BearInBigD said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

It is not clear that the post you say is factually incorrect is factually incorrect.

---

He is essentially a less-acerbic, less-mentally ill Milli.


Keyser seems to be a good guy, who is following the company line.
We all know about the company line.

He ain't no Milli. Which is meant as a complement.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

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.

---

It seems to me that if you really did understand that reality that you would not cite that particular document as evidence for what really happened.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

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.

---

It seems to me that if you really did understand that reality that you would not cite that particular document as evidence for what really happened.

---

Have not seen any real evidence Briles is a scapegoat but that does not slow many down.

Now back to the facts stated within that document - any you know to be false? asking nicely - surely we can discuss those

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen plenty of legal filings. One thing that happens when lawsuits occur, is that each side paints events in light that makes their opinion look good and clean, while describing their opposition in much nastier terms. Both sides file documents, but the opinions are just that ... opinions.

BU84BEAR said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

quash said:

---

Instead of focusing on where 10% of the problem was they could have acknowledged the problem was school-wide. TLD and RR should have gotten the Briles treatment.

---

I don't think anyone has any idea if that 10% number really means anything anymore. Is that based on the 52/31/4 claim in that lawsuit? No one knows.

---

The only relevant numbers are 0/0/0

---

I am not aware....

---

Dr. Garland! Thanks for stopping by!

bearlyafarmer said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

quash said:

---

Instead of focusing on where 10% of the problem was they could have acknowledged the problem was school-wide. TLD and RR should have gotten the Briles treatment.

---

I don't think anyone has any idea if that 10% number really means anything anymore. Is that based on the 52/31/4 claim in that lawsuit? No one knows.

---

The only relevant numbers are 0/0/0

---

I am not aware....

---

Dr. Garland! Thanks for stopping by!

---

Now this is funny. (If it weren't so sad)

Beaneater 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.

---

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.

---

Factual yes, but I do not expect the full truth. But I expect Baylor to be closer to the whole truth than a plaintiff's attorney who is in for a piece. I expect Baylor to be better than they were with the carefully crafted statements on who dismissed Faulk and the immediate need to destroy the BAA building in regards to delaying the opening of the football stadium.

Keyser Soze said:

---

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.

---

I wish we could complete it, but since the BOR chose to only release selected messages instead of entire conversations, we can't. They certainly could have, of course, but they chose not to. So ask yourself why that is. If the context made it look just as bad, why wouldn't they have included it? The "out of context" response had to be completely foreseeable, so why not head it off and include the whole thing? It's not as though lawyers have a penchant for brevity.

Since we can't complete it and wild speculation seems to regularly be taken as fact around here, let's complete it hypothetically. Take the "bad dudes" text, for example, since that's the one that seems to garner the most attention. We have no idea what preceded or followed that statement. It could very well have been preceded by several sentences of genuine sympathy and remorse for what happened and offers to do whatever he could to help. It's possible he misunderstood this to be an event that happened recently instead of nine months prior, Knowing that these guys were no longer on the team or even at Baylor anymore (perhaps because they were "bad dudes"), tacked on something to the effect of "By the way, those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" Doesn't sound nearly as bad in that context, and is actually a rather reasonable question to ask if he's under the impression she's still hanging out with them after they left Baylor.

Is that how it happened? Probably not, but it's possible. I really have no idea. And neither do you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

They certainly may be wrong (don't think so), but most in there are not opinions. Here is an example

On April 8, 2011, after a freshman defensive tackle was cited for illegal consumption of alcohol, Coach Briles sent a text message to an assistant coach: "Hopefully he's under radar enough they won't recognize name did he get ticket from Baylor police or Waco? Just trying to keep him away from our judicial affairs folks...."


Now that is definitely not an opinion. I have seen nothing to think that is not accurate, but if you do let me know.


How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion. Now I think the likelihood of that being true is very high, but I will welcome clarification if it exist.

There are conclusions, fair to call those opinions, but there are a massive amount of facts. Now if you think those facts are really false statements, fine, just tell us why.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion.

---

RELIED - it is an inference word. Please, for the love of David Garland, tell us that you know what this means. Maybe you really are just stupid.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

They certainly may be wrong (don't think so), but most in there are not opinions. Here is an example

On April 8, 2011, after a freshman defensive tackle was cited for illegal consumption of alcohol, Coach Briles sent a text message to an assistant coach: "Hopefully he's under radar enough they won't recognize name did he get ticket from Baylor police or Waco? Just trying to keep him away from our judicial affairs folks...."


Now that is definitely not an opinion. I have seen nothing to think that is not accurate, but if you do let me know.

---

Do you really think that sort of thing doesn't happen at every major program? We've even heard from Teaff's players that it happened here when he was the coach. Of course he didn't want JA to find out. It's underage drinking, for crying out loud. Another time and place and it isn't even illegal. And even if you don't want him doing that sort of thing, do you really thing that firing him is the best way to remedy it? I suspect we have several regents who were naive enough to be duped into thinking that this kind of thing is far more heinous than it is. My biggest issue with that text is that Briles was dumb enough to send it on a university-issued cell phone.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion.

---

RELIED - it is an inference word. Please, for the love of David Garland, tell us that you know what this means. Maybe you really are just stupid.

---

You are correct, my bad.

How about "the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file." got anything on that?

My point still stands

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. What defines a "student file?" Is that a Pepper Hamilton sexual assault prosecutor phrase? What is the threshold for student file received?

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

They certainly may be wrong (don't think so), but most in there are not opinions. Here is an example

On April 8, 2011, after a freshman defensive tackle was cited for illegal consumption of alcohol, Coach Briles sent a text message to an assistant coach: "Hopefully he's under radar enough they won't recognize name did he get ticket from Baylor police or Waco? Just trying to keep him away from our judicial affairs folks...."


Now that is definitely not an opinion. I have seen nothing to think that is not accurate, but if you do let me know.

---

Do you really think that sort of thing doesn't happen at every major program? We've even heard from Teaff's players that it happened here when he was the coach. Of course he didn't want JA to find out. It's underage drinking, for crying out loud. Another time and place and it isn't even illegal. And even if you don't want him doing that sort of thing, do you really thing that firing him is the best way to remedy it? I suspect we have several regents who were naive enough to be duped into thinking that this kind of thing is far more heinous than it is. My biggest issue with that text is that Briles was dumb enough to send it on a university-issued cell phone.

---

of course it does. That had nothing to do with my point. 83 said the document was nothing but opinion. This event happened or it didn't . It is a fact or a false statement.

The severity of the incident is not the point of mentioning it. The point of all those text messages and others records was showing a pattern of willful and deliberate avoidance of disciplinary actions

Or we can move on and let our emotions take over.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. What defines a "student file?" Is that a Pepper Hamilton sexual assault prosecutor phrase? What is the threshold for student file received?

---

Your good.

Maybe there is no student file?

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

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.

---

I wish we could complete it, but since the BOR chose to only release selected messages instead of entire conversations, we can't. They certainly could have, of course, but they chose not to. So ask yourself why that is. If the context made it look just as bad, why wouldn't they have included it? The "out of context" response had to be completely foreseeable, so why not head it off and include the whole thing? It's not as though lawyers have a penchant for brevity.

Since we can't complete it and wild speculation seems to regularly be taken as fact around here, let's complete it hypothetically. Take the "bad dudes" text, for example, since that's the one that seems to garner the most attention. We have no idea what preceded or followed that statement. It could very well have been preceded by several sentences of genuine sympathy and remorse for what happened and offers to do whatever he could to help. It's possible he misunderstood this to be an event that happened recently instead of nine months prior, Knowing that these guys were no longer on the team or even at Baylor anymore (perhaps because they were "bad dudes"), tacked on something to the effect of "By the way, those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" Doesn't sound nearly as bad in that context, and is actually a rather reasonable question to ask if he's under the impression she's still hanging out with them after they left Baylor.

Is that how it happened? Probably not, but it's possible. I really have no idea. And neither do you.

---

No, it still sounds bad.

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Do you really think that sort of thing doesn't happen at every major program? We've even heard from Teaff's players that it happened here when he was the coach. Of course he didn't want JA to find out. It's underage drinking, for crying out loud. Another time and place and it isn't even illegal. And even if you don't want him doing that sort of thing, do you really thing that firing him is the best way to remedy it? I suspect we have several regents who were naive enough to be duped into thinking that this kind of thing is far more heinous than it is. My biggest issue with that text is that Briles was dumb enough to send it on a university-issued cell phone.

---

It's not even a question of fact; it's a question of hypocrisy. These same people who want to fire a football coach for coming to the aid of a 19-year old player who was drinking and keep him away from the university's well-established history over over-punishing this type of behavior, are the same people who scream about ****-shaming when it comes to a coed at an off-campus party. They complain that people hide their participation and cover for one another and don't report, only because Baylor has these draconian views about drinking. And that's okay for students who are not football players. But if you play football, you simply can't engage in these common college lunacies.

Don't think these types of incidents are common only to big college athletic programs, they are common at EVERY college (heck, they are commonplace in every high school), both inside and outside of athletics. Anybody who has ever been to college knows it. Every police officer who has ever patrolled in a college town knows it. If you have ten incidents a year on football team dealing with drinking, drugs, fights, mayhem and other stupidity, consider your program lucky. Now, if it is a contractual obligation for the head football caoch to report every single episode of this kind of teenage nonsense to JA, well then I suppose it is an excuse to fire the coach. But, you had better be prepared to just shut down your athletic department, because it is going to happen over and over in every sport. It's going to happen to Rhule and he's going to do the same thing after the first few he trots over to JA that get hammered.

If that is why you think Briles should have been fired, then fine. But say that when you let him go, don't bury him under an avalanche of innuendo in an effort to destroy his career and reputation. Don't feed the media and the public some line of McMartin Preschool hysteria with no relation to the truth that brands the man an enabler of rapists, an enemy to women, and a criminal who either conceals sexual assault or conspires with others to do so.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

They certainly may be wrong (don't think so), but most in there are not opinions. Here is an example

On April 8, 2011, after a freshman defensive tackle was cited for illegal consumption of alcohol, Coach Briles sent a text message to an assistant coach: "Hopefully he's under radar enough they won't recognize name did he get ticket from Baylor police or Waco? Just trying to keep him away from our judicial affairs folks...."


Now that is definitely not an opinion. I have seen nothing to think that is not accurate, but if you do let me know.


How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion. Now I think the likelihood of that being true is very high, but I will welcome clarification if it exist.

There are conclusions, fair to call those opinions, but there are a massive amount of facts. Now if you think those facts are really false statements, fine, just tell us why.

---

Maybe because it fits his narrative or rather defeats your narrative if they are false?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion.

---

RELIED - it is an inference word. Please, for the love of David Garland, tell us that you know what this means. Maybe you really are just stupid.

---

... How about "the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file." got anything on that? ...

---

Is the Athletics Department responsible for acceptance of undergraduate transfer students?

57Bear said:

---

Is the Athletics Department responsible for acceptance of undergraduate transfer students?

---

Of course not. It's like this:

Mr. Jones was intending to cheat on his wife and eventually leave her, evidenced by the fact that he repeatedly failed to renew their marriage license.

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion.

---

RELIED - it is an inference word. Please, for the love of David Garland, tell us that you know what this means. Maybe you really are just stupid.

---

... How about "the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file." got anything on that? ...

---

Is the Athletics Department responsible for acceptance of undergraduate transfer students?

---

In the Sam U. Case, much was made about standard form that was required from Boise State before the transferring athlete was allowed. So yes, they participate in the process just as they do with Freshmen and the clearinghouse.

quash said:

---

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am most saddened that this came out on the day of our first game. I thought I could come here and hear about Baylor football.

On this topic, it looks like briles was guilty of what we all thought he was. Which is who knows exactly, but definitely not trying to cover up rape. That is what papers like the Dallas daily news (that's the one right) and desperate-for-ratings-ESPN have either outright said or implied, that has taken such a toll on the reputation of the university.

This is another blow to the credibility of the current Baylor administration and regents. For this to come out on this particular day, and especially for it to come out so late after the begging of Baylor alums for information, is incompetence.

Anyways, again, none of us know what happened. It seems like we will slowly find out over the coming decade.

---

I'll tell you what happened prosecutors cheated to win convictions and the media o erreacted to a horrible injustice and that injustice carried over to briles and Baylor

---

Prosecutors did not cheat, and I say this as one who will never miss a chance to call out prosecutors.

---

According to the current ruling, they technically did not cheat. They and the judge were wrong in their interpretation of the law dealing with text message evidence from the trial. If I remember correctly, the appeals court did not rule on the cheating aspect with the treatment of Peni and the cellphone time mix up because relief had already been granted. If those claims are true then the prosecutors were unethical.

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion.

---

RELIED - it is an inference word. Please, for the love of David Garland, tell us that you know what this means. Maybe you really are just stupid.

---

... How about "the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file." got anything on that? ...

---

Is the Athletics Department responsible for acceptance of undergraduate transfer students?

---

Nope. Just a nugget showing the vetting process (or lack of one) for a player kicked off somewhere else.

After striking out with the CFL, where might Art Briles land?

This Story is About...

5h
FILE - In this Nov. 28, 2007, file photo, Art Briles answers questions after being introduced as the new coach of the Baylor University football team during a press conference in Waco, Texas. Baylor University has explained for the first time how Briles, the school's former football coach and others responded to a woman's claims that she was gang-raped by five players. University officials told The Dallas Morning News on Friday, Nov. 11, 2016, that the student-athlete informed her coach in April 2013 that she had been assaulted a year earlier and provided the names of the players. The university contends the coach reported the matter to Briles, ex-athletic director Ian McCaw and a sports administrator. (AP Photo/Duane A. Laverty, File ORG XMIT: NY150
DUANE A. LAVERTY/AP
FILE - In this Nov. 28, 2007, file photo, Art Briles answers questions after being introduced as the new coach of the Baylor University football team during a press conference in Waco, Texas. Baylor University has explained for the first time how Briles, the school's former football coach and others responded to a woman's claims that she was gang-raped by five players. University officials told The Dallas Morning News on Friday, Nov. 11, 2016, that the student-athlete informed her coach in April 2013 that she had been assaulted a year earlier and provided the names of the players. The university contends the coach reported the matter to Briles, ex-athletic director Ian McCaw and a sports administrator. (AP Photo/Duane A. Laverty, File ORG XMIT: NY150
Will former Baylor coach Art Briles ever find another coaching job?
In an interview during the AP top 25 podcast with AP college football writer Ralph Russo, ESPN's Mark Schlabach, co-author of Violated: Exposing Rape at Baylor University Amid College Football's Sexual Crisis, weighed in on whether or not Briles will coach again.

Schlabach and co-author Paula Lavigne were investigative reporters for ESPN during the scandal that affected Baylor over the course of the last two seasons.

Last week, it was reported that Briles had been hired as an assistant head coach for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats of the Canadian Football League. A letter from Baylor was one of the reasons why Beiles was hired.

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats rescinded their offer after national backlash.

Schlabach and Russo believe he will get a coaching job again, though.

"I believed he would have landed in Canada," said Schlabach, "it does not bode well for his coaching if he can't land a job as an assistant in the CFL."

If college football doesn't work out, a return to high schools may not be out of the question.

"I thought he would find a safe haven, at a Texas high school or a Division III school," said Russo, "He is very well respected as a high school coach."

"The guy has won so much," said Schlabach, "Maybe there is someone out there who will give him a chance."

BU84BEAR said:

---

Since no one finds the support I give as irrefutable, let's analyze the xxxx out of this KWTX thing. Does the sworn affidavit say the coach called JA? It doesn't sound like it. The posted article certainly doesn't say that it does.

What motivation might a currently employed college coach have for claiming that he followed school procedure in reporting a gang rape, or at least attempted to do so? Might the press smear his name if he said, no, we just dropped it. It was a year later and only one football player was still around.?

I agree that it is possible that JA made mistakes in their logs, though that is entirely speculation, just as it is entirely speculation that Barnes could be motivated to make up the fact that he called JA.

Conclusion: nothing proven either way.

---

It may not prove anything, but consider this: What if Barnes told Briles that he had already discussed the matter with JA? Shouldn't that exonerate Briles whether it was true or not? Or do you take the position that everyone who hears of this incident second hand long after the incident occurred is still responsible to report the matter to JA?

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion.

---

RELIED - it is an inference word. Please, for the love of David Garland, tell us that you know what this means. Maybe you really are just stupid.

---

... How about "the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file." got anything on that? ...

---

Is the Athletics Department responsible for acceptance of undergraduate transfer students?

---

Nope. Just a nugget showing the vetting process (or lack of one) for a player kicked off somewhere else.

---

Was any of this enacted?

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=8146

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are opinions in those documents, which you keep mistaking for facts.

---

How about this one:

Despite Oakman's background, the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file. Baylor Athletics relied, instead, on an observation by the previous coach who had kicked Oakman off the Penn State team

That is a statement of fact or a false statement - it is not an opinion.

---

RELIED - it is an inference word. Please, for the love of David Garland, tell us that you know what this means. Maybe you really are just stupid.

---

... How about "the Athletics Department never requested his Penn State student file." got anything on that? ...

---

Is the Athletics Department responsible for acceptance of undergraduate transfer students?

---

Nope. Just a nugget showing the vetting process (or lack of one) for a player kicked off somewhere else.

---

Was any of this enacted?

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=8146

---

Who knows? It was a long time ago.

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.

---

Bravo . . . very well stated. While I'm not certain that Briles should have been fired, if the BOR truly believed he needed to go, this is how it should have been handled.

My guess is that the BOR was very afraid of our alumni response if they admitted that Briles was fired simply because he was the CEO. That would not have gone over well with many alumni, and so they wanted the alumni to believe Briles was worse than he was so that their judgment wouldn't be questioned and the $$ would keep coming in.

Chuckroast said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

Since no one finds the support I give as irrefutable, let's analyze the xxxx out of this KWTX thing. Does the sworn affidavit say the coach called JA? It doesn't sound like it. The posted article certainly doesn't say that it does.

What motivation might a currently employed college coach have for claiming that he followed school procedure in reporting a gang rape, or at least attempted to do so? Might the press smear his name if he said, no, we just dropped it. It was a year later and only one football player was still around.?

I agree that it is possible that JA made mistakes in their logs, though that is entirely speculation, just as it is entirely speculation that Barnes could be motivated to make up the fact that he called JA.

Conclusion: nothing proven either way.

---

It may not prove anything, but consider this: What if Barnes told Briles that he had already discussed the matter with JA? Shouldn't that exonerate Briles whether it was true or not? Or do you take the position that everyone who hears of this incident second hand long after the incident occurred is still responsible to report the matter to JA?

---

That isn't a position from anybody. Baylor and their JA department policy is their own deal.

I stated that my employer in higher education has trained me and all employees that we must report assaults directly to our Title IX coordinator when we learn of them. It doesn't matter if someone has already reported it. It doesn't matter if the police were not contacted. It doesn't matter if a criminal case is not pursued. You report it to the Title IX coordinator not your supervisor. We have some older people who work for us but I suspect that even the oldesr custodian understand our policy better than former President Garland understood Baylor's policy.

OldSchoolBU said:

---

you cannot put the genie back in the bottle again. Bringing back Briles was not possible from December 2015 and on. The die was cast. He would have been forced out one way or another. I'm in the camp that he deserves another chance to coach and that CFL situation was nonsense. But not surprising given this weak minded generation.

Do we have to revisit this nonsense after every loss? Repeat after me. THE PAST IS LAST. Matt Rhule is our coach for the foreseeable future. He will win and he will win big. Quit sucking off the teat of some romantic notion that he was irreplaceable. He allowed Baylor fans to envision what was possible and he was the catalyst for lots of action. Some of it good.

Matt Rhule will build on his legacy.

---

The die might have been cast, but it doesn't mean that I can't be pissed off at my university for purposefully misleading (same as lying in my book) about Briles. It doesn't mean that I can't be pissed that Baylor wants to blame it sexual assault mishandling on the athletics department when it only composed of 10% of the cases. Baylor doesn't care about the other 90% because they left those people in place.

THIS TRANSCENDS FOOTBALL, AND IT IS HARD TO BE A FAN OF SUCH AN INSTITUTION. I WOULD TRADE EVERY FUTURE WIN WE HAVE FOR THIS TO BE MADE RIGHT AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE FOR ALL THE VICTIMS AT BAYLOR WHICH INCLUDES THE RAPE VICTIMS AND THE FALL GUYS.

Old School it is hard for me to move past it and support Rhule as great of a guy as he seems when I am so disgusted at how the BOR handled this situation.

RightRevBear said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am most saddened that this came out on the day of our first game. I thought I could come here and hear about Baylor football.

On this topic, it looks like briles was guilty of what we all thought he was. Which is who knows exactly, but definitely not trying to cover up rape. That is what papers like the Dallas daily news (that's the one right) and desperate-for-ratings-ESPN have either outright said or implied, that has taken such a toll on the reputation of the university.

This is another blow to the credibility of the current Baylor administration and regents. For this to come out on this particular day, and especially for it to come out so late after the begging of Baylor alums for information, is incompetence.

Anyways, again, none of us know what happened. It seems like we will slowly find out over the coming decade.

---

I'll tell you what happened prosecutors cheated to win convictions and the media o erreacted to a horrible injustice and that injustice carried over to briles and Baylor

---

Prosecutors did not cheat, and I say this as one who will never miss a chance to call out prosecutors.

---

According to the current ruling, they technically did not cheat. They and the judge were wrong in their interpretation of the law dealing with text message evidence from the trial. If I remember correctly, the appeals court did not rule on the cheating aspect with the treatment of Peni and the cellphone time mix up because relief had already been granted. If those claims are true then the prosecutors were unethical.

---

The prosecutors withheld critical evidence. Knowingly threatened sam u witness with perjury and prison time with evidence they knew was false. When that did not work they misstated the evidence to make it look like his roomate was across town when they knew the evidence showed the exact opposite. Then they lied about it again in an article that they wrote after they won the conviction. All of which ukwuachu has proof that will be shown in the lawsuit he files against the prosecutors and McLennan county.

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

RightRevBear said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am most saddened that this came out on the day of our first game. I thought I could come here and hear about Baylor football.

On this topic, it looks like briles was guilty of what we all thought he was. Which is who knows exactly, but definitely not trying to cover up rape. That is what papers like the Dallas daily news (that's the one right) and desperate-for-ratings-ESPN have either outright said or implied, that has taken such a toll on the reputation of the university.

This is another blow to the credibility of the current Baylor administration and regents. For this to come out on this particular day, and especially for it to come out so late after the begging of Baylor alums for information, is incompetence.

Anyways, again, none of us know what happened. It seems like we will slowly find out over the coming decade.

---

I'll tell you what happened prosecutors cheated to win convictions and the media o erreacted to a horrible injustice and that injustice carried over to briles and Baylor

---

Prosecutors did not cheat, and I say this as one who will never miss a chance to call out prosecutors.

---

According to the current ruling, they technically did not cheat. They and the judge were wrong in their interpretation of the law dealing with text message evidence from the trial. If I remember correctly, the appeals court did not rule on the cheating aspect with the treatment of Peni and the cellphone time mix up because relief had already been granted. If those claims are true then the prosecutors were unethical.

---

The prosecutors withheld critical evidence. Knowingly threatened sam u witness with perjury and prison time with evidence they knew was false. When that did not work they misstated the evidence to make it look like his roomate was across town when they knew the evidence showed the exact opposite. Then they lied about it again in an article that they wrote after they won the conviction. All of which ukwuachu has proof that will be shown in the lawsuit he files against the prosecutors and McLennan county.

---

I read the appeals court decision when it came out. If I remember correctly the appeals court did not rule on this because they had already overturned the conviction due to disagreeing with the the trial judge's interpretation. I wish they had because it very much sounded like prosecutorial misconduct. My point is that the conviction was overturned not because of their misconduct (which appears to have happened), but because the appeals court disagreed with the trial judges ruling on not allowing the text message conversation to presented in its entirety.

Looking at the information provided it appears that there was prosecutors who cared more about a conviction than the truth by their handling of Peni. They should be investigated and appropriately disciplined. Unfortunately, the appeals court didn't address this in their ruling.

Appellate courts generally like to reverse on the least controversial ground possible.