We should all try for accuracy - sometime it requires the backspace key

Keyser Soze said:

---

We should all try for accuracy - sometime it requires the backspace key

---

Uh huh. There was more in there than a little accuracy cleaning. ; )

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The Board should have known about Title IX. I follow news occasionally about college governance ever since I was in a graduate program at another university where the administration was, let's say, interesting.

The guidance letter was politically controversial when it came out, and there has been a lot of ink spilled on it since then, from the Chronicle of Higher Education to the Campus Reform website. I was aware of it at the time; there is no excuse for university Board members not to know about the Title IX issue and to be asking questions about its implementation.
Because of the Title IX problem, along with the increase in accusations of rape culture at colleges by activists, I knew a scandal was going to blow up at some university with weak leadership over these issues. Just didn't expect it to be Baylor.

The Board is responsible for oversight of school policies, and they were negligent. Guess they were too busy emailing each other about "perverted little tarts" to pay attention to governance of the university.

---

Was about to say something just like this. But pardna you said it much better. Them deps are gonna see what they did know bout Title IX and what they did and didn't do about it.

Chanceux said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The Board should have known about Title IX. I follow news occasionally about college governance ever since I was in a graduate program at another university where the administration was, let's say, interesting.

The guidance letter was politically controversial when it came out, and there has been a lot of ink spilled on it since then, from the Chronicle of Higher Education to the Campus Reform website. I was aware of it at the time; there is no excuse for university Board members not to know about the Title IX issue and to be asking questions about its implementation.
Because of the Title IX problem, along with the increase in accusations of rape culture at colleges by activists, I knew a scandal was going to blow up at some university with weak leadership over these issues. Just didn't expect it to be Baylor.

The Board is responsible for oversight of school policies, and they were negligent. Guess they were too busy emailing each other about "perverted little tarts" to pay attention to governance of the university.

---

Was about to say something just like this. But pardna you said it much better. Them deps are gonna see what they did know bout Title IX and what they did and didn't do about it.

---

Why do you type with an accent?

I reckon another question is was it legal beagle to hire the philly phillies to investigate title ix and use that info to fire Briles?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The Board should have known about Title IX. I follow news occasionally about college governance ever since I was in a graduate program at another university where the administration was, let's say, interesting.

The guidance letter was politically controversial when it came out, and there has been a lot of ink spilled on it since then, from the Chronicle of Higher Education to the Campus Reform website. I was aware of it at the time; there is no excuse for university Board members not to know about the Title IX issue and to be asking questions about its implementation.
Because of the Title IX problem, along with the increase in accusations of rape culture at colleges by activists, I knew a scandal was going to blow up at some university with weak leadership over these issues. Just didn't expect it to be Baylor.

The Board is responsible for oversight of school policies, and they were negligent. Guess they were too busy emailing each other about "perverted little tarts" to pay attention to governance of the university.

---

Was about to say something just like this. But pardna you said it much better. Them deps are gonna see what they did know bout Title IX and what they did and didn't do about it.

---

Why do you type with an accent?

---

My momma is half german. Just bleeds through I guess.

Keyser Soze said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Ohio State fired Jim Tressel for less.

No one is going to have sympathy for a person whose lies can be directly tied to the harm of others.

---

1. Tressel resigned, after discussion with the tOSU and reaching a mutual understanding as to what was best for the university.

2. NCAA investigation resulting in major personal sanctions and post-season ban for tOSU.


Otherwise, your post is spot on and the situation is completely the same.

---

I did point out Ohio State because I want to invite that comparison.

It sounds like you and I are in agreement but the idea that a state university board in Ohio is more ethical than a private university a Christian board should be concerning to many

---

Yep

Commonly said here

"We circled the wagons and fired inward" .... "we hired investigators when should have hired a defense team"


Some priorities out of wack

---

I don't think it's a binary decision between those two choices. It's my opinion that the victims would have been better served had Baylor defended itself and in turn put their privacy in focus.

That doesn't change my mind about Briles needing to go, but we tarred a long list of assistantsa and a lifelong Baylor employee so that Baylor could create the appararance of a scorched earth policy.

The problem with that idea that the scorched earth policy was sufficient is that it conveniently exposes the fraud of a board of regents with THIRTY plus members by attempting to suggest that all f the news of Briles problem recruits was somehow a surprise.


Anyone who is/was surprised that Briles took chances on sketchy characters shouldn't be on a university board.

The time to investigate that was before he won the first big 12 title..

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Ohio State fired Jim Tressel for less.

No one is going to have sympathy for a person whose lies can be directly tied to the harm of others.

---

1. Tressel resigned, after discussion with the tOSU and reaching a mutual understanding as to what was best for the university.

2. NCAA investigation resulting in major personal sanctions and post-season ban for tOSU.


Otherwise, your post is spot on and the situation is completely the same.

---

I did point out Ohio State because I want to invite that comparison.

It sounds like you and I are in agreement but the idea that a state university board in Ohio is more ethical than a private university a Christian board should be concerning to many

---

Yep

Commonly said here

"We circled the wagons and fired inward" .... "we hired investigators when should have hired a defense team"


Some priorities out of wack

---

I don't think it's a binary decision between those two choices. It's my opinion that the victims would have been better served had Baylor defended itself and in turn put their privacy in focus.

That doesn't change my mind about Briles needing to go, but we tarred a long list of assistantsa and a lifelong Baylor employee so that Baylor could create the appararance of a scorched earth policy.

The problem with that idea that the scorched earth policy was sufficient is that it conveniently exposes the fraud of a board of regents with THIRTY plus members by attempting to suggest that all f the news of Briles problem recruits was somehow a surprise.


Anyone who is/was surprised that Briles took chances on sketchy characters shouldn't be on a university board.

The time to investigate that was before he won the first big 12 title..

---

There are some smart people on this forum. Well poot.

Keyser Soze said:

---

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

Damm. For once I agree with you.

Chanceux said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Ohio State fired Jim Tressel for less.

No one is going to have sympathy for a person whose lies can be directly tied to the harm of others.

---

1. Tressel resigned, after discussion with the tOSU and reaching a mutual understanding as to what was best for the university.

2. NCAA investigation resulting in major personal sanctions and post-season ban for tOSU.


Otherwise, your post is spot on and the situation is completely the same.

---

I did point out Ohio State because I want to invite that comparison.

It sounds like you and I are in agreement but the idea that a state university board in Ohio is more ethical than a private university a Christian board should be concerning to many

---

Yep

Commonly said here

"We circled the wagons and fired inward" .... "we hired investigators when should have hired a defense team"


Some priorities out of wack

---

I don't think it's a binary decision between those two choices. It's my opinion that the victims would have been better served had Baylor defended itself and in turn put their privacy in focus.

That doesn't change my mind about Briles needing to go, but we tarred a long list of assistantsa and a lifelong Baylor employee so that Baylor could create the appararance of a scorched earth policy.

The problem with that idea that the scorched earth policy was sufficient is that it conveniently exposes the fraud of a board of regents with THIRTY plus members by attempting to suggest that all f the news of Briles problem recruits was somehow a surprise.


Anyone who is/was surprised that Briles took chances on sketchy characters shouldn't be on a university board.

The time to investigate that was before he won the first big 12 title..

---

There are some smart people on this forum. Well poot.

---

He's mostly smart, he just drifts in and out occasionally. ; )

It's also worth mentioning that the other smoking gun revelation in this dumpster fire is the manipulation of Baylor in the media by specific Board members and here is the important part, that occurred while other board members remained silent.

Prior to th Briles debacle, Baylor board members spent time, money and resources decorating their luxury suites in the new stadiums, writing puff pieces in the Baylor magazine about themselves and their meager donations and feigned love for BAylor U. While certain members launched vendetta campaigns against the Baylor Alumni Association. The board had no trouble finding its voice to smear Baylor alumni.

But one disgruntled employee in Art was media savvy enough to unite his former coaches in protest against th Boards perceived dishonesty and turned the fan base against them.

What did Baylor do? It stonewalled and then reached all the way to Los Angeles to hire a PR firm just so that it could throw rocks back at Art Briles for the world to see,

For a group of people with such strong opinions on its alums, they couldn't find their breathe to speak when it counted.

Hiring the PR firm was nothing less than an admission of defeat from the board.

Malbec said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Ohio State fired Jim Tressel for less.

No one is going to have sympathy for a person whose lies can be directly tied to the harm of others.

---

1. Tressel resigned, after discussion with the tOSU and reaching a mutual understanding as to what was best for the university.

2. NCAA investigation resulting in major personal sanctions and post-season ban for tOSU.


Otherwise, your post is spot on and the situation is completely the same.

---

I did point out Ohio State because I want to invite that comparison.

It sounds like you and I are in agreement but the idea that a state university board in Ohio is more ethical than a private university a Christian board should be concerning to many

---

Yep

Commonly said here

"We circled the wagons and fired inward" .... "we hired investigators when should have hired a defense team"


Some priorities out of wack

---

I don't think it's a binary decision between those two choices. It's my opinion that the victims would have been better served had Baylor defended itself and in turn put their privacy in focus.

That doesn't change my mind about Briles needing to go, but we tarred a long list of assistantsa and a lifelong Baylor employee so that Baylor could create the appararance of a scorched earth policy.

The problem with that idea that the scorched earth policy was sufficient is that it conveniently exposes the fraud of a board of regents with THIRTY plus members by attempting to suggest that all f the news of Briles problem recruits was somehow a surprise.


Anyone who is/was surprised that Briles took chances on sketchy characters shouldn't be on a university board.

The time to investigate that was before he won the first big 12 title..

---

There are some smart people on this forum. Well poot.

---

He's mostly smart, he just drifts in and out occasionally. ; )

---

I'm just here to entertain !

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

Damm. For once I agree with you.

---

Come on Yoak - I said we would pound Liberty - surely you agreed with my prediction, so that is at least twice

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

Damm. For once I agree with you.

---

Come on Yoak - I said we would pound Liberty - surely you agreed with my prediction, so that is at least twice

---

Man, now I'm just wanting to get a beer and chat.

xiledinok said:

---

Only the robe touchers believe Title IX made Art and Jerry Sandusky members of the same peer group.

---

Only a cruel deluded person would say that. Has the sociopath work group lost track of you?

Brooks knows. Thanks for bringing some truth and balance to the discussion.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

It's also worth mentioning that the other smoking gun revelation in this dumpster fire is the manipulation of Baylor in the media by specific Board members and here is the important part, that occurred while other board members remained silent.

Prior to th Briles debacle, Baylor board members spent time, money and resources decorating their luxury suites in the new stadiums, writing puff pieces in the Baylor magazine about themselves and their meager donations and feigned love for BAylor U. While certain members launched vendetta campaigns against the Baylor Alumni Association. The board had no trouble finding its voice to smear Baylor alumni.

But one disgruntled employee in Art was media savvy enough to unite his former coaches in protest against th Boards perceived dishonesty and turned the fan base against them.

What did Baylor do? It stonewalled and then reached all the way to Los Angeles to hire a PR firm just so that it could throw rocks back at Art Briles for the world to see,

For a group of people with such strong opinions on its alums, they couldn't find their breathe to speak when it counted.

Hiring the PR firm was nothing less than an admission of defeat from the board.

---

Hit the nail on the head with the PR firm. There's a link there to a regent who had used them before.

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

Damm. For once I agree with you.

---

Come on Yoak - I said we would pound Liberty - surely you agreed with my prediction, so that is at least twice

---

I think we all predicted we'd pound Liberty. LOL. Oh what a few weeks and new data sets make....

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

Damm. For once I agree with you.

---

Come on Yoak - I said we would pound Liberty - surely you agreed with my prediction, so that is at least twice

---

Man, now I'm just wanting to get a beer and chat.

---

Don't get carried away....it was agreement about his comment about the "whole" totality of the failure. I'd buy you a beer tho. I'll stick with my whiskey.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

Damm. For once I agree with you.

---

Come on Yoak - I said we would pound Liberty - surely you agreed with my prediction, so that is at least twice

---

Man, now I'm just wanting to get a beer and chat.

---

Don't get carried away....it was agreement about his comment about the "whole" totality of the failure. I'd buy you a beer tho. I'll stick with my whiskey.

---

Ah, well if we're being "real" then I'd take a scotch. I was just trying to be relate-able to the unwashed plebeian masses.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

Damm. For once I agree with you.

---

Come on Yoak - I said we would pound Liberty - surely you agreed with my prediction, so that is at least twice

---

Man, now I'm just wanting to get a beer and chat.

---

Don't get carried away....it was agreement about his comment about the "whole" totality of the failure. I'd buy you a beer tho. I'll stick with my whiskey.

---

Ah, well if we're being "real" then I'd take a scotch. I was just trying to be relate-able to the unwashed plebeian masses.

---

Some of us hoi polloi drink things other than beer. I'll buy you a scotch tho. You're on.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

Word problem:

Say you have 3 people, lets call them 'A' 'B' and 'C'. All three of these people report to person 'Z'. Lets say A hears about a problem they are supposed to report and tells B and C about it, but fails to report it to Z. B and C have assumed that person A did their job and reported the problem to Z as they are required to. B and C think that now reporting to Z what they think A has already told Z would seem odd as Z should already know this information.

Do B and C get fired for not telling Z what they think Z already knows?
Or does person A get fired for not telling Z?
Or does everyone get fired and then Z goes mad and burns the school down?

---

I think it depends on what A, B and C know. Each of them may have different pieces of the story. It also depends on where A, B, and C are in hierarchy of each other. If B and C go forward, but they both answer to A (or A is significantly higher in the org chart) then A should be going forward as well.

But mandatory reporting simplifies it. If everyone shares what they know with Z, and Z is the person that's supposed to know, then A, B and C are completely in the clear. They did what they were supposed to do.

---

Can someone explain what didn't get reported ? Was it the volleyball player who actually wrote to briles thanking him for his role in helping her . Was it one of the millionaires who needed to say they told the coaches to earn their payday ? Hernandez ?

Osodecentx said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Only the robe touchers believe Title IX made Art and Jerry Sandusky members of the same peer group.

---

Only a cruel deluded person would say that. Has the sociopath work group lost track of you?

---

You need to pay attention a little better. They have something really big in common. It has nothing to do with little boys.


TellMe, the pr battle being fought by Art was pretty good with no money on the other side. However, he was not paying attention to any part of the school outside of football. It was ruthless but stopped his pr war and buried him.

Yoak, if you buy a beer for every poster on this thread, you've got deep pockets. Better limit it to Brooks.

Robemcdo said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

Word problem:

Say you have 3 people, lets call them 'A' 'B' and 'C'. All three of these people report to person 'Z'. Lets say A hears about a problem they are supposed to report and tells B and C about it, but fails to report it to Z. B and C have assumed that person A did their job and reported the problem to Z as they are required to. B and C think that now reporting to Z what they think A has already told Z would seem odd as Z should already know this information.

Do B and C get fired for not telling Z what they think Z already knows?
Or does person A get fired for not telling Z?
Or does everyone get fired and then Z goes mad and burns the school down?

---

I think it depends on what A, B and C know. Each of them may have different pieces of the story. It also depends on where A, B, and C are in hierarchy of each other. If B and C go forward, but they both answer to A (or A is significantly higher in the org chart) then A should be going forward as well.

But mandatory reporting simplifies it. If everyone shares what they know with Z, and Z is the person that's supposed to know, then A, B and C are completely in the clear. They did what they were supposed to do.

---

Can someone explain what didn't get reported ? Was it the volleyball player who actually wrote to briles thanking him for his role in helping her . Was it one of the millionaires who needed to say they told the coaches to earn their payday ? Hernandez ?

---

It was the volleyball player. That's their linchpin. Keyser alluded to it in the post that he later deleted. They have been trying to make 2+2+2+2+2+30 = 8. But, you know, new math and all.

Lynchpin is you words not theirs

What is 2+2 ...... ??? You are talking about

Keyser Soze said:

---

Lynchpin is you words not theirs

What is 2+2 ...... ??? You are talking about

---

Repost your deleted entry, correcting any inaccuracies that you say were there, and then I will lay it out for you.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

It's nice to try to think that this conversation matters, but it just really doesn't. The way this situation was handled has us branded 'Rape University' until the next major scandal. After the next major scandal, all major scandals will be compared to what happened here. If you ever try to remember our Big 12 championships, be ready for your Big 12 friends to talk rape smack.

All we have left are the people who try to argue that the board didn't do a bad job of overseeing the university (the university that they told us was catastrophically failing to comply with a widely discussed federal regulation), because they weren't doing the job at all. I wouldn't suggest using that defense to anyone who currently has a job anywhere or is currently on the board of any organization. For some reason, saying you couldn't have done a bad job because you weren't doing the job anyway flies with some Baylor people. I'll let others figure that out.

Get used to it. Our school is run by morons and we will never live it down.

Edit - For people who take issue with me saying that Title IX was 'widely discussed', more than 50 schools, many of them ion P5 conferences, were under investigation before Baylor's issues started. If that didn't get the board digging in to what was going on at Baylor, shame on them. They should all be embarrassed.

---

There are thousands of universities in this country. Thousands. The idea that there were 50 universities on a list (and we weren't one of them)... sorry, but that's dumb.

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist. I realize there was a narrative that took hold over on BaylorFans -and it was ****ty- and that some people can't quite shake it. But y'all have to move on. And some of you should consider that maybe you got stuck in some groupthink and it echoed around.

1. The BOR should not be the ones to have brought forward questions of Title IX compliance. If they were bringing it forward, it's because someone else had ****ed up. That'd be like the President asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff if we should be doing something about ISIS. If HE is the one bringing it up (and the JCOS are caught flat-footed), something is very wrong.

2. Art Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. There is proof of this. There is no denying that. He hid things from Judicial Affairs and encouraged others to. Judicial Affairs was Title IX, btw. The BOR is not responsible for that. There is no argument that makes sense to blame The BOR for Art Briles hiding things.

3. Most people are fired for things that are not criminal. Chronic lateness. Insubordination. Bringing the University into a scanda because you're hiding things from those charged with compliance. So the premise of this thread is dumb. If your threshold for firing someone is waiting for them to break the law, then you'll almost never fire anyone.

4. The BOR making the call to Pepper Hamilton was the right thing to do.

5. The university certainly had other issues. But Art Briles and his staff were the only ones I've seen who were actively hiding the truth from the univeristy's reporting apparatus. There's plenty of blame to go around, but Art Briles bears a LOT of it.

6. Most of these problems have been addressed and continue to be. I'm proud of the University for handling it. This season has been hard, but at least I know as an alum, I'm rooting for people who are doing things the right way.

---

Couldn't be more offbase

xiled (and whoever else),

Please explain why a current sitting regent voluntarily told a Baylor employee that the BOR "f*cked over Art Briles"?

Crack

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

None of the above.

BearackObama said:

---

xiled (and whoever else),

Please explain why a current sitting regent voluntarily told a Baylor employee that the BOR "f*cked over Art Briles"?

---

Because the regent is a coward and doesn't have the balls to stand up and speak out when the regents were stumbling around like drunk meth cookers tearing down buildings?


Or

He wanted the puss and he wasn't getting laid without satisfying the robe touching athletic department employee?

Or

He or she wants to be popular thus goes with popular sentiment and avoids righteousness by not resigning or publicly speaking out.

What kind of character a!lows people to be ****ed over and not speak out?
A regent that will let a coach run wild?

Good lord man get it together. Rustled so badly you can't even type intelligble sentences? Must suck to be wrong so much.

No, just relaxing enjoying 80sBear stomp a fluffer stick up my butthole via texts.
The only money I give to anything Baylor related is to an outside group not friendly to the regents.
Question.
Did the regent vote for termination?


$taley?

Keyser Soze said:

---

We don't need letters. If Briles and Barnes report to their immediate boss Ian the AD, have they done their job?

Many would say yes and in certain circumstances that would be fine. What we need to add to this is the knowledge that all knew it was not going to be reported to Judicial Affairs. That makes the situation far more messier. There is no doubt there are details we don't know, but the regents have said clearly that Briles had a responsibility to report and did not.

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

---

At that time the only instructions all BU coaches were given was to report any incidents to the AD. That was the only instructions at the time. Both Briles and Barnes did this. PH told Barnes he did everything correctly. It was the AD who was suppose to report it further. The AD didn't because he said the victim didn't want it reported. Even though he knew he was suppose to any way. The coaches were not a part of the process then because that was the only training Baylor had.

When Barnes was told by PH that he did everything right, Barnes then said how then can you say Briles didn't?
They didn't have an answer. They just new this doesn't catch fire without pinning it on Briles. Briles did not hide this and was only supportive.

Some regents called Barnes and found this out. They said they would share the info because the board didn't know this. They told the board but all went quiet after that. Apparently the board was in too deep and quieted the opposition board members.