Tell that to the undefeated BYU Cougars and Iowa State Cyclones -- neither of which has a single natural advantage over us (other than fan support).BBWCBear said:The landscape is completely different today.Bear8084 said:bear2be2 said:That's the sad-sack #CAB rallying cry.Bear8084 said:Nope.BBWCBear said:Reality is... it's really all a moot point. Baylor will NEVER see any football success in the future except an occasional run for a conference championship. Probably alumni generation in between. Face it, Baylor has rarely done anything right. Baylor has ALWAYS been reactive instead of proactive... operating on the cheap. Best thread example is the lack of a Title IX person at a time when needed. Now, with the two big conferences, relevancy will be a struggle of any variety for Baylor. History is history, period... Baylor is and always will be Baylor. Potential future football coaches will be potential feeder candidates for better jobs. That in itself doesn't paint a great picture for what most consider potential for consistent success. One comes, has a form of success, an off they go... Baylor back to square one.Thee University said:3,075 days and in reality you guys are STILL fvking yourselves and each other. You must like it. Are you over a barrel? A cedar log? Grabbing your ankles? Good grief!PacificBear said:
Baylor BOR failed. They Fvked Briles. But they fvked Baylor even harder.
It's a sickness I tell you. You guys need to hold a convention because you need help. Maybe an intervention.
Never mind that the "We'll never win big without Art" nonsense has already been proven wrong by both of his direct successors.
Agreed. 2019 and 2021 must've been hard for him.
Briles at McLane
19,552 Views |
197 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by ImABearToo
PartyBear said:
I do not believe I have ever heard anyone say nor have I seen anyone post on a Baylor site that Baylor can only win with Briles as HC.
That would be incredibly stupid thing to say considering what happened in 2019 & 2021.
The BOR didn't "protect" sexual assault victims. You're lying. They covered it up, and when they could no longer cover it up, they put all the blame on one of the sports teams to protect themselves. The reason they didn't want to bring "their assault to the forefront" was the same reason most universities discourage rape victims from going to the police while portraying that discouragement as "being sensitive to the victim." They don't want the publicity and they don't want the crime in their public crime stats. You're really gullible to believe the BOR was protecting anybody but themselves.Waco1947 said:The "lives that were destroyed" were these sexual assault victims. I could care less that Briles, Starr, and Ian lives were destroyed. The victims are first and foremost in my understanding. The BOR was protecting these victims lives by not bringing their assault to the forefront. They deserve privacy and respect. So keep Briles away and his son Kendell.drahthaar said:Waco1947 said:there is no excusing sexual assault.ABC BEAR said:Your bilge pump is working well today.Waco1947 said:
Women were sexually assaulted. I can't forgive a coach for allowing it to happen or ignoring it or turning a blind eye to it. So, no Briles please. We were called rapists at every turn. Don't bring that back that shame.
Agreed.
With that settled, Baylor University should have owned the mess outright and not allowed lives to be destroyed because of it. That's lives on both sides of that egregious issue. As Thee pointed out, had the university done its job responsibly, all this could have been prevented. So if a group wants to chant "CAB", it'll have no impact on BU and the press will mention it and then it will fade into the dead issue it is, no one having learned the vital issues they should have learned.
No private school is able to compete consistently, outside of ND and most of that is Media hype.BBWCBear said:Reality is... it's really all a moot point. Baylor will NEVER see any football success in the future except an occasional run for a conference championship. Probably alumni generation in between. Face it, Baylor has rarely done anything right. Baylor has ALWAYS been reactive instead of proactive... operating on the cheap. Best thread example is the lack of a Title IX person at a time when needed. Now, with the two big conferences, relevancy will be a struggle of any variety for Baylor. History is history, period... Baylor is and always will be Baylor. Potential future football coaches will be potential feeder candidates for better jobs. That in itself doesn't paint a great picture for what most consider potential for consistent success. One comes, has a form of success, an off they go... Baylor back to square one.Thee University said:3,075 days and in reality you guys are STILL fvking yourselves and each other. You must like it. Are you over a barrel? A cedar log? Grabbing your ankles? Good grief!PacificBear said:
Baylor BOR failed. They Fvked Briles. But they fvked Baylor even harder.
It's a sickness I tell you. You guys need to hold a convention because you need help. Maybe an intervention.
Miami, USC, NU, Duke, BC, TCU, Stanford, Vandy... Pretty much all of them are cyclical and BU has been in the bottom half of that group. So, this expectation that the 3 years of Briles 11 win success before imploding is sustainable and BU Coaches should be held to that standard seems unrealistic to me...
That standard will be the one all others are compared with until someone exceeds it, my friend. Whether one likes that or not is immaterial.FLBear5630 said:No private school is able to compete consistently, outside of ND and most of that is Media hype.BBWCBear said:Reality is... it's really all a moot point. Baylor will NEVER see any football success in the future except an occasional run for a conference championship. Probably alumni generation in between. Face it, Baylor has rarely done anything right. Baylor has ALWAYS been reactive instead of proactive... operating on the cheap. Best thread example is the lack of a Title IX person at a time when needed. Now, with the two big conferences, relevancy will be a struggle of any variety for Baylor. History is history, period... Baylor is and always will be Baylor. Potential future football coaches will be potential feeder candidates for better jobs. That in itself doesn't paint a great picture for what most consider potential for consistent success. One comes, has a form of success, an off they go... Baylor back to square one.Thee University said:3,075 days and in reality you guys are STILL fvking yourselves and each other. You must like it. Are you over a barrel? A cedar log? Grabbing your ankles? Good grief!PacificBear said:
Baylor BOR failed. They Fvked Briles. But they fvked Baylor even harder.
It's a sickness I tell you. You guys need to hold a convention because you need help. Maybe an intervention.
Miami, USC, NU, Duke, BC, TCU, Stanford, Vandy... Pretty much all of them are cyclical and BU has been in the bottom half of that group. So, this expectation that the 3 years of Briles 11 win success before imploding is sustainable and BU Coaches should be held to that standard seems unrealistic to me...
Lumping USC in with the others is goofy. ND and USC have done just fine over the years.
BUAL said:
Lumping USC in with the others is goofy. ND and USC have done just fine over the years.
Oh ok. Just shot that theory to ***** ND, USC and Baylor... Yeah, I can see why we should be pissed we are not with ND and USC.
So take USC out...
Folks posted pictures of Briles and Bennett at the game.
it's not either orhistorian said:
Do you care about the football players whose lives were destroyed because of gossip and false accusations?
Waco1947 ,la
He was at the game
No it's not but your post only focused on one side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
Waco1947 ,la
Not only that, he didn't even admit it happened and do anything about it. He chose to stick his head in the ground. He could have survived if he acted decisively. He chose to pout and point fingers.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
NopeFLBear5630 said:Not only that, he didn't even admit it happened and do anything about it. He chose to stick his head in the ground. He could have survived if he acted decisively. He chose to pout and point fingers.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
FLBear5630 said:Not only that, he didn't even admit it happened and do anything about it. He chose to stick his head in the ground. He could have survived if he acted decisively. He chose to pout and point fingers.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
I hope your children have you in a good home. Memory care is tough.
Robert Wilson said:I disagree with these two points.blackie said:
But I also truly believe that had Baylor not been the first major program for this widespread problem to surface, Baylor and Briles would have ridden it out. Look at all the other examples of teams that later had situations that were just as bad or worse but their administrations saw and learned from how Baylor handled it and deemed that such drastic actions were not required to address a problem that was and still is rampant. But we were the first. Panic set in. We were the only ones that had the problem or so we were told. We had no past history from which to draw guidance or comparison.
I don't think Briles would have remained coach too much longer regardless. He had too much wanderlust in him and Baylor was still not thought of as being all that big a fish in the pond. The biggest showcasing of wanderlust was how he strung us along during the Fiesta Bowl. I have no doubt he wanted to go to UT, but UT just didn't play it the way he wanted it played. The distraction resulted in the embarrassment in Tempe.
The reason we botched our response, while other schools handled theirs better, is not because we were first. It's because we are Baylor. Our BOR is too large, full of 36 volunteers who are worried about their own image and exposure, and Baylor historically cares more about appearance than it does the underlying facts. (E.g. we reported zero sexual assaults for some years leading up to this). We also had longstanding internal division that cracked open under the pressure. Our problem is not the order in which we drew the bad hand; it is our general makeup and how we played the hand.
Also, Briles would have been here a long time. He'd told Tech no (probably twice). He and UT flirted but it didn't come to fruition. He'd talked too much crap on A&M to ever go over there. He was not going to leave Texas. There were no good options left. We were poised for a long run unless/until the Cowboys or Texans wanted him as OC or HC, which might never have happened.
Spot on for both points. Excellent take.
BUMBA1 said:Robert Wilson said:I disagree with these two points.blackie said:
But I also truly believe that had Baylor not been the first major program for this widespread problem to surface, Baylor and Briles would have ridden it out. Look at all the other examples of teams that later had situations that were just as bad or worse but their administrations saw and learned from how Baylor handled it and deemed that such drastic actions were not required to address a problem that was and still is rampant. But we were the first. Panic set in. We were the only ones that had the problem or so we were told. We had no past history from which to draw guidance or comparison.
I don't think Briles would have remained coach too much longer regardless. He had too much wanderlust in him and Baylor was still not thought of as being all that big a fish in the pond. The biggest showcasing of wanderlust was how he strung us along during the Fiesta Bowl. I have no doubt he wanted to go to UT, but UT just didn't play it the way he wanted it played. The distraction resulted in the embarrassment in Tempe.
The reason we botched our response, while other schools handled theirs better, is not because we were first. It's because we are Baylor. Our BOR is too large, full of 36 volunteers who are worried about their own image and exposure, and Baylor historically cares more about appearance than it does the underlying facts. (E.g. we reported zero sexual assaults for some years leading up to this). We also had longstanding internal division that cracked open under the pressure. Our problem is not the order in which we drew the bad hand; it is our general makeup and how we played the hand.
Also, Briles would have been here a long time. He'd told Tech no (probably twice). He and UT flirted but it didn't come to fruition. He'd talked too much crap on A&M to ever go over there. He was not going to leave Texas. There were no good options left. We were poised for a long run unless/until the Cowboys or Texans wanted him as OC or HC, which might never have happened.
Spot on for both points. Excellent take.
Up until the sexual abuse, I agree. I liked Briles at BU, he was the ONLY HC we had that understood "brand" and made us the new Oregon for a while. He is a great Offensive mind and fit Waco.
From the outside of Texas, his handling of the sexual abuse was as bad as you can handle it. MAybe perception, but he came across as mean, arrogant and spiteful toward the victims. Basically blaming the girls, Didn't he say they are some bad Dudes, why are they hanging with them or something to that effect? Really? In this day and age? Talk about not reading the room.
NopeFLBear5630 said:BUMBA1 said:Robert Wilson said:I disagree with these two points.blackie said:
But I also truly believe that had Baylor not been the first major program for this widespread problem to surface, Baylor and Briles would have ridden it out. Look at all the other examples of teams that later had situations that were just as bad or worse but their administrations saw and learned from how Baylor handled it and deemed that such drastic actions were not required to address a problem that was and still is rampant. But we were the first. Panic set in. We were the only ones that had the problem or so we were told. We had no past history from which to draw guidance or comparison.
I don't think Briles would have remained coach too much longer regardless. He had too much wanderlust in him and Baylor was still not thought of as being all that big a fish in the pond. The biggest showcasing of wanderlust was how he strung us along during the Fiesta Bowl. I have no doubt he wanted to go to UT, but UT just didn't play it the way he wanted it played. The distraction resulted in the embarrassment in Tempe.
The reason we botched our response, while other schools handled theirs better, is not because we were first. It's because we are Baylor. Our BOR is too large, full of 36 volunteers who are worried about their own image and exposure, and Baylor historically cares more about appearance than it does the underlying facts. (E.g. we reported zero sexual assaults for some years leading up to this). We also had longstanding internal division that cracked open under the pressure. Our problem is not the order in which we drew the bad hand; it is our general makeup and how we played the hand.
Also, Briles would have been here a long time. He'd told Tech no (probably twice). He and UT flirted but it didn't come to fruition. He'd talked too much crap on A&M to ever go over there. He was not going to leave Texas. There were no good options left. We were poised for a long run unless/until the Cowboys or Texans wanted him as OC or HC, which might never have happened.
Spot on for both points. Excellent take.
Up until the sexual abuse, I agree. I liked Briles at BU, he was the ONLY HC we had that understood "brand" and made us the new Oregon for a while. He is a great Offensive mind and fit Waco.
From the outside of Texas, his handling of the sexual abuse was as bad as you can handle it. MAybe perception, but he came across as mean, arrogant and spiteful toward the victims. Basically blaming the girls, Didn't he say they are some bad Dudes, why are they hanging with them or something to that effect? Really? In this day and age? Talk about not reading the room.
truthFLBear5630 said:BUMBA1 said:Robert Wilson said:I disagree with these two points.blackie said:
But I also truly believe that had Baylor not been the first major program for this widespread problem to surface, Baylor and Briles would have ridden it out. Look at all the other examples of teams that later had situations that were just as bad or worse but their administrations saw and learned from how Baylor handled it and deemed that such drastic actions were not required to address a problem that was and still is rampant. But we were the first. Panic set in. We were the only ones that had the problem or so we were told. We had no past history from which to draw guidance or comparison.
I don't think Briles would have remained coach too much longer regardless. He had too much wanderlust in him and Baylor was still not thought of as being all that big a fish in the pond. The biggest showcasing of wanderlust was how he strung us along during the Fiesta Bowl. I have no doubt he wanted to go to UT, but UT just didn't play it the way he wanted it played. The distraction resulted in the embarrassment in Tempe.
The reason we botched our response, while other schools handled theirs better, is not because we were first. It's because we are Baylor. Our BOR is too large, full of 36 volunteers who are worried about their own image and exposure, and Baylor historically cares more about appearance than it does the underlying facts. (E.g. we reported zero sexual assaults for some years leading up to this). We also had longstanding internal division that cracked open under the pressure. Our problem is not the order in which we drew the bad hand; it is our general makeup and how we played the hand.
Also, Briles would have been here a long time. He'd told Tech no (probably twice). He and UT flirted but it didn't come to fruition. He'd talked too much crap on A&M to ever go over there. He was not going to leave Texas. There were no good options left. We were poised for a long run unless/until the Cowboys or Texans wanted him as OC or HC, which might never have happened.
Spot on for both points. Excellent take.
Up until the sexual abuse, I agree. I liked Briles at BU, he was the ONLY HC we had that understood "brand" and made us the new Oregon for a while. He is a great Offensive mind and fit Waco.
From the outside of Texas, his handling of the sexual abuse was as bad as you can handle it. MAybe perception, but he came across as mean, arrogant and spiteful toward the victims. Basically blaming the girls, Didn't he say they are some bad Dudes, why are they hanging with them or something to that effect? Really? In this day and age? Talk about not reading the room.
Waco1947 ,la
You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
The BOR did not cover up the sexual misconduct but protected the women.BearlySpeaking said:You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
Waco1947 ,la
blacklined for accuracyWaco1947 said:The BOR did not cover up the sexual misconduct but protectedBearlySpeaking said:You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.the womenthemselves.
Well, whatever happened Briles did himself no favors with the way he responded.whitetrash said:blacklined for accuracyWaco1947 said:The BOR did not cover up the sexual misconduct but protectedBearlySpeaking said:You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.the womenthemselves.
whitetrash said:blacklined for accuracy No, the women. Ask your spouse why women in sexual misconduct cases need to spared the public exposure. You are victim blaming by ignoring plight of these women.Waco1947 said:The BOR did not cover up the sexual misconduct but protectedBearlySpeaking said:You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.the womenthemselves.
Waco1947 ,la
Not all the victims were "victims".
I hate to tell you guys this, especially here at the end of the Age of Chivalry - but women, like men, are not 100% credible. Women do lie, and they will lie about physical and sexual abuse. That's why if you want to be fair, you have to consider all the facts.
After the #metoo movement in 2018, the number of allegations of physical and sexual misconduct to my firm went up over 200% from where they were prior. Still today, women allege abuse in about 40% of high conflict divorces.
The number of protective orders followed, as in 2018, I prosecuted only 2 civil protective orders and that number was up to 11 in 2022 and 9 for 2023.
Not saying these things didn't happen, but I also don't like a trend where a woman, probably yours, is capable of ruining you financially and sending you to prison based on criminal allegations that you never committed. And, I will tell you, it is really, really easy to get a jury in McLennan County to send an innocent man to prison.
Just be careful out there, and don't judge a book by its cover.
I hate to tell you guys this, especially here at the end of the Age of Chivalry - but women, like men, are not 100% credible. Women do lie, and they will lie about physical and sexual abuse. That's why if you want to be fair, you have to consider all the facts.
After the #metoo movement in 2018, the number of allegations of physical and sexual misconduct to my firm went up over 200% from where they were prior. Still today, women allege abuse in about 40% of high conflict divorces.
The number of protective orders followed, as in 2018, I prosecuted only 2 civil protective orders and that number was up to 11 in 2022 and 9 for 2023.
Not saying these things didn't happen, but I also don't like a trend where a woman, probably yours, is capable of ruining you financially and sending you to prison based on criminal allegations that you never committed. And, I will tell you, it is really, really easy to get a jury in McLennan County to send an innocent man to prison.
Just be careful out there, and don't judge a book by its cover.
"Smarter than the Average Bear."
Waco1947 said:whitetrash said:blacklined for accuracy No, the women. Ask your spouse why women in sexual misconduct cases need to spared the public exposure. You are victim blaming by ignoring plight of these women.Waco1947 said:The BOR did not cover up the sexual misconduct but protectedBearlySpeaking said:You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.the womenthemselves.
Go do some research and look up the McLennan county police reports involving the players and see if u think the women were victims
Good point: there were far more players who were victims of false accusation than there were women who were victims of rape. That is the true scandal.
The BOR did not protect anyone but themselves. The Pepper Hamilton report says you are a liar:Waco1947 said:The BOR did not cover up the sexual misconduct but protected the women.BearlySpeaking said:You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.
"Pepper found that the University's student conduct processes were wholly inadequate to consistently provide a prompt and equitable response under Title IX, that Baylor failed to consistently support complainants through the provision of interim measures, and that in some cases, the University failed to take action to identify and eliminate a potential hostile environment, prevent its recurrence, or address its effects for individual complainants or the broader campus community. Pepper also found examples of actions by 2 University administrators that directly discouraged complainants from reporting or participating in student conduct processes, or that contributed to or accommodated a hostile environment. In one instance, those actions constituted retaliation against a complainant for reporting sexual assault."
The board oversaw all of this. That was before the football team was ever mentioned. Want to try again and tell the truth this time?
Not being allowed to publicly face your accuser is a violation of the 6th Amendment's confrontation clause. You're arguing for people's constitutional right to be violated.Waco1947 said:whitetrash said:blacklined for accuracy No, the women. Ask your spouse why women in sexual misconduct cases need to spared the public exposure. You are victim blaming by ignoring plight of these women.Waco1947 said:The BOR did not cover up the sexual misconduct but protectedBearlySpeaking said:You're lying when you say "Those women are first and foremost my concern." You wouldn't be defending the Board of Regents cover-up of rapes if that were true.Waco1947 said:Whats real is sexual assault on his watch. Those women are first and foremost my concernhistorian said:
No it's not but your post only focused on o s side of the equation. Reality is more complicated than that.the womenthemselves.
3,095 days and STILL we have grown men peeing their panties.
Candy legs.
Limp wrists.
Dishwater hands.
Manicured nails.
Self flagellation.
Concave chests.
Pencil necks.
I'll bet a couple of you carry man purses strapped around your waist.
3,095 days. Think about it.
Candy legs.
Limp wrists.
Dishwater hands.
Manicured nails.
Self flagellation.
Concave chests.
Pencil necks.
I'll bet a couple of you carry man purses strapped around your waist.
3,095 days. Think about it.
"So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains And we never even know we have the key"
What are you talking about?Thee University said:
3,095 days and STILL we have grown men peeing their panties.
Candy legs.
Limp wrists.
Dishwater hands.
Manicured nails.
Self flagellation.
Concave chests.
Pencil necks.
I'll bet a couple of you carry man purses strapped around your waist.
3,095 days. Think about it.
Limp wrist FTW
FLBear5630 said:What are you talking about?Thee University said:
3,095 days and STILL we have grown men peeing their panties.
Candy legs.
Limp wrists.
Dishwater hands.
Manicured nails.
Self flagellation.
Concave chests.
Pencil necks.
I'll bet a couple of you carry man purses strapped around your waist.
3,095 days. Think about it.
He's still living in the past, obsessed with the whole Briles fake scandal fiasco. It often seems that Art Briles has taken permanent residency in his brain, rent free.
Alot of that going on. If liked, they get a pass. If not, they are the scourge of the Nation.historian said:FLBear5630 said:What are you talking about?Thee University said:
3,095 days and STILL we have grown men peeing their panties.
Candy legs.
Limp wrists.
Dishwater hands.
Manicured nails.
Self flagellation.
Concave chests.
Pencil necks.
I'll bet a couple of you carry man purses strapped around your waist.
3,095 days. Think about it.
He's still living in the past, obsessed with the whole Briles fake scandal fiasco. It often seems that Art Briles has taken permanent residency in his brain, rent free.
More of the same Thee dribble, never jumps in the actual discussion rather calls everyone names and slides back under a rock until triggered again. Must have alerts set for anything CAB…Art…Briles…etc…
Featured Stories
See All
Stats Preview: LSU's Improved Defense and Explosive Offense
by Sam Bradshaw
We Will Learn A Lot About Baylor's Resurgent Run Game Against LSU
by Travis Roeder
Gameday Thread: No. 25 Baylor Faces Arlington Baptist
by Ashley Hodge