There's 18 months of information out there you'd have to stick your heads in the sand to ignore, no one owes you anything for your purposeful ignorance.ColomboLQ said:What was Sam U's checkered past and how was Briles supposed to know about it? I'm not sure how Oakman stealing a sandwich would lead anyone to believe he would allegedly commit sexual assault. The generalities being thrown out in his statements would make it seem that there would be more examples than just 2 individuals.MilliVanilli said:Sam U and Oakman were accused of rape/ sexual assault, both had checkered pasts.ColomboLQ said:I'm not trying to be combative at all with this post, just fyi. The bolded part implies that Briles purposefully brought in people with checkered pasts and he knew of their checkered pasts and they did some really bad **** while at Baylor. I am genuinely asking who these people are and what are the horrible things they did because I honestly do not know.BrooksBearLives said:Chanceux said:Oh yeah. Yessir. Hundred percento. Aint no argument.BrooksBearLives said:
True or False:
There is proof that Art Briles actively hid conduct violations from the University?
Most people don't reckon Briles was fired for that stuff though. And really if some people on here would just admit that the firing even though it was warranted was a way for Baylor to stick the raping on Briles that'd be fine. Cuz thats what I think. If some of yall knew how Baylor treated them girls you'd prolly change yer tune too. Or if ya knew what a mess the policy at the school was. Briles aint a saint. Baylor wasnt acting too Christian with these girls. Jesus wouldnt have been proud.
Here's the fact pattern I see.
Coach comes in at a school who can't get talent, so you have to cut some corners. (Maybe they're small, but a baller. Or maybe they're not as fast, but they're smart and gamers. Or maybe they're from a bad background and/or suspect character. Take a chance and give them a chance.) We know this is fact.
Some of these are "bad dudes." He cuts corners (obviously) and hides stuff from Judicial Affairs. We know this is fact.
Some of these shady characters we took chances on ended up doing some horrible things. And they were here because he brought them. And at least some were kept here because he broke rules and hid things. Those are facts.
Add into that the sexual assaults on this campus in and out of the athletic department, it's a perfect storm.
Now, if you REALLY want to blame this on the BOR because you just don't think it's fair that a guy who deserved to get fired got fired and is also now the face of our rape problem... okay. I'm not sure if your point. But okay.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but it's definitely going around. I'm a 2x Baylor Grad who does some work in Title IX. I get confused faces all the time. I can't imagine what it's like for those there now.
Everyone is getting scarred by this. Not just him.
But we're never going to get anywhere arguing about who was arranging the ships on the Titanic. The ship went down, and there's a lot of blame. But it's gone, man. And I think we may be a little close to it to see it completely clearly right now. Emotions too raw.
Oakman had drug possession issues Cab tried to keep out of the press.
Are two sexual assault trials not enough evidence of bringing in some pretty shady characters?
Oh we don't have "fans" we have leftover caber fanboys and shills that don't know what to do with themselves since their boy didn't land anywhere else as they swore to us all that he would.TellMeYouLoveMe said:
I'm still in awe that we have fans who think the only thing Oakman did was steal a sandwich.
It's not worth anyone's time to try and explain it to that guy, just move on.
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.BrooksBearLives said:RioRata said:BrooksBearLives said:Robert Wilson said:
Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.
So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?
So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?Quote:
not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,
Think this is what he is saying.
Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.
I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.
ColomboLQ said:What was Sam U's checkered past and how was Briles supposed to know about it? I'm not sure how Oakman stealing a sandwich would lead anyone to believe he would allegedly commit sexual assault. The generalities being thrown out in his statements would make it seem that there would be more examples than just 2 individuals.MilliVanilli said:Sam U and Oakman were accused of rape/ sexual assault, both had checkered pasts.ColomboLQ said:I'm not trying to be combative at all with this post, just fyi. The bolded part implies that Briles purposefully brought in people with checkered pasts and he knew of their checkered pasts and they did some really bad **** while at Baylor. I am genuinely asking who these people are and what are the horrible things they did because I honestly do not know.BrooksBearLives said:Chanceux said:Oh yeah. Yessir. Hundred percento. Aint no argument.BrooksBearLives said:
True or False:
There is proof that Art Briles actively hid conduct violations from the University?
Most people don't reckon Briles was fired for that stuff though. And really if some people on here would just admit that the firing even though it was warranted was a way for Baylor to stick the raping on Briles that'd be fine. Cuz thats what I think. If some of yall knew how Baylor treated them girls you'd prolly change yer tune too. Or if ya knew what a mess the policy at the school was. Briles aint a saint. Baylor wasnt acting too Christian with these girls. Jesus wouldnt have been proud.
Here's the fact pattern I see.
Coach comes in at a school who can't get talent, so you have to cut some corners. (Maybe they're small, but a baller. Or maybe they're not as fast, but they're smart and gamers. Or maybe they're from a bad background and/or suspect character. Take a chance and give them a chance.) We know this is fact.
Some of these are "bad dudes." He cuts corners (obviously) and hides stuff from Judicial Affairs. We know this is fact.
Some of these shady characters we took chances on ended up doing some horrible things. And they were here because he brought them. And at least some were kept here because he broke rules and hid things. Those are facts.
Add into that the sexual assaults on this campus in and out of the athletic department, it's a perfect storm.
Now, if you REALLY want to blame this on the BOR because you just don't think it's fair that a guy who deserved to get fired got fired and is also now the face of our rape problem... okay. I'm not sure if your point. But okay.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but it's definitely going around. I'm a 2x Baylor Grad who does some work in Title IX. I get confused faces all the time. I can't imagine what it's like for those there now.
Everyone is getting scarred by this. Not just him.
But we're never going to get anywhere arguing about who was arranging the ships on the Titanic. The ship went down, and there's a lot of blame. But it's gone, man. And I think we may be a little close to it to see it completely clearly right now. Emotions too raw.
Oakman had drug possession issues Cab tried to keep out of the press.
Are two sexual assault trials not enough evidence of bringing in some pretty shady characters?
Cabers are gonna caber.BrooksBearLives said:ColomboLQ said:What was Sam U's checkered past and how was Briles supposed to know about it? I'm not sure how Oakman stealing a sandwich would lead anyone to believe he would allegedly commit sexual assault. The generalities being thrown out in his statements would make it seem that there would be more examples than just 2 individuals.MilliVanilli said:Sam U and Oakman were accused of rape/ sexual assault, both had checkered pasts.ColomboLQ said:I'm not trying to be combative at all with this post, just fyi. The bolded part implies that Briles purposefully brought in people with checkered pasts and he knew of their checkered pasts and they did some really bad **** while at Baylor. I am genuinely asking who these people are and what are the horrible things they did because I honestly do not know.BrooksBearLives said:Chanceux said:Oh yeah. Yessir. Hundred percento. Aint no argument.BrooksBearLives said:
True or False:
There is proof that Art Briles actively hid conduct violations from the University?
Most people don't reckon Briles was fired for that stuff though. And really if some people on here would just admit that the firing even though it was warranted was a way for Baylor to stick the raping on Briles that'd be fine. Cuz thats what I think. If some of yall knew how Baylor treated them girls you'd prolly change yer tune too. Or if ya knew what a mess the policy at the school was. Briles aint a saint. Baylor wasnt acting too Christian with these girls. Jesus wouldnt have been proud.
Here's the fact pattern I see.
Coach comes in at a school who can't get talent, so you have to cut some corners. (Maybe they're small, but a baller. Or maybe they're not as fast, but they're smart and gamers. Or maybe they're from a bad background and/or suspect character. Take a chance and give them a chance.) We know this is fact.
Some of these are "bad dudes." He cuts corners (obviously) and hides stuff from Judicial Affairs. We know this is fact.
Some of these shady characters we took chances on ended up doing some horrible things. And they were here because he brought them. And at least some were kept here because he broke rules and hid things. Those are facts.
Add into that the sexual assaults on this campus in and out of the athletic department, it's a perfect storm.
Now, if you REALLY want to blame this on the BOR because you just don't think it's fair that a guy who deserved to get fired got fired and is also now the face of our rape problem... okay. I'm not sure if your point. But okay.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but it's definitely going around. I'm a 2x Baylor Grad who does some work in Title IX. I get confused faces all the time. I can't imagine what it's like for those there now.
Everyone is getting scarred by this. Not just him.
But we're never going to get anywhere arguing about who was arranging the ships on the Titanic. The ship went down, and there's a lot of blame. But it's gone, man. And I think we may be a little close to it to see it completely clearly right now. Emotions too raw.
Oakman had drug possession issues Cab tried to keep out of the press.
Are two sexual assault trials not enough evidence of bringing in some pretty shady characters?
Oh wow. You're painfully uninformed.
they say that all the time and then start threads about CABNoBSU said:I listed the three that were telling us to move on. The ones you listed were not saying that.JusHappy2BeHere said:you left out Brooks Bear, Tell me, Milli, and about 100 other BOR paid shills/fluffersNoBSU said:
GG1234/Robert Wilson/Malbec/others saying to move on. PM Mothra. He stated the thread. He asked the question.
It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.BrooksBearLives said:RioRata said:BrooksBearLives said:Robert Wilson said:
Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.
So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?
So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?Quote:
not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,
Think this is what he is saying.
Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.
I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.
FIFYKeyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and HIS coachMalbec said:Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.BrooksBearLives said:RioRata said:BrooksBearLives said:Robert Wilson said:
Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.
So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?
So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?Quote:
not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,
Think this is what he is saying.
Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.
I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.
The problem with setting up that vetting system is that it creates more of the WE vs. THEM mentality. At some point coaches decide they want the recruit. The coaches at both schools have talked. Read the media reports of Robbie Rhodes transfer to Bowling Green and read the released text messages. The two don't match up completely. They found him a new home where the Bowling Green coaches knew what the situation was. The media did nor know the full story. Did Bowling Green's AD know. Did the Bowling Green Admissions Department know the full or partial story.Keyser Soze said:
Baylor / Briles are both somewhat clear in the case of Sam U. The domestic violence in his past prior to Baylor appears to have not been know until his trial. What should have been clear was he was not the most stable guy around.
Oakman is different story. The PSU coach told Briles he thought he deserved one more chance, but it could not be at PSU. That was good enough for Briles. Oakman was a regular with police while at State College and PSU had a lengthy file on him.
FYI - a much more rigorous vetting of transfers was one of the 105 recommendations
Go look at the 20 other threads this same questions was asked.JusHappy2BeHere said:
Was Briles the only one who offered these "Bad Dudes"?
Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
Keyser Soze said:Go look at the 20 other threads this same questions was asked.JusHappy2BeHere said:
Was Briles the only one who offered these "Bad Dudes"?
Did the PSU coach talk to Briles or to Norwood?Keyser Soze said:
Baylor / Briles are both somewhat clear in the case of Sam U. The domestic violence in his past prior to Baylor appears to have not been know until his trial. What should have been clear was he was not the most stable guy around.
Oakman is different story. The PSU coach told Briles he thought he deserved one more chance, but it could not be at PSU. That was good enough for Briles. Oakman was a regular with police while at State College and PSU had a lengthy file on him. ...
Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
Ok what you are saying basically matches up with what I believe I knew. Hence my previous question about Sam U. Another poster (who didn't answer my questions) stated that Briles purposefully brought in shady guys and they did "horrible" things. Outside of Oakman, who are these dudes? I'm honestly asking because I don't know of anyone else that Briles knew had a checkered/shady past or had done bad things in the past and he purposefully brought them to Baylor anyway and they did horrible things.Keyser Soze said:
Baylor / Briles are both somewhat clear in the case of Sam U. The domestic violence in his past prior to Baylor appears to have not been know until his trial. What should have been clear was he was not the most stable guy around.
Oakman is different story. The PSU coach told Briles he thought he deserved one more chance, but it could not be at PSU. That was good enough for Briles. Oakman was a regular with police while at State College and PSU had a lengthy file on him.
FYI - a much more rigorous vetting of transfers was one of the 105 recommendations
That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
Let's hear what you got...TellMeYouLoveMe said:
I'm still in awe that we have fans who think the only thing Oakman did was steal a sandwich.
It's not worth anyone's time to try and explain it to that guy, just move on.
Please educate me.BrooksBearLives said:ColomboLQ said:What was Sam U's checkered past and how was Briles supposed to know about it? I'm not sure how Oakman stealing a sandwich would lead anyone to believe he would allegedly commit sexual assault. The generalities being thrown out in his statements would make it seem that there would be more examples than just 2 individuals.MilliVanilli said:Sam U and Oakman were accused of rape/ sexual assault, both had checkered pasts.ColomboLQ said:I'm not trying to be combative at all with this post, just fyi. The bolded part implies that Briles purposefully brought in people with checkered pasts and he knew of their checkered pasts and they did some really bad **** while at Baylor. I am genuinely asking who these people are and what are the horrible things they did because I honestly do not know.BrooksBearLives said:Chanceux said:Oh yeah. Yessir. Hundred percento. Aint no argument.BrooksBearLives said:
True or False:
There is proof that Art Briles actively hid conduct violations from the University?
Most people don't reckon Briles was fired for that stuff though. And really if some people on here would just admit that the firing even though it was warranted was a way for Baylor to stick the raping on Briles that'd be fine. Cuz thats what I think. If some of yall knew how Baylor treated them girls you'd prolly change yer tune too. Or if ya knew what a mess the policy at the school was. Briles aint a saint. Baylor wasnt acting too Christian with these girls. Jesus wouldnt have been proud.
Here's the fact pattern I see.
Coach comes in at a school who can't get talent, so you have to cut some corners. (Maybe they're small, but a baller. Or maybe they're not as fast, but they're smart and gamers. Or maybe they're from a bad background and/or suspect character. Take a chance and give them a chance.) We know this is fact.
Some of these are "bad dudes." He cuts corners (obviously) and hides stuff from Judicial Affairs. We know this is fact.
Some of these shady characters we took chances on ended up doing some horrible things. And they were here because he brought them. And at least some were kept here because he broke rules and hid things. Those are facts.
Add into that the sexual assaults on this campus in and out of the athletic department, it's a perfect storm.
Now, if you REALLY want to blame this on the BOR because you just don't think it's fair that a guy who deserved to get fired got fired and is also now the face of our rape problem... okay. I'm not sure if your point. But okay.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but it's definitely going around. I'm a 2x Baylor Grad who does some work in Title IX. I get confused faces all the time. I can't imagine what it's like for those there now.
Everyone is getting scarred by this. Not just him.
But we're never going to get anywhere arguing about who was arranging the ships on the Titanic. The ship went down, and there's a lot of blame. But it's gone, man. And I think we may be a little close to it to see it completely clearly right now. Emotions too raw.
Oakman had drug possession issues Cab tried to keep out of the press.
Are two sexual assault trials not enough evidence of bringing in some pretty shady characters?
Oh wow. You're painfully uninformed.
Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
I assume you're talking about me. I said did not say Briles seeked out shady guys. I said he understood that there were trade-offs. If Oakman -and all his talent- could have handled his business and kept his temper at bay, he would have stayed at Penn State.ColomboLQ said:Ok what you are saying basically matches up with what I believe I knew. Hence my previous question about Sam U. Another poster (who didn't answer my questions) stated that Briles purposefully brought in shady guys and they did "horrible" things. Outside of Oakman, who are these dudes? I'm honestly asking because I don't know of anyone else that Briles knew had a checkered/shady past or had done bad things in the past and he purposefully brought them to Baylor anyway and they did horrible things.Keyser Soze said:
Baylor / Briles are both somewhat clear in the case of Sam U. The domestic violence in his past prior to Baylor appears to have not been know until his trial. What should have been clear was he was not the most stable guy around.
Oakman is different story. The PSU coach told Briles he thought he deserved one more chance, but it could not be at PSU. That was good enough for Briles. Oakman was a regular with police while at State College and PSU had a lengthy file on him.
FYI - a much more rigorous vetting of transfers was one of the 105 recommendations
Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.
Keyser Soze said:Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.
We also have Briles, Barnes, and McCaw who would know. If Briles truly wants to work again, he would get this out somehow. We all know KWTX has no problems making a headline story out of an anonymous quote.
Your original post said that sometimes coaches cut corners and bring in shady guys with checkered backgrounds and some of the shady dudes he brought in did some horrible things. I know that not every dude we recruited was going to be an angel. And I agree with you about Oakman, if he had been more mature and handled himself better while at PSU, he would have finished there. But to me, there is a difference between recruiting a guy with a rough background (rough neighborhood, hard upbringing, etc) and a guy with a serious history of assault or armed robberies, or anything like that. I totally get he recruited the first type I mention. But I've seen it said on here and even in the national media that he purposefully was bringing in the 2nd type of recruit I was mentioning and was purposefully putting women in harm's way at Baylor just to bring in good football players and win games. I personally haven't seen evidence of this, which is why I was asking, who were these players. And maybe this isn't what you meant, so you don't have an answer, but I'm hoping someone at some point will have an answer.BrooksBearLives said:I assume you're talking about me. I said did not say Briles seeked out shady guys. I said he understood that there were trade-offs. If Oakman -and all his talent- could have handled his business and kept his temper at bay, he would have stayed at Penn State.ColomboLQ said:Ok what you are saying basically matches up with what I believe I knew. Hence my previous question about Sam U. Another poster (who didn't answer my questions) stated that Briles purposefully brought in shady guys and they did "horrible" things. Outside of Oakman, who are these dudes? I'm honestly asking because I don't know of anyone else that Briles knew had a checkered/shady past or had done bad things in the past and he purposefully brought them to Baylor anyway and they did horrible things.Keyser Soze said:
Baylor / Briles are both somewhat clear in the case of Sam U. The domestic violence in his past prior to Baylor appears to have not been know until his trial. What should have been clear was he was not the most stable guy around.
Oakman is different story. The PSU coach told Briles he thought he deserved one more chance, but it could not be at PSU. That was good enough for Briles. Oakman was a regular with police while at State College and PSU had a lengthy file on him.
FYI - a much more rigorous vetting of transfers was one of the 105 recommendations
Does anyone disagree with that?
JW Ketchum had a ridiculous background and we took a chance on him. Are you saying there aren't other players we took that only fell into our laps (weren't recruited other places as hard) if they didn't have some of the backgrounds they had? IDK, man.
I don't think for a second Briles looked for bad dudes. That doesn't make any sense. I just think he understood it was a trade-off and accepted it.
I have no problem believing there are a few rats in the woodpile at the regent level.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.
We also have Briles, Barnes, and McCaw who would know. If Briles truly wants to work again, he would get this out somehow. We all know KWTX has no problems making a headline story out of an anonymous quote.
I'm just saying that NDAs are involved and I know for a fact those ~30 were told to stay on the reservation. Call it a threat or whatever, but they were told of the consequences for not being aligned.
I'm not arguing about Briles, Barnes, McCaw, etc. Those guys are gone and all sides need to let it go already.
Keyser Soze said:I have no problem believing there are a few rats in the woodpile at the regent level.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.
We also have Briles, Barnes, and McCaw who would know. If Briles truly wants to work again, he would get this out somehow. We all know KWTX has no problems making a headline story out of an anonymous quote.
I'm just saying that NDAs are involved and I know for a fact those ~30 were told to stay on the reservation. Call it a threat or whatever, but they were told of the consequences for not being aligned.
I'm not arguing about Briles, Barnes, McCaw, etc. Those guys are gone and all sides need to let it go already.
I do have a big problem believing the majority of them either don't know the truth and / or choose to go along with willful deception. It is just a ridiculous proposition to buy into.
I agree we all need to let it go, but surly you don't think Briles should let it go if a blatant lie is keeping him from doing what he loves.
YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:I have no problem believing there are a few rats in the woodpile at the regent level.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.
We also have Briles, Barnes, and McCaw who would know. If Briles truly wants to work again, he would get this out somehow. We all know KWTX has no problems making a headline story out of an anonymous quote.
I'm just saying that NDAs are involved and I know for a fact those ~30 were told to stay on the reservation. Call it a threat or whatever, but they were told of the consequences for not being aligned.
I'm not arguing about Briles, Barnes, McCaw, etc. Those guys are gone and all sides need to let it go already.
I do have a big problem believing the majority of them either don't know the truth and / or choose to go along with willful deception. It is just a ridiculous proposition to buy into.
I agree we all need to let it go, but surly you don't think Briles should let it go if a blatant lie is keeping him from doing what he loves.
There's lots of rats in that woodpile. Keeping their collective mouths shut is very small compared to the scumbaggery some have accomplished professionally outside of their regent membership. Perhaps speaking up or out is too high a personal and financial cost after the consequences were laid out not to mention their perceived loss of stature if they no longer are part of that group. All I know is that consequences for going off the reservation were laid out. Briles is on his own; he tried and failed.
Why are you obsessing over something that you have already said wasn't the real reason that Briles was fired?Keyser Soze said:Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.
We also have Briles, Barnes, and McCaw who would know. If Briles truly wants to work again, he would get this out somehow. We all know KWTX has no problems making a headline story out of an anonymous quote.
NoBSU said:It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.RioRata said:BrooksBearLives said:RioRata said:BrooksBearLives said:Robert Wilson said:
Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.
So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?
So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?Quote:
not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,
Think this is what he is saying.
Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.
I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.
A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.
It sounds like we're actually largely in agreement. I don't think Briles specifically looked for shady dudes, I just think he was willing to take a chance and perhaps overlook some obvious deficiencies. This isn't news. I actually liked the idea of giving someone a second chance -especially if they came from a worse background- if we were going to work hard to keep them in line. And that's the story we were told.ColomboLQ said:Your original post said that sometimes coaches cut corners and bring in shady guys with checkered backgrounds and some of the shady dudes he brought in did some horrible things. I know that not every dude we recruited was going to be an angel. And I agree with you about Oakman, if he had been more mature and handled himself better while at PSU, he would have finished there. But to me, there is a difference between recruiting a guy with a rough background (rough neighborhood, hard upbringing, etc) and a guy with a serious history of assault or armed robberies, or anything like that. I totally get he recruited the first type I mention. But I've seen it said on here and even in the national media that he purposefully was bringing in the 2nd type of recruit I was mentioning and was purposefully putting women in harm's way at Baylor just to bring in good football players and win games. I personally haven't seen evidence of this, which is why I was asking, who were these players. And maybe this isn't what you meant, so you don't have an answer, but I'm hoping someone at some point will have an answer.BrooksBearLives said:I assume you're talking about me. I said did not say Briles seeked out shady guys. I said he understood that there were trade-offs. If Oakman -and all his talent- could have handled his business and kept his temper at bay, he would have stayed at Penn State.ColomboLQ said:Ok what you are saying basically matches up with what I believe I knew. Hence my previous question about Sam U. Another poster (who didn't answer my questions) stated that Briles purposefully brought in shady guys and they did "horrible" things. Outside of Oakman, who are these dudes? I'm honestly asking because I don't know of anyone else that Briles knew had a checkered/shady past or had done bad things in the past and he purposefully brought them to Baylor anyway and they did horrible things.Keyser Soze said:
Baylor / Briles are both somewhat clear in the case of Sam U. The domestic violence in his past prior to Baylor appears to have not been know until his trial. What should have been clear was he was not the most stable guy around.
Oakman is different story. The PSU coach told Briles he thought he deserved one more chance, but it could not be at PSU. That was good enough for Briles. Oakman was a regular with police while at State College and PSU had a lengthy file on him.
FYI - a much more rigorous vetting of transfers was one of the 105 recommendations
Does anyone disagree with that?
JW Ketchum had a ridiculous background and we took a chance on him. Are you saying there aren't other players we took that only fell into our laps (weren't recruited other places as hard) if they didn't have some of the backgrounds they had? IDK, man.
I don't think for a second Briles looked for bad dudes. That doesn't make any sense. I just think he understood it was a trade-off and accepted it.
FIFUMalbec said:Why are you obsessing over something that you have already said wasn't theKeyser Soze said:Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.YoakDaddy said:Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.Keyser Soze said:Malbec said:Disagree.Keyser Soze said:It is according to the victim and her coachMalbec said:
Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.
I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.
So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?
You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.
Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.
We also have Briles, Barnes, and McCaw who would know. If Briles truly wants to work again, he would get this out somehow. We all know KWTX has no problems making a headline story out of an anonymous quote.realonlyreason that Briles was fired?
Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.RioRata said:NoBSU said:It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.RioRata said:BrooksBearLives said:RioRata said:BrooksBearLives said:Robert Wilson said:
Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.
So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?
So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?Quote:
not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,
Think this is what he is saying.
Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.
I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.
A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.
Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.
