Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

Well Ian McCaw said under oath the other day that they did use Briles as a scapegoat, which he disagreed with so he left the school.

It's also important to note that Briles wasn't really fired. They bought out his contract and paid his legal fees, doesn't really sound like someone who is guilty to me

We needed another thread on this. We should rename the stadium after Briles and bring him back.

No

I believe a Regent testified that Briles was fired essentially because he wasn't a fit. (Which is assinine as hell to blow up a program over something that stupid but that is what was essentially said). The testimony was not that he was fired because he should have known what his players are always up to and definitely said Briles was not fired for doing anything wrong.

This coupled with Ian's testimony that the Regents wanted to scape goat Briles to so they could justify firing him send a clear picture of a set up by the BOR. The BOR chair even instructed Ian to do this but he resigned was the testimony.

Art Briles deserved to be fired at Baylor for the inability to properly oversee the football program.

Art Briles was scapegoated by a feckless Board of Regents who were trying to cover their own negligence in overseeing a university that was in compliance with federal statutes.

Both of these things can simultaneously be true, and I believe are true. The people (mostly outside of Baylor) who buried Briles's character and called him a rape enabler back in 2016 and since were and are wrong. The people crowing about his dismissal from one lawsuit, while overlooking the 16 lawsuits Baylor settled (essentially admitting fault in) are also wrong.

Nuance has no place in American society any longer.

They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

How would you define "unusually high number of claims"?

Based on what bench mark? Have you been a college athlete? Around them closely? Any idea what happens A LOT given people that may be worth millions in 6 months etc?

PartyBear said:

---

They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

---

Can you send this link? Trying to find Ieffries quote on this

Briles would have "overseen" the program with more caution had he been instructed to do so, which he was not.

The AD was weak, the president was following his personal political agenda and the BOR was weak and/or corrupt, often both.

Briles was running his program the way the vast majority of coaches at universities in the US were running theirs. In case you haven't noticed it...lots of football players aren't choirboys. If you will take the time to do the research, and Google is your friend, you will see that universities as diverse as Stanford and Florida State, and all in between, were dealing with similar issues. The difference is in the way they handled the problem.

Art Briles is a football genius, but I don't think anyone has accused him of being a scholar. He's a football coach who dealt with problem players the same way the vast majority of coaches did...at least back then.

If he had received proper guidance, I find it hard to believe he would have just refused the guidance and instruction, none of which were forthcoming, and said "fire me". Baylor was leaderless...a ship adrift.

Fre3dombear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

How would you define "unusually high number of claims"?

Based on what bench mark? Have you been a college athlete? Around them closely? Any idea what happens A LOT given people that may be worth millions in 6 months etc?

---

3 by Dolores alone

# of accusations is not a sufficient basis upon which to make a decision

PartyBear said:

---

They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

---

They said under oath that he did not cover up any instances of sexual assault or discourage the reporting of any instances to any higher-ups.

There's a big difference between what you said and what was actually covered in the trial.

Solid in and with Briles
BOR has had big issues for much of my life (75). WWJD has not been the guide for them since at least 92.

Fre3dombear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

---

Can you send this link? Trying to find Ieffries quote on this

---

I didn't say Jefferies' was the one who testified. I don't recall which one it was. I believe it was mentioned in news reports posted on other threads.

Fre3dombear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

How would you define "unusually high number of claims"?

Based on what bench mark? Have you been a college athlete? Around them closely? Any idea what happens A LOT given people that may be worth millions in 6 months etc?

---

That was my first thought. There is zero evidence there was a "high number" of claims of sexual violence.

Here IMHO is the reality. It is a little conspiratorial, but in life often we find there are unseen forces behind event.

1. Briles was on the cusp of dominating the XII and Texas college football. Briles had just turned down the Texas head coaching job. Yes, I believe forces in Austin media and otherwise drummed up and continued to push the narrative to undermine his on-the-field success. There was an active effort to push the narrative and elevate so-called assaults to fuel the narrative. My wife was in Austin at a journalism conference just before it really started to break, and she remembers a woman (may have been Lavigne) talking about how she was going to push this story and get Briles.

2. The board of regents did not like the way the team played and acted on the sidelines. They did not like the team "acting like monkeys." Again, I have a good friend who runs in Waco and Baylor power circles, and he heard directly several regents making racist comments about the team. This was exacerbated by the Jeffrey's and others who were seeing their mediocrity being erased and no longer being the big fish in the small pond. Who cares about the "Miracle on the Brazos" when your winning national titles. Jeffrey and others were facing being marginalized and their mediocrity no longer being the beacon of the best of Baylor football.

3. Added to that the hatred for Ken Starr by the left-wing nut jobs, who control virtually every institution. They saw this as a way to get at him.

Here is the singular fact - ONE person associated with the Baylor football program was credibly convicted of rape, and he never put on a Baylor uniform.

Contrast that with the Case McCoy, Jameis Winston, and myriad other allegations of sexual assault covered up by schools and the media.

I was a huge Briles fan and always will be.

Really no point in us beating this dead horse. Time for Baylor to hire the next Kevin Steele on the cheap and wander in the dessert for the next forty years. We are Baylor and are exactly where our detractors want us to be. Great job Baylor BOR!

There were no "innocent parties" at Baylor.

Briles' dismissal may have been justified. What I have not seen is exactly what he knew not only about his players' actions but also about the university's Title 9 regulations to which he was to adhere and implement. Supposedly Art did exactly as he was told in the situations. Who really knows where the truth is here. Clearly he should have known better choices to make in response to the accusations as well as to the challenges by the BOR later. There is so much conflicting information that his dismissal is shrouded in inconsistent messages which will never be clear. He was dismissed so I concluded that it was justified on some basis. That the BOR did not like his responses to them or his demeanor or his explanations are weak basis for such dismissal. That the BOR did by report find truly egregious behavior by Briles in his leadership is enough., depending on what they found. That the BOR was embarrassed by the "findings" condemning the entire university is insufficient basis to apply to one person. The problem is that blind trust was for the long haul gone from Baylor long before this event occurred. Once trust has been squandered by action, it will not. quickly be regained. They are still in that process of earning trust.

Even with a justified dismissal, the university should have never allowed Briles to be pilloried by the forces which destroyed his career; maybe his life in many respects. It is here that the "scapegoat" moniker will be forever tied to the university. No escaping that.

Ian was no Ath Dir for either Art or the university.

Baylor's admin and upper level leadership, including the BOR, not only failed in their management duties to BU but also in the fiduciary duties as a result. This group crawfished rather than step up and make the corrections needed, and including some "confessional", and by default if not intentionally, they sacrificed the football program and its coaches by making them the downrange target. And incoming ordnance has the right of way.
So many people and groups were guilty and there was no one else and no where else to deflect the source of the vitriol to come. And all are punished.

Fre3dombear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

How would you define "unusually high number of claims"?

Based on what bench mark? Have you been a college athlete? Around them closely? Any idea what happens A LOT given people that may be worth millions in 6 months etc?

---

hi - i was around a few pretty closely (student from 2007 to 2011, worked in waco 2011-2012, law school starting in 2012). partied with them, had classes with them, scruffsed with them, spring breaked with them, had my walls punched in by them...lots of them truly believed they were above the law (as a lot of privileged kids who weren't football players do too i know). the things i witnessed not related to sexual assault: players yelling at professors, players taking tests outside of the classroom to the football facilities, players beat people up and when the cops got involved there were no incident reports, players selling things and again when cops got involved there were no police reports, players vandalizing houses/vehicles...again when cops got involved it was how quiet can we keep this *****

i'm not sure what the role of a head coach is and isn't, whether that was CAB's fault i have zero clue, but i do believe the above was abnormal. and who's fault it is...again no clue. but just like with your kids, if you give an inch someone will take a mile. if the inch is assault, theft, drugs, vandalism....what's the mile here?

Robert Wilson said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

How would you define "unusually high number of claims"?

Based on what bench mark? Have you been a college athlete? Around them closely? Any idea what happens A LOT given people that may be worth millions in 6 months etc?

---

3 by Dolores alone

# of accusations is not a sufficient basis upon which to make a decision

---

It is when people use completely unknown Numbers to justify an action. So it has to work both ways.

Art Briles is a Unicorn. Only a Unicorn can take an awful BU program to the epic beat downs of OU including @OU. You do not fire the Unicorn as a scapegoat.

As Party Bear said… They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

Ian said under oath he was fired as a scapegoat.

RR was a dime a dozen EVP who was responsible for implementation of Title 9.

Fire the BU President, Fire the AD, fire the EVP in charge of title 9. All of those people are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.

Again… you do not fire the Unicorn as a scapegoat.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

---

They said under oath that he did not cover up any instances of sexual assault or discourage the reporting of any instances to any higher-ups.

There's a big difference between what you said and what was actually covered in the trial.

---

They also said under oath he did not violate any university policy. Supervising his program would be a university policy. Nevertheless when given the chance under oath they did not say scandal or anything was why he was fired. Just that he essentially was not a fit.

wgeralds said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

How would you define "unusually high number of claims"?

Based on what bench mark? Have you been a college athlete? Around them closely? Any idea what happens A LOT given people that may be worth millions in 6 months etc?

---

hi - i was around a few pretty closely (student from 2007 to 2011, worked in waco 2011-2012, law school starting in 2012). partied with them, had classes with them, scruffsed with them, spring breaked with them, had my walls punched in by them...lots of them truly believed they were above the law (as a lot of privileged kids who weren't football players do too i know). the things i witnessed not related to sexual assault: players yelling at professors, players taking tests outside of the classroom to the football facilities, players beat people up and when the cops got involved there were no incident reports, players selling things and again when cops got involved there were no police reports, players vandalizing houses/vehicles...again when cops got involved it was how quiet can we keep this *****

i'm not sure what the role of a head coach is and isn't, whether that was CAB's fault i have zero clue, but i do believe the above was abnormal. and who's fault it is...again no clue. but just like with your kids, if you give an inch someone will take a mile. if the inch is assault, theft, drugs, vandalism....what's the mile here?

---

I call bs. Why were you hanging out and partying with these guys if they were like this?

Your "nuance" is accepting other peoples lies. Not surprising.

PartyBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

---

They said under oath that he did not cover up any instances of sexual assault or discourage the reporting of any instances to any higher-ups.

There's a big difference between what you said and what was actually covered in the trial.

---

They also said under oath he did not violate any university policy. Supervising his program would be a university policy. Nevertheless when given the chance under oath they did not say scandal or anything was why he was fired. Just that he essentially was not a fit.

---

CAB generated millions in donations for athletics and academics.

CAB and the RGIII Heisman produced 250 million for BU

CAB increased the applications to the University and boosted the overall quality of the incoming freshmen class.

The EVP, Predsident, AD, BOR... none them can or did do that.

You don't fire the Rainmaker,

PartyBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

They said under oath that there was not an issue with his supervision of the program and said that was not why he was fired.

---

They said under oath that he did not cover up any instances of sexual assault or discourage the reporting of any instances to any higher-ups.

There's a big difference between what you said and what was actually covered in the trial.

---

They also said under oath he did not violate any university policy. Supervising his program would be a university policy. Nevertheless when given the chance under oath they did not say scandal or anything was why he was fired. Just that he essentially was not a fit.

---

They said he was fired because they didn't believe he was the person that could lead a program that was going to have all eyes on it in a way that had a culture of compliance. That's pretty reasonable, given all the things we know went on in the program while he was in charge (see wgeralds post above for some details, many of which line up with things I knew from around the same time).

You can't expect the guy who "just wanted to coach ball" to magically morph into the CEO-type that's going to run a tight ship regarding off the field conduct.

Whether or not the reasons they're now testifying under oath about are revisionist history is another thing. The BOR certainly wasn't saying any of this at the time, or in the 5-8 years following the events.

It's a shame it had to go to a courtroom for this to come to light, but let's also not forget that Briles signed an NDA and cashed a check for $15mm. If he was truly spotless in his blame, I can't imagine he would have done so. He even admitted he could and should have done better under oath.

I see the new narrative is Briles just didn't "fit." For those of you….please lay your hands on someone and pray for them in Sunday school class in the morning. Then try to ruin that person first thing Monday morning.

Quote:

---

Here is the singular fact - ONE person associated with the Baylor football program was credibly convicted of rape, and he never put on a Baylor uniform.

Contrast that with the Case McCoy, Jameis Winston, and myriad other allegations of sexual assault covered up by schools and the media.

---

Thanks for adding the relevant objective fact to this discussion.

Quote:

---

but let's also not forget that Briles signed an NDA and cashed a check for $15mm. If he was truly spotless in his blame, I can't imagine he would have done so. He even admitted he could and should have done better under oath.

---

A lot of innocent people take plea deals because establishing your innocence in the eyes of our for profit legal system costs a *lot* of money. When you have kids and grandkids to consider, the prospect of exiting a situation with generational wealth is not something to pass up lightly, particularly given some of the difficult circumstances of his early life. It has absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

Reverend said:

---

I see the new narrative is Briles just didn't "fit." For those of you….please lay your hands on someone and pray for them in Sunday school class in the morning. Then try to ruin that person first thing Monday morning.

---

Something about organizational systems and culture

Anyone who disrupts will eventually be spit out

We are what we are

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

Claims do not equal guilt. I do not agree to #2 at all. You fell susceptible to all the mud slinging.

Married A Horn said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

Sorry for one more thread on Briles...BUT I wanted to present maybe a grounded perspective. I feel like everyone is in one of the two camps (either BOR is scum or Briles is scum).

My view when this thing broke ~6 years ago was:

1) Baylor did not have a comprehensive program in place to handle sexual assault claims; However,
2) There was an unusually high number of claims coming from the football program. Additionally, even though Briles had no direct knowledge of any claim (Baylor admitted that 6 years ago), he should have known what was going on with his players. And that's the only reason he was fired.

If both of those are true then I don't see how the case absolves either party of anything. It just confirms what we already thought.

• Do y'all agree with 1 and 2?

If so, then this whole thing makes a bit of sense. We can disagree, but it's reasonable.

There were LOTS of mistakes along the way. But I just have a hard time believing that there was a plot by the BOR to oust Briles in the most humiliating way possible and in doing so cause so much shame and embarrassment on themselves, the school and maybe the best coach we ever had. However, if they did, and they used Briles as a scapegoat to cover their own sins then they need to serve the punishment doled out to Briles (e.g., each one of them should never be able to work in their respective fields ever again.)

---

Claims do not equal guilt. I do not agree to #2 at all. You fell susceptible to all the mud slinging.

---

Eh - was late to the thread trying to work out. Everyone else covered everything. Premise holds no water. Argument fails.

Next thread?

It's hard to know what's going on when the VP over campus security is obstructing the Title IX office and campus police. Yet that guy didn't get any penalty at all, wasn't fired or scapegoated.

Dia del DougO said:

---

It's hard to know what's going on when the VP over campus security is obstructing the Title IX office and campus police. Yet that guy didn't get any penalty at all, wasn't fired or scapegoated.

---

Yeah

Ponder that one for a moment

Why? …

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Here is the singular fact - ONE person associated with the Baylor football program was credibly convicted of rape, and he never put on a Baylor uniform.

Contrast that with the Case McCoy, Jameis Winston, and myriad other allegations of sexual assault covered up by schools and the media.

---

Thanks for adding the relevant objective fact to this discussion.

---

It's crazy how many of our own fans forget that Tevin Elliott was convicted of raping three women. So, there were actually two convictions.

Briles didn't mishandle Elliott. He was suspended as soon as he was arrested. But the fact remains there were two convictions.

You're missing the point. None of those other rapist's coaches got fired and lives destroyed as a scapegoat.

No matter how you try to spin it, it comes off as Hypocrisy.