Chanceux said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

A coach who makes a school tens o' millions and more with donations aint let go because he went against school policy. Hiding somebody's drunk and disorderly from Beth Mccraw sure aint covering up sexual assault. The only dadgum reason you fire him is if you think he covered up sexual assault. Anybody that says different aint got a clue.

---

School policy?

You work for an organization with more than 1000 people and you get caught lying, and I mean on an expense report, to a vendor, or to the CEO, VP legal, or Head of HR, you're probably done.

Even the University of Houston won't play that.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/houston-sends-clear-message-about-art-briles-coaching-future-in-denying-interview/

---

I'm sayin there are levels of wrongdoing. And its gotta be egregious to filet the golden goose. Stealing pencils aint pilfering the petty cash. Reprimand vs firing and such. I never want to excuse some of the things Briles did. Never. It was said that he walked out of that meeting not thinking he was gonna be fired. If thats true then I think Briles thought he got caught stealing the pencils and not the money.

---

It wasn't stealing pencils. It was something that put him in the same box as Jerry Sandusky. If it wasn't egregious the networks (ESPN and the NFL) wouldn't be calling the CFL telling them that the sponsorship money would pull out if Art was entertaining the CFL. Do we need to define what "egregious" means outside the bubble?
Everyone knows mistakes were at every level. The rogue regents, former school president, former athletic director, former head coach and his staff have all been hit on this deal for being sorry at their jobs and \ or not being responsible.

---

The Sandusky crimes and what Briles did or didn't do aint alike at all. And the reason the CFL made that call was because we live in a time where the mob rules in spite of what of the truth is. It just wasn't worth their time.

---

I didn't say the crimes and Briles had anything to do with one another. Sandusky and Art do have something big in common. It is the big problem.
Sponsors are trying to sell their products to anyone who will buy it. Art had his chance when he sued to tell us his side. The clock ran out and he didn't tell us his side.
The waving around the letter makes people laugh. The consider the source of the letter and realize they didn't exactly have clean hands. It makes people believe both parties really are dirt bags. The first couple of paragraphs came off as b.s. especially after the Wall Street Journal and Art's pr campaign that was crushed like old cars at the crusher service.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts but basically I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to answer the OPs question......


So it still looks like we fired our coach, killed our program and hired a disaster for nothing.

---

We are news consumers not a court jury. We are never going to get proof using that standard. Demanding proof like that is just being obtuse.


No we have been told plenty. Surely you have read these accounts. You can have a very low bar and say that was not enough, or conspiracy guy and not believe the stories ..... but people need to stop with the childish "can't prove it" angle as to Briles firing

(Note: OP was about covering up rape, that did not happen - loads of other stuff)

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

Then why did he get fired?

No evidence to back up why he was fired. Still. And he got a letter clearing him from the BOR.

So my original statement stands.

We fired our coach, killed the program and hired a disaster for no reason.

---

He still had 19 players accused of assault by 17 victims, four of which were gang rapes. One alleged gang rape he knew about and did not report to Judicial Affairs as was school policy. Nothing happened to the players accused. That is not literally covering up rape, but it is impeding the investigation into an alleged rape. It is still very bad.

He had assistant coaches conduct their own investigations. There is a whole laundry list of bad decisions. Evidence includes his own text messages and his admissions.

---

That is an inaccurate statement, and part of why the 17/19/4 narrative was designed for maximum traction. A substantial number of those allegations were not made by "victims" but rather were surmised by "investigators" during their review process.

Also, although I don't believe your statement about knowledge of a gang rape is true, but forget that for a moment and just assume that it was true. Having second-hand knowledge of an allegation of rape, and then not reporting such hearsay is nothing close to impeding an investigation, no way, no how. That is a very careless statement from somebody of your intelligence.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts but basically I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to answer the OPs question......


So it still looks like we fired our coach, killed our program and hired a disaster for nothing.

---

We are news consumers not a court jury. We are never going to get proof using that standard. Demanding proof like that is just being obtuse.


No we have been told plenty. Surely you have read these accounts. You can have a very low bar and say that was not enough, or conspiracy guy and not believe the stories ..... but people need to stop with the childish "can't prove it" angle as to Briles firing

(Note: OP was about covering up rape, that did not happen - loads of other stuff)

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

Then why did he get fired?

No evidence to back up why he was fired. Still. And he got a letter clearing him from the BOR.

So my original statement stands.

We fired our coach, killed the program and hired a disaster for no reason.

---

He still had 19 players accused of assault by 17 victims, four of which were gang rapes. One alleged gang rape he knew about and did not report to Judicial Affairs as was school policy. Nothing happened to the players accused. That is not literally covering up rape, but it is impeding the investigation into an alleged rape. It is still very bad.

He had assistant coaches conduct their own investigations. There is a whole laundry list of bad decisions. Evidence includes his own text messages and his admissions.

---

That is an inaccurate statement, and part of why the 17/19/4 narrative was designed for maximum traction. A substantial number of those allegations were not made by "victims" but rather were surmised by "investigators" during their review process.

Also, although I don't believe your statement about knowledge of a gang rape is true, but forget that for a moment and just assume that it was true. Having second-hand knowledge of an allegation of rape, and then not reporting such hearsay is nothing close to impeding an investigation, no way, no how. That is a very careless statement from somebody of your intelligence.

---

Calling things "designed for maximum traction" is purely an assumption on your part. FWIW I count 10 of 17 victims and 12 of 19 accused related to sexual assault at a minimum.

Baylor has said knowledge generates an obligation under school policy to report (T9 obligations would be in addition to school policy so obligations exist no matter what). Any report would product some kind of investigation by Judicial Affairs.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

You seemed to have mad an excellent point. However, Baylor does have an executive level VP that IS responsible for regulatory compliance and I assume for updating the BOR on said compliance. So, if he or his superiors are telling the BOR that all is good or in process in a timely manner, what exactly do you expect of the BOR? Courts have held relying on the executive administration of the organization is generally enough to absolve Regents of liability.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

To steal a line from the "great" Hilary Clinton, "At this point, what difference does it make!"

Briles = Gone

Football = done, for this year and possibly for the near future

BOR = still firmly in place

New Prez. = Inaugurated (why? why do we do this?)

Baylor CoEds = no more or less safe than they have ever been, which is to say, quite safe all things considered.

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts but basically I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to answer the OPs question......


So it still looks like we fired our coach, killed our program and hired a disaster for nothing.

---

We are news consumers not a court jury. We are never going to get proof using that standard. Demanding proof like that is just being obtuse.


No we have been told plenty. Surely you have read these accounts. You can have a very low bar and say that was not enough, or conspiracy guy and not believe the stories ..... but people need to stop with the childish "can't prove it" angle as to Briles firing

(Note: OP was about covering up rape, that did not happen - loads of other stuff)

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

Then why did he get fired?

No evidence to back up why he was fired. Still. And he got a letter clearing him from the BOR.

So my original statement stands.

We fired our coach, killed the program and hired a disaster for no reason.

---

He still had 19 players accused of assault by 17 victims, four of which were gang rapes. One alleged gang rape he knew about and did not report to Judicial Affairs as was school policy. Nothing happened to the players accused. That is not literally covering up rape, but it is impeding the investigation into an alleged rape. It is still very bad.

He had assistant coaches conduct their own investigations. There is a whole laundry list of bad decisions. Evidence includes his own text messages and his admissions.

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts but basically I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to answer the OPs question......


So it still looks like we fired our coach, killed our program and hired a disaster for nothing.

---

We are news consumers not a court jury. We are never going to get proof using that standard. Demanding proof like that is just being obtuse.


No we have been told plenty. Surely you have read these accounts. You can have a very low bar and say that was not enough, or conspiracy guy and not believe the stories ..... but people need to stop with the childish "can't prove it" angle as to Briles firing

(Note: OP was about covering up rape, that did not happen - loads of other stuff)

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

Then why did he get fired?

No evidence to back up why he was fired. Still. And he got a letter clearing him from the BOR.

So my original statement stands.

We fired our coach, killed the program and hired a disaster for no reason.

---

He still had 19 players accused of assault by 17 victims, four of which were gang rapes. One alleged gang rape he knew about and did not report to Judicial Affairs as was school policy. Nothing happened to the players accused. That is not literally covering up rape, but it is impeding the investigation into an alleged rape. It is still very bad.

He had assistant coaches conduct their own investigations. There is a whole laundry list of bad decisions. Evidence includes his own text messages and his admissions.

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

---

Gonna just put you down in the obtuse "truther" category.

These statements were made publicly by regents in the WSJ - if untrue a clear case a libel against Briles and Shillinglaw. If untrue they are basically holding a winning lottery tickets but both refuse to go cash them.


Demanding information you know you can not get is a very shallow argument

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts but basically I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to answer the OPs question......


So it still looks like we fired our coach, killed our program and hired a disaster for nothing.

---

We are news consumers not a court jury. We are never going to get proof using that standard. Demanding proof like that is just being obtuse.


No we have been told plenty. Surely you have read these accounts. You can have a very low bar and say that was not enough, or conspiracy guy and not believe the stories ..... but people need to stop with the childish "can't prove it" angle as to Briles firing

(Note: OP was about covering up rape, that did not happen - loads of other stuff)

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

Then why did he get fired?

No evidence to back up why he was fired. Still. And he got a letter clearing him from the BOR.

So my original statement stands.

We fired our coach, killed the program and hired a disaster for no reason.

---

He still had 19 players accused of assault by 17 victims, four of which were gang rapes. One alleged gang rape he knew about and did not report to Judicial Affairs as was school policy. Nothing happened to the players accused. That is not literally covering up rape, but it is impeding the investigation into an alleged rape. It is still very bad.

He had assistant coaches conduct their own investigations. There is a whole laundry list of bad decisions. Evidence includes his own text messages and his admissions.

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

---

Gonna just put you down in the obtuse "truther" category.

These statements were made publicly by regents in the WSJ - if untrue a clear case a libel against Briles and Shillinglaw. If untrue they are basically holding a winning lottery tickets but both refuse to go cash them.


Demanding information you know you can not get is a very shallow argument

---

So you can't provide evidence of it so instead of trying to do so you just choose to ignore the person/people wanting the info.

Yeah that seems legit.... oh wait no it doesn't.

Why would they say this and then give him a letter saying he did nothing wrong?

Post a link to the information that said those numbers AND said anything about Briles covering it up, knowing about it, etc.

I am not demanding anything.

I am just simply asking for proof. Not a statement made by one regent on the BOR or one lawyer or from "sources" but actual proof.

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts but basically I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to answer the OPs question......


So it still looks like we fired our coach, killed our program and hired a disaster for nothing.

---

We are news consumers not a court jury. We are never going to get proof using that standard. Demanding proof like that is just being obtuse.


No we have been told plenty. Surely you have read these accounts. You can have a very low bar and say that was not enough, or conspiracy guy and not believe the stories ..... but people need to stop with the childish "can't prove it" angle as to Briles firing

(Note: OP was about covering up rape, that did not happen - loads of other stuff)

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

Then why did he get fired?

No evidence to back up why he was fired. Still. And he got a letter clearing him from the BOR.

So my original statement stands.

We fired our coach, killed the program and hired a disaster for no reason.

---

He still had 19 players accused of assault by 17 victims, four of which were gang rapes. One alleged gang rape he knew about and did not report to Judicial Affairs as was school policy. Nothing happened to the players accused. That is not literally covering up rape, but it is impeding the investigation into an alleged rape. It is still very bad.

He had assistant coaches conduct their own investigations. There is a whole laundry list of bad decisions. Evidence includes his own text messages and his admissions.

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

---

Gonna just put you down in the obtuse "truther" category.

These statements were made publicly by regents in the WSJ - if untrue a clear case a libel against Briles and Shillinglaw. If untrue they are basically holding a winning lottery tickets but both refuse to go cash them.


Demanding information you know you can not get is a very shallow argument

---

That is not how that law works, it is very difficult to prove defamation. And it is nearly impossible to prove you didn't know something.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

Also it's odd that you look down on people who just want to know the truth.

Briles was and is libel proof as a public figure--he could only have a claim if he could prove malice from the Regent who said it to the WSJ.. The Regents who made the claims to the WSJ could easily say they didnt have malice because they heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone else. In other words you dont have to be real careful about what you claim about a public figure. I suspect the Regents who attacked the program, the reputation of Baylor and Briles personally to the WSJ knew this.

BU84BEAR said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

You seemed to have mad an excellent point. However, Baylor does have an executive level VP that IS responsible for regulatory compliance and I assume for updating the BOR on said compliance. So, if he or his superiors are telling the BOR that all is good or in process in a timely manner, what exactly do you expect of the BOR? Courts have held relying on the executive administration of the organization is generally enough to absolve Regents of liability.

---

I expect the BOFR to have sense enough to ask questions related to issues and regulations applying to higher education, provide a level of oversight that doesn't get into the granularity of the regulation and daily execution of the program, and hold themselves and each other accountable to the same standards to which they've held the executive function.

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

---

Gonna just put you down in the obtuse "truther" category.

These statements were made publicly by regents in the WSJ - if untrue a clear case a libel against Briles and Shillinglaw. If untrue they are basically holding a winning lottery tickets but both refuse to go cash them.


Demanding information you know you can not get is a very shallow argument

---

So you can't provide evidence of it so instead of trying to do so you just choose to ignore the person/people wanting the info.

Yeah that seems legit.... oh wait no it doesn't.

Why would they say this and then give him a letter saying he did nothing wrong?

Post a link to the information that said those numbers AND said anything about Briles covering it up, knowing about it, etc.

I am not demanding anything.

I am just simply asking for proof. Not a statement made by one regent on the BOR or one lawyer or from "sources" but actual proof.

---

They can't provide evidence because there is none. I'll put you in the "telling truth" category

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts but basically I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to answer the OPs question......


So it still looks like we fired our coach, killed our program and hired a disaster for nothing.

---

We are news consumers not a court jury. We are never going to get proof using that standard. Demanding proof like that is just being obtuse.


No we have been told plenty. Surely you have read these accounts. You can have a very low bar and say that was not enough, or conspiracy guy and not believe the stories ..... but people need to stop with the childish "can't prove it" angle as to Briles firing

(Note: OP was about covering up rape, that did not happen - loads of other stuff)

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

Then why did he get fired?

No evidence to back up why he was fired. Still. And he got a letter clearing him from the BOR.

So my original statement stands.

We fired our coach, killed the program and hired a disaster for no reason.

---

He still had 19 players accused of assault by 17 victims, four of which were gang rapes. One alleged gang rape he knew about and did not report to Judicial Affairs as was school policy. Nothing happened to the players accused. That is not literally covering up rape, but it is impeding the investigation into an alleged rape. It is still very bad.

He had assistant coaches conduct their own investigations. There is a whole laundry list of bad decisions. Evidence includes his own text messages and his admissions.

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

---

Gonna just put you down in the obtuse "truther" category.

These statements were made publicly by regents in the WSJ - if untrue a clear case a libel against Briles and Shillinglaw. If untrue they are basically holding a winning lottery tickets but both refuse to go cash them.


Demanding information you know you can not get is a very shallow argument

---

That is not how that law works, it is very difficult to prove defamation. And it is nearly impossible to prove you didn't know something.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

Also it's odd that you look down on people who just want to know the truth.

---

The regents spoon feed that information to the WSJ with the help of PR company Bunting.

The regents deliberately gave information to the WSJ that is essentially the bullet to the head of Briles career, and you are trying to get us to believe the malice standard required for a public figure is so high they have little to worry about.

Sorry not buying that for a second.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

This thread is an abortion of epic proportions

Mothra said:

---

Moderators locked the previous thread that was discussing this topic, suggesting it had been discussed a thousand times (though I must have missed those threads). I am not interested in another debate among the pro-CAB and anti-CAB crowd on whether he should have been fired. As a lawyer, I am truly curious, however, what evidence there is the CAB staff covered up rapes, as BeerThief suggested. Another poster suggested BeerThief is privy to info. Care to share it?

---

Boy this thread got throwed tbe f#ck off.

Keyser Soze said:

---

I don't know how stating a fact (that the 105 recommendations have been materially implemented) can be called bragging. You certainly could not get that from the context in which I posted it.

---

The BOR wants everyone to think that by adopting these 105 recommendations, they are protecting the students. That is a huge smoke screen, because the reality of these recommendations is that they protect the administration and BOR, and have very little to do with protecting students.

They want you to focus on what these recommendations do, and not what they don't do.

The few recommendations affecting the students are after the assault has occurred. Increasing compliance staff is for the purpose of managing a large volume of complaints and the follow up the administration is to do. Increasing the police staff is to investigate the complaint after the assault. None of these recommendations will decrease complaints which mean coeds are as vulnerable today as they were in 2000.

The BOR wants us, the general public, to lose sight of the one huge fact...which is they will not tell the truth. No, don't try to redirect this argument to name the lies they committed, for I do not claim they lie. What I am claiming is that they hide the whole truth and tell only what they want to release. That is the most compelling piece of evidence that makes the BOR look guilty.

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I d

---

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

---

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

---

So let me see if I understand the premise of what you just said...You're saying the only way you can get kicked out or fired from Baylor is if you're caught by Waco PD?And only if that officer gets it documented.

Honest question here, did you go to Baylor? Because that's a novel f'ing theory.

BU84BEAR said:

---

You seemed to have mad an excellent point. However, Baylor does have an executive level VP that IS responsible for regulatory compliance and I assume for updating the BOR on said compliance. So, if he or his superiors are telling the BOR that all is good or in process in a timely manner, what exactly do you expect of the BOR? Courts have held relying on the executive administration of the organization is generally enough to absolve Regents of liability.

---

Bolded part is true.

And not only that, Baylor had a crack platoon of athletics compliance people led by one of America's brightest Athletics Directors.

jumpinjoe said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

I don't know how stating a fact (that the 105 recommendations have been materially implemented) can be called bragging. You certainly could not get that from the context in which I posted it.

---

The BOR wants everyone to think that by adopting these 105 recommendations, they are protecting the students. That is a huge smoke screen, because the reality of these recommendations is that they protect the administration and BOR, and have very little to do with protecting students.

They want you to focus on what these recommendations do, and not what they don't do.

The few recommendations affecting the students are after the assault has occurred. Increasing compliance staff is for the purpose of managing a large volume of complaints and the follow up the administration is to do. Increasing the police staff is to investigate the complaint after the assault. None of these recommendations will decrease complaints which mean coeds are as vulnerable today as they were in 2000.

The BOR wants us, the general public, to lose sight of the one huge fact...which is they will not tell the truth. No, don't try to redirect this argument to name the lies they committed, for I do not claim they lie. What I am claiming is that they hide the whole truth and tell only what they want to release. That is the most compelling piece of evidence that makes the BOR look guilty.

---

So it's a conspiracy .... OK

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I d

---

---

So he didn't cover up rape.

---

Please provide the police documentation to back up this claim.

---

Not some random statement by a lawyer or BOR member or newspaper article.

Police reports only.


Then the evidence he knew about a gang rape and that it was actually a gang rape.

Then the evidence he impeded the police investigation into it.


Oh wait there are no police investigations for 19 players....

Boom. Case closed.

---

So let me see if I understand the premise of what you just said...You're saying the only way you can get kicked out or fired from Baylor is if you're caught by Waco PD?And only if that officer gets it documented.

Honest question here, did you go to Baylor? Because that's a novel f'ing theory.

---

Quote where I said anything you claim.

Because I didnt.

Police reports only, boys. Both of you.

Russell Gym said:

---

Police reports only, boys. Both of you.

---

Yeah, I thought what he said was pretty clear.

No police report, no way Baylor can fire him.

He can f his secretary, set fire to a dorm and call the president a *******, so long as there is no police report.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Russell Gym said:

---

Police reports only, boys. Both of you.

---

Yeah, I thought what he said was pretty clear.

No police report, no way Baylor can fire him.

He can f his secretary, set fire to a dorm and call the president a *******, so long as there is no police report.

---

Not even close to what I said. At all.

I never said a word about not being able to fire him for anything.

You are the one who added that part on.

cowboycwr said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Russell Gym said:

---

Police reports only, boys. Both of you.

---

Yeah, I thought what he said was pretty clear.

No police report, no way Baylor can fire him.

He can f his secretary, set fire to a dorm and call the president a *******, so long as there is no police report.

---

Not even close to what I said. At all.

I never said a word about not being able to fire him for anything.

You are the one who added that part on.

---

Your right. I did.

So let's reverse course then, for what reasons is it acceptable to fire the football coach at a university?

Nothing? Anything? Something? throw out some examples.

Bring back Briles

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Russell Gym said:

---

Police reports only, boys. Both of you.

---

Yeah, I thought what he said was pretty clear.

No police report, no way Baylor can fire him.

He can f his secretary, set fire to a dorm and call the president a *******, so long as there is no police report.

---

Not even close to what I said. At all.

I never said a word about not being able to fire him for anything.

You are the one who added that part on.

---

Your right. I did.

So let's reverse course then, for what reasons is it acceptable to fire the football coach at a university?

Nothing? Anything? Something? throw out some examples.

---

Different thread. Nice deflection though.

The evidence was the words "interracial, pre-marital sex." Those words made the Baylor Board of Regents cry out to God.

End of story.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

The evidence was the words "interracial, pre-marital sex." Those words made the Baylor Board of Regents cry out to God.

End of story.

---

you forgot a few words

running a train
too drunk to give consent
bruised hymen
date rape drug
no
had to drop out of school
was crying
tampon pushed up into cervix
lost scholarship
please stop
you're hurting me
was a virgin