80sBEAR said:

---

quash said:

---

Applemac_G4 said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

I still don't understand why the Baylor leadership sent this letter to Art Briles.

---

Because he was innocent. I think it is time we all wrap our heads around the idea that this board fired the most successful football coach in our history because of the negative publicly generated by a fake news story, and not because he actually did anything wrong.

---

The letter does nothing to cobfirm Briles' innocence. And the FOF show Briles is not innocent.

---

What was Baylor's purpose in writing the letter? Why did they address him as "Coach Briles"?

---

He was Coach Briles as an employee and this letter references his employment. The purpose is to delineate what Baylor is willing to concede about AB, and nothing more. This letter would be more useful to an assistant than to a head coach, as HC is responsible for the unmentioned indirect issues

quash said:

---

The letter does nothing to cobfirm Briles' innocence. And the FOF show Briles is not innocent.

---

You're missing my point. The lack of a significant number of charges and convictions show that there wasn't even anything to be guilty or innocent of to begin with.

I'm not interested in proclamations from the board, news reports from a cable channel with a massive conflict of interest secondary to their investment in the University of Texas, findings of fact, or a leftist Philly law firm that wouldn't oppose the Dear Colleague Letter if it would save the planet.

I'm interested in objective fact. The BOR/anti-Briles crowd doesn't deal in objective fact.

The question "How many players charged? How many players convicted?" is like garlic to a vampire for them.

You see, this isn't a question of Art Briles ethics. Those are unimpeachable, based on a decades long track record of how the man has lived his life. This is a question of Baylor's incompetence. As more time passes and the answer to the above question doesn't increase, more people will come to see it this way.

Applemac_G4 said:

---

quash said:

---

The letter does nothing to cobfirm Briles' innocence. And the FOF show Briles is not innocent.

---

You're missing my point. The lack of a significant number of charges and convictions show that there wasn't even anything to be guilty or innocent of to begin with.

I'm not interested in proclamations from the board, news reports from a cable channel with a massive conflict of interest secondary to their investment in the University of Texas, findings of fact, or a leftist Philly law firm that wouldn't oppose the Dear Colleague Letter if it would save the planet.

I'm interested in objective fact. The BOR/anti-Briles crowd doesn't deal in objective fact.

The question "How many players charged? How many players convicted?" is like garlic to a vampire for them.

---

Title IX doesn't give a rip about due process, you think convictions matter? AB was part of a broken Title IX system. He got treated wirse than Ramsower and TLD but he is no innocent.

quash said:

---

Applemac_G4 said:

---

quash said:

---

The letter does nothing to cobfirm Briles' innocence. And the FOF show Briles is not innocent.

---

You're missing my point. The lack of a significant number of charges and convictions show that there wasn't even anything to be guilty or innocent of to begin with.

I'm not interested in proclamations from the board, news reports from a cable channel with a massive conflict of interest secondary to their investment in the University of Texas, findings of fact, or a leftist Philly law firm that wouldn't oppose the Dear Colleague Letter if it would save the planet.

I'm interested in objective fact. The BOR/anti-Briles crowd doesn't deal in objective fact.

The question "How many players charged? How many players convicted?" is like garlic to a vampire for them.

---

Title IX doesn't give a rip about due process, you think convictions matter? AB was part of a broken Title IX system. He got treated wirse than Ramsower and TLD but he is no innocent.

---

Let's get this straight . The football coach is responsible for the Title 9 system that the school didn't implement ?

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

---

Not quite true . Both Briles and McCaw wanted to go to court. Everyone involved knew JH was lying and Baylor and JH had a fair bit to lose with that little technicality coming out since most of this scandal is based on JH's actually being raped .

LBKBEAR said:

---

It certainly doesn't say that he is innocent of everything, but it does say that he is innocent of the worst thing that the school tried to pin on him. ...

Our school is run by complete morons. There really is no way you can look at this situation and think that they are good at running a school. They want alumni to forget that.

---

Agree.

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

The Dear Baylor Family letter of November 10, 2016, could easily be interpreted to imply that the leadership change was based on sexual assault (and other incidents) and that seems to be the way that the media interpreted it.

Murff said: "Many have second-guessed those decisions. But I need to make clear that, as brilliant and successful as Coach Briles was, he will not be returning to Baylor. This change in leadership was not based on any single incident, but on the weight of the information presented to us and a pattern of poor decisions over a range of disciplinary issues, not just sexual assault." (emphasis added) https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174762

Yup, BU uses some crafty lawyers with some crafty wording.

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

https://www.instagram.com/amyperry03/

http://www.banneroak.com/team/aaron-murff

So MilliVanilli is probably one of these people.

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

---

I do know he does not have to do anything here.

Hernandez drops Briles, and settles with Baylor - there are no ongoing lawsuits. No lawsuit no discovery.

Hernandez is the only one with leverage, Briles has none. Not very plausible at all. Hernandez can drop him with or without his blessing.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

https://www.instagram.com/amyperry03/

http://www.banneroak.com/team/aaron-murff

So MilliVanilli is probably one of these people.

---

Do either of them work at Baylor? Cause if they don't, they probably are not him.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

https://www.instagram.com/amyperry03/

http://www.banneroak.com/team/aaron-murff

So MilliVanilli is probably one of these people.

---

I may have a positive ID.. found an image that matches all known information..

BenchSolomon said:

---

---

Pretty sure that's the employee entrance at ESPN

57Bear said:

---

The Dear Baylor Family letter of November 10, 2016, could easily be interpreted to imply that the leadership change was based on sexual assault (and other incidents) and that seems to be the way that the media interpreted it.

Murff said: "Many have second-guessed those decisions. But I need to make clear that, as brilliant and successful as Coach Briles was, he will not be returning to Baylor. This change in leadership was not based on any single incident, but on the weight of the information presented to us and a pattern of poor decisions over a range of disciplinary issues, not just sexual assault." (emphasis added) https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174762

Yup, BU uses some crafty lawyers with some crafty wording.

---

Huh ?????

Robemcdo said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

---

Not quite true . Both Briles and McCaw wanted to go to court. Everyone involved knew JH was lying and Baylor and JH had a fair bit to lose with that little technicality coming out since most of this scandal is based on JH's actually being raped .

---

Saying you wanted to go to court, but didn't, at least in the USA, means....you made the decision not.

I've been sued 3x and each time it was dropped or thrown out.

If there is a place where it's easier to sue people, I haven't found it.

Let's be honest and accept that Briles has chosen not to sue. Speculate from there all you want. He could easily line up an interview with a news source and sell a story.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

---

Not quite true . Both Briles and McCaw wanted to go to court. Everyone involved knew JH was lying and Baylor and JH had a fair bit to lose with that little technicality coming out since most of this scandal is based on JH's actually being raped .

---

Saying you wanted to go to court, but didn't, at least in the USA, means....you made the decision not.

I've been sued 3x and each time it was dropped or thrown out.

If there is a place where it's easier to sue people, I haven't found it.

Let's be honest and accept that Briles has chosen not to sue. Speculate from there all you want. He could easily line up an interview with a news source and sell a story.

---

Why was you sued three times?

DAC said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

---

Not quite true . Both Briles and McCaw wanted to go to court. Everyone involved knew JH was lying and Baylor and JH had a fair bit to lose with that little technicality coming out since most of this scandal is based on JH's actually being raped .

---

Saying you wanted to go to court, but didn't, at least in the USA, means....you made the decision not.

I've been sued 3x and each time it was dropped or thrown out.

If there is a place where it's easier to sue people, I haven't found it.

Let's be honest and accept that Briles has chosen not to sue. Speculate from there all you want. He could easily line up an interview with a news source and sell a story.

---

Why was you sued three times?

---

Bad grammar?

Oldbear83 said:

---

DAC said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

---

Not quite true . Both Briles and McCaw wanted to go to court. Everyone involved knew JH was lying and Baylor and JH had a fair bit to lose with that little technicality coming out since most of this scandal is based on JH's actually being raped .

---

Saying you wanted to go to court, but didn't, at least in the USA, means....you made the decision not.

I've been sued 3x and each time it was dropped or thrown out.

If there is a place where it's easier to sue people, I haven't found it.

Let's be honest and accept that Briles has chosen not to sue. Speculate from there all you want. He could easily line up an interview with a news source and sell a story.

---

Why was you sued three times?

---

Bad grammar?

---

I beg for your forgiveness

DAC said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

---

Not quite true . Both Briles and McCaw wanted to go to court. Everyone involved knew JH was lying and Baylor and JH had a fair bit to lose with that little technicality coming out since most of this scandal is based on JH's actually being raped .

---

Saying you wanted to go to court, but didn't, at least in the USA, means....you made the decision not.

I've been sued 3x and each time it was dropped or thrown out.

If there is a place where it's easier to sue people, I haven't found it.

Let's be honest and accept that Briles has chosen not to sue. Speculate from there all you want. He could easily line up an interview with a news source and sell a story.

---

Why was you sued three times?

---

In the US of A, you can sue anyone, for anything.

And my grammar is terrible, but that's no crime.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

DAC said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Mr. Goodbear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

The letter was sent to fulfill the settlement with Art. It doesn't entirely let him off the hook. It is significant for what it doesn't say as much for what it does say.

As someone else said, the settlement happened because both parties wished to cover things that neither wished to be made public.

Don't think Art is squeaky clean because of this ambiguous letter.

The alumni and the public will never know the truth.

---

Untrue. This letter was written long after the settlement. It was written when Art was removed from the latest settlement with Jasmine or some other girl.

---

This is the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. I'm guessing Baylor wanted to settle with Hernandez but Art would only agree to it if they wrote this letter and he was dropped from the suit. He probably thought those two things would help him land another job. Poor Art still believes the truth is relevant in the court of public opinion.

---

Not quite true . Both Briles and McCaw wanted to go to court. Everyone involved knew JH was lying and Baylor and JH had a fair bit to lose with that little technicality coming out since most of this scandal is based on JH's actually being raped .

---

Saying you wanted to go to court, but didn't, at least in the USA, means....you made the decision not.

I've been sued 3x and each time it was dropped or thrown out.

If there is a place where it's easier to sue people, I haven't found it.

Let's be honest and accept that Briles has chosen not to sue. Speculate from there all you want. He could easily line up an interview with a news source and sell a story.

---

Why was you sued three times?

---

In the US of A, you can sue anyone, for anything.

And my grammar is terrible, but that's no crime.

---

I thought he was talking about my grammar lol

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

---

I do know he does not have to do anything here.

Hernandez drops Briles, and settles with Baylor - there are no ongoing lawsuits. No lawsuit no discovery.

Hernandez is the only one with leverage, Briles has none. Not very plausible at all. Hernandez can drop him with or without his blessing.

---

What? Except that she gets no validation of her claims against Briles and McCaw. Her manner of disposition of the lawsuit indicates that she got what she believed was the most money she was going to get from all respondents and she had nothing of any reasonable substance against Briles & McCaw to get anything additional.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

---

I do know he does not have to do anything here.

Hernandez drops Briles, and settles with Baylor - there are no ongoing lawsuits. No lawsuit no discovery.

Hernandez is the only one with leverage, Briles has none. Not very plausible at all. Hernandez can drop him with or without his blessing.

---

What? Except that she gets no validation of her claims against Briles and McCaw. Her manner of disposition of the lawsuit indicates that she got what she believed was the most money she was going to get from all respondents and she had nothing of any reasonable substance against Briles & McCaw to get anything additional.

---

Occam's razor stuff right here.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

---

I do know he does not have to do anything here.

Hernandez drops Briles, and settles with Baylor - there are no ongoing lawsuits. No lawsuit no discovery.

Hernandez is the only one with leverage, Briles has none. Not very plausible at all. Hernandez can drop him with or without his blessing.

---

What? Except that she gets no validation of her claims against Briles and McCaw. Her manner of disposition of the lawsuit indicates that she got what she believed was the most money she was going to get from all respondents and she had nothing of any reasonable substance against Briles & McCaw to get anything additional.

---

Do you really think Baylor was going to pay Hernandez to go away only to have her not go away? Most money or not, little doubt there were strings attached to Baylor's money.

I doubt she had much of a case against Briles & McCaw unless she had knowledge of something we don't know.

The point of my comments were about why the Briles letter. I find it far fetched this settlement is the reason for it. You?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

---

I do know he does not have to do anything here.

Hernandez drops Briles, and settles with Baylor - there are no ongoing lawsuits. No lawsuit no discovery.

Hernandez is the only one with leverage, Briles has none. Not very plausible at all. Hernandez can drop him with or without his blessing.

---

What? Except that she gets no validation of her claims against Briles and McCaw. Her manner of disposition of the lawsuit indicates that she got what she believed was the most money she was going to get from all respondents and she had nothing of any reasonable substance against Briles & McCaw to get anything additional.

---

Do you really think Baylor was going to pay Hernandez to go away only to have her not go away? Most money or not, little doubt there were strings attached to Baylor's money.

I doubt she had much of a case against Briles & McCaw unless she had knowledge of something we don't know.

The point of my comments were about why the Briles letter. I find it far fetched this settlement is the reason for it. You?

---

Yeah, I think Baylor would pay her just enough money to go away from Baylor, and be more than happy to see Briles and McCaw have to pay her something, as it helps to validate their decisions and quasi-explanations. Only problem was that everybody understood that there was nothing that was going to compel any judge or jury to award her damages from the two. And, no, I don't think this settlement, nor any other, had anything to do with the letter.

So here is the latest based on the spin from the Baylor Board of Regents:

• Jasmine Hernandez didn't really have anything bad to say about Baylor after all.
• Art Briles probably caused the entire University to have systemic problems regarding sexual assault, partying, drinking, premarital sex, etc.
• Who can really prove that Briles was paid $15 million to go away?
• The recent letter to Briles was for a completely unrelated matter and had nothing to do with the fiasco.
• Former Baylor President David Garland is a direct descendent of Abraham.
• Regent Ronald Murff is the most outstanding businessman ever. He has never overseen an organization that failed catastrophically.
• David Garland didn't really say "This is not an institution of football." He was misquoted.

I wonder if this letter was in the aftermath of UH taking a look at Briles for their head coaching position only to have a rogue regent(s) call their (I forget if it was the President or the AD over there) and badmouth Coach Briles off the record.

Applemac_G4 said:

---

I wonder if this letter was in the aftermath of UH taking a look at Briles for their head coaching position only to have a rogue regent(s) call their (I forget if it was the President or the AD over there) and badmouth Coach Briles off the record.

---

There were no rogue regents. The last two boards had a ruling elite who were allowed to talk. All the others could do is rubber stamp and cry put to God. Hopefully we have in the current board a ruling elite that will phase out both the wolves and the sheep.

NoBSU said:

---

... The last two boards had a ruling elite who were allowed to talk. All the others could do is rubber stamp and cry put to God. ...

---

Was the ruling elite in the majority?

57Bear said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

... The last two boards had a ruling elite who were allowed to talk. All the others could do is rubber stamp and cry put to God. ...

---

Was the ruling elite in the majority?

---

Who knows what the inner workings of that insular group actually are?

It was easier to figure out the Kremlin back in the days of the Cold War by watching how they stood during military parades.

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

---

Are you making the argument that the letter is false? That Baylor has, after all that, evidence that Briles actually did those things that they said he didn't do?

When was the letter written, and when was the lawsuit settled? (Real question, not rhetorical).

D. C. Bear said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If Baylor & Hernandez wanted to settle, they do not require anything from Briles.

Briles was dropped from the suit by Hernandez - he did nothing.

---

You have no idea whether he did anything or not. If the point of settling was to limit discovery, then they absolutely needed Briles to settle as well. I really have no idea if that's what happened, but it's the only plausible explanation I've seen so far for why Baylor would write that letter, regardless of what Briles did or didn't do.

---

Are you making the argument that the letter is false? That Baylor has, after all that, evidence that Briles actually did those things that they said he didn't do?

When was the letter written, and when was the lawsuit settled? (Real question, not rhetorical).

---

No, not making that assertion at all. Just can't understand what their incentive to write it is, given the narrative they've tried to create up to this point. It's pretty narrow in scope, but they had to know people were going to read it lazily (just like everything else so far) and think it exonerates him. What did they get out of it? And why did they wait until May 2017 to write it? Just seems odd unless it was part of a settlement.

Looks like the Hernandez lawsuit was settled in August (I thought it was earlier), so that doesn't seem all that likely either. I'm back to zero good explanations. Can't imagine they just did an about-face and decided to try to help Art out.

57Bear said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

... The last two boards had a ruling elite who were allowed to talk. All the others could do is rubber stamp and cry put to God. ...

---

Was the ruling elite in the majority?

---

DC answered your question. They certainly controlled key positions. Point me in the direction of some minutes and I will be happy to look up the votes.

The ruling elite wanted to keep Briles because he wins football games, but a large majority of common folk regents rose up and voted him out based on the evidence presented by PH.

.... maybe