Please reply to this post with the quote,
"Art Briles Will Always Be A Baylor Bear"...
"Art Briles Will Always Be A Baylor Bear"...
If you believe in Art...
37,349 Views |
299 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Forest Bueller
Art deserves better. Best of luck to him. Best of luck to Baylor.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
If you believe that 31 BU football players committed 52 sexual assaults including 5 gang rapes, despite no convictions, please respond in quotes
" I will always be a dumb ass"
" I will always be a dumb ass"
Art Briles will always be a Baylor Bear, and McLane Stadium will always be the house that Art Briles built.
Could the question be reframed in order to be less ambiguous?
I don't think this thread had the intended result that the original poster had hoped for. He might be wise to just delete it.Aberzombie1892 said:
Could the question be reframed in order to be less ambiguous?
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents. I wish him well. He should have a statue in front of our stadium.
You would think if Art was not responsible, he and his lawyers posting on this site would have freed him from his face of rape legacy.
The America public's court of public opinion has made its decision. They would rather move on like college football and the respected professional leagues.
The America public's court of public opinion has made its decision. They would rather move on like college football and the respected professional leagues.
If you are someone who likes to imply Art Briles covered up rape (which is a crime), with still no evidence 4 years later.
Please respond in quotes:
"I'm a dip **** with an agenda".
Please respond in quotes:
"I'm a dip **** with an agenda".
Dman said:
If you are someone who likes to imply Art Briles covered up rape (which is a crime), with still no evidence 4 years later.
Please respond in quotes:
"I'm a dip **** (X) with an agenda".
FIFY
xiledinok said:
You would think if Art was not responsible, he and his lawyers posting on this site would have freed him from his face of rape legacy.
The America public's court of public opinion has made its decision. They would rather move on like college football and the respected professional leagues.
When youre like X and spend literally years of your life obsessed over a man who doesn't know you exist. While trying to tell us you don't care.
Respond with the quote:
"OWNED".
Art covered and concealed crimes.
You guys don't want the media reading this board because some bumpkin at a directional Mississippi might interview Art before taking a beatdown in the media.
Art Briles is a fired disgraced American football coach. I read it on Wiki.
You guys don't want the media reading this board because some bumpkin at a directional Mississippi might interview Art before taking a beatdown in the media.
Art Briles is a fired disgraced American football coach. I read it on Wiki.
LOL!xiledinok said:
I read it on Wiki.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
xiledi
Owned
[/quote said:
And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
Just heard he's being considered by Southern Miss.
Unfortunately, only five or so of the Regents were the decision-makers. The rest were potted plants.Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
You've really got it in for the plant and nursery business, don't you?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Unfortunately, only five or so of the Regents were the decision-makers. The rest were potted plants.Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
Southern...yeah, I don't think he'll pass muster in the South.
He'll look like even a bigger d-bag desperately taking over as an Oc at S.Miss thought that ain't happening.
He'll look like even a bigger d-bag desperately taking over as an Oc at S.Miss thought that ain't happening.
Great point, RD2. Any large group has a hand full of leaders that decide everything. Do people think the folks who show up to eat shrimp and see their friends really know anything other than what they're told?
Herb and those reset charter guys made the board a Baptist Country Club regent setting to keep the fundies out because the fundies would have turned Baylor into Bible college. No chance Baylor gets in the Big 12 with fundies in control. The academic reputation would have also gone to the dogs.
There were mistakes at every level. Those who shame!y and quietly went away escaped with only the TAPPS boys and Baptist inner circle folks mad at them with no universal shame.
On the other hand, those who made noise deserved to get blast. It works that way outside the bubble. The general public hates the noise makers. They don't think they got their due.
There were mistakes at every level. Those who shame!y and quietly went away escaped with only the TAPPS boys and Baptist inner circle folks mad at them with no universal shame.
On the other hand, those who made noise deserved to get blast. It works that way outside the bubble. The general public hates the noise makers. They don't think they got their due.
Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
Football wins have a crack like effect on some
If he actually covered and concealed crimes which others knew about...and they clearly haven't reported it to authorities...they're complicit too.xiledinok said:
Art covered and concealed crimes.
You guys don't want the media reading this board because some bumpkin at a directional Mississippi might interview Art before taking a beatdown in the media.
Art Briles is a fired disgraced American football coach. I read it on Wiki.
So no.
Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.
Complete mythDoc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.
Not a myth. You can make an easy legal argument for it.Keyser Soze said:Complete mythDoc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.
The BOR and higher ups at the time were responsible for oversight which includes having proper title IX requirements and ensuring them.
If you don't believe it answer this. Who is held responsible if the requirements are neglected? Who would be listed in a lawsuit today?
I have to give it to the BOR for being witty enough to craft the perfect narrative and using school funds in settlements to protect themselves.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...Doc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.
"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."
Yes. Pay the reward. Ian and Art lead the way. You need to realize it. Mistakes at every level. You must have missed the regent threads.Doc Holliday said:If he actually covered and concealed crimes which others knew about...and they clearly haven't reported it to authorities...they're complicit too.xiledinok said:
Art covered and concealed crimes.
You guys don't want the media reading this board because some bumpkin at a directional Mississippi might interview Art before taking a beatdown in the media.
Art Briles is a fired disgraced American football coach. I read it on Wiki.
So no.
Conference Savior Ken was asleep at the wheel. He committed no crimes. His job was to run the line and make enough appearances to convince the blind sheep that everything was great at Baylor.
Smoking gun? Give a Baylor 1000 cuts and let's see what is left. The slow kill is terrible.
Baylor hired Ken, Ian and Art to do their jobs and not to create liabilities. Sorry Shill and Art could not fix a thing or didn't have the ethics to try.
Keyser Soze said:Complete mythDoc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.
Welcome back Keyser. You got the bat call. We were all curious. It's really only time you pop up.
Having served on multiple boards, non-profit, for profit, and academic...you're dead wrong. There is absolutely a strong exposure to personal accountability. To suggest otherwise is absolutely ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty...something you've trade marked regarding your selective outrage. It's why they kept EVERYTHING private. No notes, no formal write-up, or discovery from PH. Plain and simple. Control liability. Their own FoF were without any back-up to be reviewed or scrutinized by anyone on the outside. It's also why they fight to stay on the BoR versus doing the right thing and walking away. They needed to not only control the information, but use Baylor's dime to cover any legal responses and retort under the greater BoR umbrella during the lawsuits they knew were coming. Plus.. remain covered by the insurance (which is the only accurate aspect of your statement)
It's just logic. Put the pieces together.Bearish said:This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...Doc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.
"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."
To this day, nobody can explain what it directly was that Mr. Briles did wrong. Not a single person.
No one has said "This sexual assault event happened and Art Briles did so and so which is the basis for his removal".
If there was something, why wouldn't the BOR expose it?
Doc Holliday said:Not a myth. You can make an easy legal argument for it.Keyser Soze said:Complete mythDoc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.
The BOR and higher ups at the time were responsible for oversight which includes having proper title IX requirements and ensuring them.
If you don't believe it answer this. Who is held responsible if the requirements are neglected? Who would be listed in a lawsuit today?
I have to give it to the BOR for being witty enough to craft the perfect narrative and using school funds in settlements to protect themselves.
Just No
Title IX is an institutional level obligation, that is why individuals such as Briles were dropped as defendants to Title IX cases. You have to get into the world of conspiring to deny victims rights to attach material liability to individuals.
The lawsuits are all primarily Jane Doe v Baylor -- if there is liability I assure you the plaintiff's lawyers would be shaking the tree .... they are not
Now if you want to call them incompetent or asleep at the wheel you won't get any argument here
Doc Holliday said:It's just logic. Put the pieces together.Bearish said:This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...Doc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection. Protection from lawsuits against the highest members/BOR at Baylor.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
That's why the PH report was hidden, why settlements with CAB were made and why we're all still arguing about it.
"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."
To this day, nobody can explain what it directly was that Mr. Briles did wrong. Not a single person.
No one has said "This sexual assault event happened and Art Briles did so and so which is the basis for his removal".
If there was something, why wouldn't the BOR expose it?
Rusty Hardin told you plenty. You can read it here
https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/baylorresponse.pdf
There are more than enough reasons there. Fair to question if they can back all that up or not, but don't say you have not been told.
If the PH report was made public, I guarantee you they would be shaking that tree.Keyser Soze said:Doc Holliday said:Not a myth. You can make an easy legal argument for it.Keyser Soze said:Complete mythDoc Holliday said:Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...Bearish said:And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
The fact that some people consider the idea of Art being a rape-enabling cover-up artist ridiculous, while at the same time posit that 80% of a governing body of a university saved collective face by firing a football coach is something I'll never understand.
The firing was about protection.
There is no smoking gun. Never has been. The regents would have loved nothing more than exposing an Art Briles smoking gun.
The real smoking gun is Ken Starr and the BOR fought over title IX and nobody did their job which lead to a campus wide problem. Art Briles and football was an easy way out.
Personal liability is just about non-existent at the regent level and there was insurance to cover that. This is just the CAB apologist line that get repeated.
The BOR and higher ups at the time were responsible for oversight which includes having proper title IX requirements and ensuring them.
If you don't believe it answer this. Who is held responsible if the requirements are neglected? Who would be listed in a lawsuit today?
I have to give it to the BOR for being witty enough to craft the perfect narrative and using school funds in settlements to protect themselves.
Just No
Title IX is an institutional level obligation, that is why individuals such as Briles were dropped as defendants to Title IX cases. You have to get into the world of conspiring to deny victims rights to attach material liability to individuals.
The lawsuits are all primarily Jane Doe v Baylor -- if there is liability I assure you the plaintiff's lawyers would be shaking the tree .... they are not
Now if you want to call them incompetent or asleep at the wheel you won't get any argument here
Then you would have the legal evidence to make the case that they were neglectful.
Featured Stories
See All
Insider Notes: QB Battle Ramps Up, Attrition Needed, Transfer Portal Help
by Grayson Grundhoefer
Baylor Spring "Game" Preview: OL Concerns, Star Power, and More
by Travis Roeder
Spring Breakdown: Tight Ends Embracing Change
by Craig Smoak
Baylor Football Transfer Portal Intel (Running Thread)
by Grayson Grundhoefer