I'll defend the BOR too.

Thee University said:

---

I'll defend the BOR too.

---

Go for it. Interesting that you will implicitly defend Briles and the Baylor PD chief, because defending them involves defending those downstream they had authority over.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Not arguing anything yet. I simply asked "what entity"/ It was hard to follow your argument without some context.

---

My response was clear - "You explicitly defended the BOR..." is from the same response you asked the question on. BOR stands for Board of Regents.

---

I still stand by the BOR if that is the entity that you are talking about. The protection of the women victims comes first, then the protection of the University.

Waco1947 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Not arguing anything yet. I simply asked "what entity"/ It was hard to follow your argument without some context.

---

My response was clear - "You explicitly defended the BOR..." is from the same response you asked the question on. BOR stands for Board of Regents.

---

I still stand by the BOR if that is the entity that you are talking about. The protection of the women victims comes first, then the protection of the University.

---

Yes, the protection of victims comes first, that is why if you defend the BOR who presided over the cover up of rapes and attempted to deflect their responsibility for it when they were called out, then you could not care less about rape victims. Amazing you admit, that by extension, you stand by rapists.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I'll defend the BOR too.

---

Go for it. Interesting that you will implicitly defend Briles and the Baylor PD chief, because defending them involves defending those downstream they had authority over.

---

Does that mean if I were to defend Briles I am defending players too?

Thee University said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I'll defend the BOR too.

---

Go for it. Interesting that you will implicitly defend Briles and the Baylor PD chief, because defending them involves defending those downstream they had authority over.

---

Does that mean if I were to defend Briles I am defending players too?

---

Yes, if he did not have policies in place to address sexual violence by players and did not kick out players who violated those policies then to defend one is to defend the other.

It's really strange to me that people like you want to appear as strong against rapists while limiting the focus to one athletic team on the campus in order to protect rapists at Baylor who were not on the team. Your defense of BOR is transparent, you want to protect their image and whoever they were protecting. You really believe the football team was the sole problem on campus like the BOR claimed? You think there were 0 rapes associated with the university, including the football team? That's the reported crime stat the BOR was willing to roll with year after year until they got called out.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Thee University said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I'll defend the BOR too.

---

Go for it. Interesting that you will implicitly defend Briles and the Baylor PD chief, because defending them involves defending those downstream they had authority over.

---

Does that mean if I were to defend Briles I am defending players too?

---

Yes, if he did not have policies in place to address sexual violence by players and did not kick out players who violated those policies then to defend one is to defend the other.

It's really strange to me that people like you want to appear as strong against rapists while limiting the focus to one athletic team on the campus in order to protect rapists at Baylor who were not on the team. Your defense of BOR is transparent, you want to protect their image and whoever they were protecting. You really believe the football team was the sole problem on campus like the BOR claimed? You think there were 0 rapes associated with the university, including the football team? That's the reported crime stat the BOR was willing to roll with year after year until they got called out.

---

It is more simple than that. He doesn't like Briles because those teams eclipsed the ones that he played on.

Damn guys, we need to let it go.

I'm as mad as anyone over this but not enough to destroy lives. The entire university leadership (every level) was responsible for that disaster nearly a decade back, including the mismanagement of the responses once the story broke.

And guys like Thee aren't mad because a group eclipsed their record but because Baylor undermined their contributions to the program. And remember that guys that have played at this high level are masters in getting into thin skulls.

That's nice and all, but Thee's criticism of Briles and co dates back to contemporaneously when they were winning B12 championships. And it had nothing to do with off field behavior.

Waco1947 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Not arguing anything yet. I simply asked "what entity"/ It was hard to follow your argument without some context.

---

My response was clear - "You explicitly defended the BOR..." is from the same response you asked the question on. BOR stands for Board of Regents.

---

I still stand by the BOR if that is the entity that you are talking about. The protection of the women victims comes first, then the protection of the University.

---

Begs the question: Was the BOR, or any portion of same, aware of the total non-reporting of campus-wide sexual assaults during a significant period of time, quite obviously for the purpose of protecting the university's image?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Not arguing anything yet. I simply asked "what entity"/ It was hard to follow your argument without some context.

---

My response was clear - "You explicitly defended the BOR..." is from the same response you asked the question on. BOR stands for Board of Regents.

---

I still stand by the BOR if that is the entity that you are talking about. The protection of the women victims comes first, then the protection of the University.

---

Yes, the protection of victims comes first, that is why if you defend the BOR who presided over the cover up of rapes and attempted to deflect their responsibility for it when they were called out, then you could not care less about rape victims. Amazing you admit, that by extension, you stand by rapists.
No, dumba$$. You are defining protection as cover up. You don't damn thing about whether these women wanted to go public with a trial. You owe me an apology. I never make those stupid accusations about you

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Not arguing anything yet. I simply asked "what entity"/ It was hard to follow your argument without some context.

---

My response was clear - "You explicitly defended the BOR..." is from the same response you asked the question on. BOR stands for Board of Regents.

---

I still stand by the BOR if that is the entity that you are talking about. The protection of the women victims comes first, then the protection of the University.

---

Yes, the protection of victims comes first, that is why if you defend the BOR who presided over the cover up of rapes and attempted to deflect their responsibility for it when they were called out, then you could not care less about rape victims. Amazing you admit, that by extension, you stand by rapists.
No, dumba$$. You are defining protection as cover up. You don't damn thing about whether these women wanted to go public with a trial. You owe me an apology. I never make those stupid accusations about you

---

---

Whine and moan all you want, you are the one defending the BOR's leadership that created this whole problem. You're the dumba$$ for thinking you can make us believe that their actions in allowing the school to go without a Title IX department, intimidate rape victims from going to the police, and then burying the Pepper Hamilton report that exposed their actions when it is so easy to redact identifying information on the victims is the same thing as "protecting victims." What a load of garbage.

"You don't damn thing about whether these women wanted to go public with a trial." That right there shows you don't want violent criminals who assault women to be arrested and punished; unbelievable you support them being allowed to remain unpunished and on campus so you can protect the BOR's image. You side with universities that have been reported as encouraging victims not to go to the police and tell them it's for "their protection" - which includes our university under the BOR leadership during the Briles era.
Where is your line? If a criminal puts someone in the hospital, are you still going to insist the criminal be allowed to roam free to "protect victims?" Would you "protect victims" to the point of allowing a rapist to murder his victim and not be arrested just so the BOR looks good? You're absolutely not getting an apology from me for worrying more about the BOR's image and then calling it "protecting victims."

Robert Wilson said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Thee University said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I'll defend the BOR too.

---

Go for it. Interesting that you will implicitly defend Briles and the Baylor PD chief, because defending them involves defending those downstream they had authority over.

---

Does that mean if I were to defend Briles I am defending players too?

---

Yes, if he did not have policies in place to address sexual violence by players and did not kick out players who violated those policies then to defend one is to defend the other.

It's really strange to me that people like you want to appear as strong against rapists while limiting the focus to one athletic team on the campus in order to protect rapists at Baylor who were not on the team. Your defense of BOR is transparent, you want to protect their image and whoever they were protecting. You really believe the football team was the sole problem on campus like the BOR claimed? You think there were 0 rapes associated with the university, including the football team? That's the reported crime stat the BOR was willing to roll with year after year until they got called out.

---

It is more simple than that. He doesn't like Briles because those teams eclipsed the ones that he played on.

---

Poor Bobby! I could give a flying __________ about any Baylor team "eclipsing" any of the teams I was fortunate to play on. I WANTED Baylor to overshadow the 1979 Peach Bowl Champs and the 1980 SWC Champs (not a co-champ) and a team that won the title without needing any help.

I wanted the 1981 Bears to win every game. Same thing in 1982. 1983. Every year. What I did not appreciate was the FACT that Baylor's national reputation was cheapened and drug through the mud because of a staff that did not understand or care how Baylor operates and expects of her student-athletes and coaching staff.

You poor fellas have now spent over 3,900 days crying like the vaginas you are. Good grief. Art did this to himself. He did it to you. Me. All BU alumni. He made some serious mistakes and still walked away with about $20,000,000.

You boys just don't understand and are incapable of ever letting go of the coattail your soft, little manicured hands feverishly clutch on to.

At least one of my teams beat Clemson to win a major bowl. We lost the Fiesta to a commuter school and gave up 21 points in the 4th Q to lose the Cotton. Watch the 1979 Peach Bowl sometime. You might recognize some players. Oh, when Baylor repeatedly stopped Clemson……..that's called defense.

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's nice and all, but Thee's criticism of Briles and co dates back to contemporaneously when they were winning B12 championships. And it had nothing to do with off field behavior.

---

Sharing Big 12 Championships and then hoping & praying for help to "win" another.

Hahahahahahaha

Didn't read it but it sure was long enough to prove my point

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's nice and all, but Thee's criticism of Briles and co dates back to contemporaneously when they were winning B12 championships. And it had nothing to do with off field behavior.

---

There was plenty on-field behavior to criticize also, just like this year. And last year.
And every year before. You just mad at Thee. Renting some brain space from you?

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's nice and all, but Thee's criticism of Briles and co dates back to contemporaneously when they were winning B12 championships. And it had nothing to do with off field behavior.

---

There was plenty on-field behavior to criticize also, just like this year. And last year.
And every year before. You just mad at Thee. Renting some brain space from you?

---

No. I just have clear eyes and a clear memory.

Thee University said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I'll defend the BOR too.

---

Go for it. Interesting that you will implicitly defend Briles and the Baylor PD chief, because defending them involves defending those downstream they had authority over.

---

Does that mean if I were to defend Briles I am defending players too?

---

I'm intrigued with your thoughts on the private school league and agree with your thoughts on Aranda and sometimes other things, but your blind loyalty to that board of Regents surprises me.

Briles was brought in to coach football, and it seemed clear from his and other people's comments at the time that he believed he had compliance people around him to help with handling the serious issues. In other words, people higher up than him knew the lay of the land and what was going on within the program, with Elliott, Sam U., and the various allegations. This was all governed by people higher up than Briles, yet when it was time to show contrition, they feigned shock and chose to sacrifice Briles. The problem was not substantially of Briles's making yet, they chose to destroy just him.

The captain has to go down with the ship. He was the scapegoat no doubt.

IBleedGreenandGold said:

---

The captain has to go down with the ship. He was the scapegoat no doubt.

---

For the Football program, rightly so. It stops with him for the FB program.

Chuckroast said:

---

I'm intrigued with your thoughts on the private school league and agree with your thoughts on Aranda and sometimes other things, but your blind loyalty to that board of Regents surprises me.

Briles was brought in to coach football, and it seemed clear from his and other people's comments at the time that he believed he had compliance people around him to help with handling the serious issues. In other words, people higher up than him knew the lay of the land and what was going on within the program, with Elliott, Sam U., and the various allegations. This was all governed by people higher up than Briles, yet when it was time to show contrition, they feigned shock and chose to sacrifice Briles. The problem was not substantially of Briles's making yet, they chose to destroy just him.

---

The Private School Conference makes all of the sense in the world. That's a topic for a thread all its own.

Who recruits the kids? Who brings the kids onto campus? Who coaches and spends around 4-5 hours per day with these kids "renting out" their bodies? Who's livelihood depends on these kids performing? Who's livelihood depends on these kids staying eligible? Who's program is a direct reflection of how these kids handle themselves on and off the field?

These coaches know the kids they bring onto campus and know which ones have a strong propensity to flirt with disaster by potentially committing serious infractions. There ARE team rules!

These kids often come to a particular school because of the head coach or assistant coach. The coaches become very real baby-sitters for those without social skills that are reflective of the largest Baptist University in the world.

The problem was SUBSTANTIALLY the making of Briles and his staff. As a former player for 4 years at Baylor (where I absolutely knew I had to behave differently than had I gone to UT or A&M) and then 1 year in the NFL and then finally 2+ years in the USFL we were reminded often by the coaching staff to keep out of trouble.

Obviously 18, 19 and 20 year olds fresh out of high school and on their own for the first time in their lives need their hand held.

Discipline was sadly lacking (like attention and practice time spent on Defense and Special Teams) and it bit us on the field and off.

Thee University said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I'm intrigued with your thoughts on the private school league and agree with your thoughts on Aranda and sometimes other things, but your blind loyalty to that board of Regents surprises me.

Briles was brought in to coach football, and it seemed clear from his and other people's comments at the time that he believed he had compliance people around him to help with handling the serious issues. In other words, people higher up than him knew the lay of the land and what was going on within the program, with Elliott, Sam U., and the various allegations. This was all governed by people higher up than Briles, yet when it was time to show contrition, they feigned shock and chose to sacrifice Briles. The problem was not substantially of Briles's making yet, they chose to destroy just him.

---

The Private School Conference makes all of the sense in the world. That's a topic for a thread all its own.

Who recruits the kids? Who brings the kids onto campus? Who coaches and spends around 4-5 hours per day with these kids "renting out" their bodies? Who's livelihood depends on these kids performing? Who's livelihood depends on these kids staying eligible? Who's program is a direct reflection of how these kids handle themselves on and off the field?

These coaches know the kids they bring onto campus and know which ones have a strong propensity to flirt with disaster by potentially committing serious infractions. There ARE team rules!

These kids often come to a particular school because of the head coach or assistant coach. The coaches become very real baby-sitters for those without social skills that are reflective of the largest Baptist University in the world.

The problem was SUBSTANTIALLY the making of Briles and his staff. As a former player for 4 years at Baylor (where I absolutely knew I had to behave differently than had I gone to UT or A&M) and then 1 year in the NFL and then finally 2+ years in the USFL we were reminded often by the coaching staff to keep out of trouble.

Obviously 18, 19 and 20 year olds fresh out of high school and on their own for the first time in their lives need their hand held.

Discipline was sadly lacking (like attention and practice time spent on Defense and Special Teams) and it bit us on the field and off.

---

Don't disagree with your thoughts on discipline. Our program was cleaner than most in the big 12 from an arrest standpoint, statistically speaking - which means that Briles and the staff likely did counsel them to stay out of trouble.

It just seems that once the allegations got serious enough, the narrative completely changed to one where Briles had zero discipline.

I also have no sympathy for the argument that Briles brought in these players all on his own. If Baylor admissions had no say or chose to look the other way on any recruit that Briles wanted, that's simply hard to believe. If that's actually true, then that's on the Baylor administration and its BOR. In all likelihood though, the Baylor administration approved every player that was brought in.

OU and UT brought "those type players" in droves to their programs. But….