenges both currently and on the horizon for higher education. It needs to be in fighting trim, and doing stupid things as we saw in the lead up to and aftermath of May 2016 shows an institution that definitely not. Additionally, this is not a one-time occurrence. Doing too many stupid things has been a pattern for many years, and not just in athletics.

---

Said it before - hard to put lipstick on a pig. Below is their version of why just FYI:


Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players. The Board of Regents was conflicted about how much specific information to make public and 6 ultimately decided to release a lengthy summary called "Findings of Fact."1 While it represented an unprecedented institutional mea culpa within higher education and offered a self-critical summary on the subject of Title IX compliance, the Findings of Fact deliberately was silent about the underlying details. The Regents decided to omit these details primarily out of respect for the privacy of the victims. They also wanted to avoid violating a number of privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IX confidentiality requirements, assurances of confidentiality given by the Pepper Hamilton investigators and Baylor confidentiality guidelines.

The Board of Regents believed the Findings of Fact demonstrated the need for making leadership changes, and that by concentrating on the implementation of the recommendations from Pepper Hamilton, the Baylor community could place its focus on the future rather than dwell on the tragedies of the past. By instituting these reforms, the Regents would create an environment that would assure present and future students, as well as the public at large, that allegations of sexual misconduct would be sensitively and appropriately handled, and that Baylor students would be safe going forward. Though these beliefs may have been overly optimistic in light of the ensuing media and public firestorm, they are the reasons why the Regents allowed the Findings of Fact to be the University's definitive statement on the crisis.

In declining to engage with the Baylor community and the media following the announcements in May 2016, the Board unwittingly seeded an outcry among Baylor's constituencies, including some of Baylor's most ardent supporters. Some, including Briles loyalists, have used the silence as an opportunity to question the quality and objectivity of Pepper 1 Exhibit A. 7 Hamilton's investigation. Supporters of the Briles regime began propagating an inaccurate and self-serving picture of what had occurred. Yet, it was not until the resignation of Patty Crawford, Baylor's first Title IX Coordinator, and her very public (and largely untrue) criticisms, that the Board concluded Baylor could no longer remain silent. The Board not only felt a need but an obligation to speak up to correct the public record. Failing to respond could have jeopardized the very real progress Baylor has made in dealing with its handling of sexual assault allegations. The Board decided to provide details that would demonstrate that it had no choice other than to take drastic steps to change the culture in the football program

To accomplish this in the most effective way, the Board hired a nationally recognized media consultant, G.F.BUNTING+CO, to help formulate responses to incoming media inquiries. By responding to inquiries from selected media outlets, the Regents attempted to provide additional information to correct the record and work on restoring confidence in the investigation and recommendations for moving forward. This more transparent public relations strategy led to many of the truthful articles at issue in this lawsuit.

Rather than accept the unflattering truth, Shillinglaw has decided to sue, claiming that the carefully considered disclosures about the football program are false and have damaged his reputation. Although Briles tried a similar tactic, he quickly dismissed his baseless lawsuit, no doubt fearing the truthful response to his allegations.

---

Did someone write that in an official capacity, or did you just make it up?
edit: I see, that's from a court document. Never mind.
It's also largely a false narrative.

---

Shouldn't we expect our Baylor management to direct their attorneys to use truthful statements in lawsuit filings? You know, the Christian Mission and all that.

---

I have been waiting for someone to point out all the factual errors. So much better than a smug and dismissive - that's from a court document.

---

I don't have really have the time right now to explain how that particular court document uses a variety of rhetorical techniques to create a one-sided and very incomplete narrative of the situation at Baylor University it purports to describe. It is the purpose of a document of that type to advocate rather than inform. I'm a little surprised, although I suppose I should not be, that you don't seem to understand that reality.

---

I understand that reality just fine. You do not need to explain that at all.

What I believe is that Briles and Shillinglaw used a work around to sue individual regents while they could not sue Baylor. The regents use that same method to give us details behind the Findings of Fact. Telling all without creating a document that can be used in any other case. It has informed greatly.

Now the same crowed that whined for more detail is whining about the details.

This is not some rambling manifesto. It lays out facts stating people, places, dates, and actions. All of those facts can be scrutinized. It is not just opinions that have no right or wrong to them. I am asking where are those facts wrong? If the narrative is incomplete, complete it.