Football
Sponsored by

If you believe in Art...

37,615 Views | 299 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Forest Bueller
Thee University
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chorne68 • 7:41p, 2/4/19
chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents. I wish him well. He should have a statue in front of our stadium.
A statue for a .604 coach?

He was .637 all time thanks to pansy non-con and .565 in Big 12 conference play.

At UH he was .548 all time and .600 in whatever conference UH played in.

I'm not sure that is statue worthy. Elm Mott might allow it but it is way too early for Waco to put one up and Baylor is certainly not going to do it.

Besides, if it looks anything like the RG3 statue I hope we wait until we find a new sculptor.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/baylor-gave-rg3-a-bronze-statue-about-20-years-too-early

"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
Reply Quote
1
xiledinok
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thee University • 8:22p, 2/4/19
Thee University said:
chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents. I wish him well. He should have a statue in front of our stadium.
A statue for a .604 coach?

He was .637 all time thanks to pansy non-con and .565 in Big 12 conference play.

At UH he was .548 all time and .600 in whatever conference UH played in.

I'm not sure that is statue worthy. Elm Mott might allow it but it is way too early for Waco to put one up and Baylor is certainly not going to do it.

Besides, if it looks anything like the RG3 statue I hope we wait until we find a new sculptor.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/baylor-gave-rg3-a-bronze-statue-about-20-years-too-early



These schools just cannot wait for recruiting purposes. Ou cannot even get the money for the two more they need to get built. An excuse to raise money for athletics for cash hungry school. "Come play football, get a statue ASAP and an average education."
Reply Quote
3 edits
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keyser Soze • 8:26p, 2/4/19
Keyser Soze said:
Robert Wilson said:
Keyser Soze said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bearish said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bearish said:
chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

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.
Until you realize 80% of the governing body would have been personally held accountable for a campus wide problem...

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.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

"There's no smoking gun on Art, so I'm going to present the following conjectures as undeniable facts."
It's just logic. Put the pieces together.
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.



When you'd like to have faith in our BOR, but then you remember they're still pushing this thing...

Hope Keyser is on a decent retainer. They've got him working hard cutting and pasting the same old stuff on repeat.
And two years have past and none of you conspiracy guys have come up with anything to rebut it.



That is some weak **** on about 8 levels. But I know your school of thought is that if you repeat it long enough, it will work on enough people. That is probably true.

The truth is somewhere in the dirty middle. But that is nuanced and complicated, and that is not in the playbook .
Reply Quote
2
YoakDaddy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:56p, 2/4/19
What'd I miss?

Keyser is back out (just teasing). Must be some bad news gonna drop.
Reply Quote
5
Thee University
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dman • 9:53p, 2/4/19
Dman said:



1. I agree Art didn't cover up rape. It's a crime. He'd of been arrested. This doesn't fit the trolls narrative on the board (THEE, X, etc) or the media's...but it's fact

__________ you *****!!! I NEVER said he covered up rape. Covered up rape? You idiot. You can't be a Baylor grad. Impossible!
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
Reply Quote
bularry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sailor Bear • 9:58p, 2/4/19
Bearish said:
chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents.
And 24 of 30 regents who voted to remove him were culprits in this scam?

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.


People can be willfully stupid when they don't like the facts.
Reply Quote
3
Reverend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thee University • 10:06p, 2/4/19
Don't trip over your own feet as you backtrack.
Reply Quote
6
xiledinok
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:24p, 2/4/19
You guys want to create a narrative on what was and was not posted to blame the bloggers if Southern Mississippi decides otherwise.
I 've have never posted that he covered rape.
There's inaccurate numbers were littering these threads and the internet.
All that 0\0\0 narrative was created by Ian's buddy.
The 52 number was a Plaintiff's lawyer.


Etc....General public?
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Chuckroast
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keyser Soze • 10:27p, 2/4/19
Keyser Soze said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


And those exact same actions protected Baylor, you just choose to read conspiracy into it. They had an obligation to protect Baylor and they did.

Again. Not arguing the didn't screw up on many levels, just that they had no personal loss to fear. It just a far stretch


Dman is exactly right. Certain BOR members are not resigning because they need to continue to control the narrative. Some of the regents were in fact sued by Briles himself. We all saw their scorched earth tactics in response. They didn't hesitate to throw Baylor under the bus by upping the number of assaults in the WSJ article. They signaled that KB would be a target if Briles pressed on with his lawsuit. They also had infinite legal resources since Baylor was required to provide their defense. Had Briles continued with his suit, he would have had to sit by and watch his son and staff get publicly vilified.

There's a good argument to be made that directors and officers insurance won't cover a board member who acted grossly negligent or in bad faith. I would definitely not sit back and rely on the university's directors and officers or errors and omissions coverage if there's a chance it could be argued that I acted outside the scope of my authority as a board member.
Reply Quote
10
2 edits
Timbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:45p, 2/4/19
Bottom line, Art was not fired for cause. They just wanted him gone for political reasons, and paid $M's. Hope Southern Miss has the guts to hire him.
Reply Quote
13
Keyser Soze
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chuckroast • 10:45p, 2/4/19
So specifically what individuals were grossly negligent and what did they do?





Reply Quote
4
BoonDockSaint
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:04a, 2/5/19
I would ENSHRINE a 100m statue for him
Reply Quote
2
SATXBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dman • 7:07a, 2/5/19
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.
Reply Quote
4
Stan Mikita
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chuckroast • 7:08a, 2/5/19
Chuckroast said:
Keyser Soze said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


And those exact same actions protected Baylor, you just choose to read conspiracy into it. They had an obligation to protect Baylor and they did.

Again. Not arguing the didn't screw up on many levels, just that they had no personal loss to fear. It just a far stretch


Dman is exactly right. Certain BOR members are not resigning because they need to continue to control the narrative. Some of the regents were in fact sued by Briles himself. We all saw their scorched earth tactics in response. They didn't hesitate to throw Baylor under the bus by upping the number of assaults in the WSJ article. They signaled that KB would be a target if Briles pressed on with his lawsuit. They also had infinite legal resources since Baylor was required to provide their defense. Had Briles continued with his suit, he would have had to sit by and watch his son and staff get publicly vilified.

There's a good argument to be made that directors and officers insurance won't cover a board member who acted grossly negligent or in bad faith. I would definitely not sit back and rely on the university's directors and officers or errors and omissions coverage if there's a chance it could be argued that I acted outside the scope of my authority as a board member.
It really has been Baylor Christianity at its finest.
Reply Quote
3
Dman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keyser Soze • 7:40a, 2/5/19
Keyser Soze said:
So specifically what individuals were grossly negligent and what did they do?







This is where you start looking like Bill Clinton telling us what the definition of "is" is...and
The rest of the world watching is asking...does he think we are falling for it. It's the definition of intellectual dishonesty. They hid ALL the data, now he's saying they haven't been sued so they're innocent. So does that same standard apply to Briles? And for the record..I don't think any committed "crimes".

You used allegations and quotes from the BoR, FoF controlled and and written by the BoR for the BoR, and many other click bait articles from media to form
Your opinion and hold Briles to a standard.

Then when actual legal depositions, testimony under oath (all legally more substantial than self generated FoFs or media hype) from faculty that was present, even the BoRs own interim president...AND actual current and former BOR members come out and call out the hypocrisy and failures of this BoR..you twist and pierce every word looking for ways to invalidate that messenger and defend the BoR.

You show up as needed and have done this for years now at their beckon call. Youve admitted "knowing that these are good people" for the most part. I've met one. I'm sure they want well. But they failed our university on a massive level and once they did..they knee jerked and went into "protect themselves mode". Their own actions are all that his needed for proof. Not one stepped down!! Let that sink in. Not one! When in any other BoR who failed at this level and cost our university hundreds of millions would have been been dismissed as a body had they answered to anyone but themselves. Had they wanted to act honorably, they would have let another BoR phase in under a controlled timeline. But this would have taken them out of control of the message and more importantly the information.

You simply have no credibility on this topic when you have such blatant double standards and impartiality.

I've alreasy shown you where you were wrong to call personal liability for BOR members a "myth".
Reply Quote
7
Keyser Soze
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dman • 7:48a, 2/5/19
Talk about repeat the same old same old

All those words and not one name or specific act

Tell us the names and what they did !
Reply Quote
3
Dman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SATXBear • 7:57a, 2/5/19
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.
Reply Quote
5
Keyser Soze
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dman • 8:21a, 2/5/19
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.

There is no personal liability for the failure to have Title IX implemented as it should have been, and say implemented T9 in the broadest of terms. Screw up - sure, agree 100%, but many things can go wrong, and unfortunately they did, and there is NO personal liability to regents.

Here is an example: they know assault victims are being ignored and not getting the accommodations needed and required. It is a budget buster so the they deliberately don't make changes. That is what personal liability looks like - it also didn't happen.

It takes specific acts of wrongdoing. So, AGAIN, give us the names and specific acts that gave rise to this personal liability. You won't because you can't.




Reply Quote
2
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keyser Soze • 8:27a, 2/5/19
Keyser Soze said:
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.



It takes specific acts of wrongdoing. So, AGAIN, give us the names and specific acts that gave rise to this personal liability. You won't because you can't.








Exact same thing can be said about the so-called 31 football rapists.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Reply Quote
9
robby44
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 8:31a, 2/5/19
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Keyser Soze said:
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.



It takes specific acts of wrongdoing. So, AGAIN, give us the names and specific acts that gave rise to this personal liability. You won't because you can't.








Exact same thing can be said about the so-called 31 football rapists.

31 rapists roaming the Baylor campus freely
Maurading, raping and terrorizing the village unchecked
Reply Quote
8
Keyser Soze
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 8:38a, 2/5/19
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Keyser Soze said:
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.



It takes specific acts of wrongdoing. So, AGAIN, give us the names and specific acts that gave rise to this personal liability. You won't because you can't.








Exact same thing can be said about the so-called 31 football rapists.

Good point R2. 31 rapist was a baseless rumor too.





Reply Quote
Keyser Soze
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to robby44 • 8:39a, 2/5/19
robby44 said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Keyser Soze said:
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.



It takes specific acts of wrongdoing. So, AGAIN, give us the names and specific acts that gave rise to this personal liability. You won't because you can't.








Exact same thing can be said about the so-called 31 football rapists.

31 rapists roaming the Baylor campus freely
Maurading, raping and terrorizing the village unchecked
said no one from Baylor (FWIW)
Reply Quote
3
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thee University • 9:52a, 2/5/19
Thee University said:
chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents. I wish him well. He should have a statue in front of our stadium.
A statue for a .604 coach?

He was .637 all time thanks to pansy non-con and .565 in Big 12 conference play.

At UH he was .548 all time and .600 in whatever conference UH played in.

I'm not sure that is statue worthy. Elm Mott might allow it but it is way too early for Waco to put one up and Baylor is certainly not going to do it.

Besides, if it looks anything like the RG3 statue I hope we wait until we find a new sculptor.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/baylor-gave-rg3-a-bronze-statue-about-20-years-too-early
Back to back Big 12 Football Titles, recruited and coached a Heisman winner (to date, Baylor's only one), 6 straight bowl appearances (two of them in BCS/New Year's 6 level bowls plus it could be argued 7 straight bowls since the '16 team was for all intents & purposes a decimated CAB team), nationally relevant in his last 3 seasons, and a brand new state of the art stadium got built primarily because of his accomplishments. And none of that happened because he was coaching teams that were "full of rapists". Let's see, the last football HC we had that accomplished anything remotely close to all of that was........oh yeah.......nobody.

Bottom line, it's a moot point because a statue of him is obviously never going to happen, thanks in large part to how BU's leadership handled the whole fiasco - but there should be.

I do agree with your comment about the sculptor of the RGIII statue, however.
Reply Quote
5
6 edits
SATXBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dman • 10:32a, 2/5/19
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.


Now you resort to name calling...lol. Judging by the length of your posts, you are the obsessed fool. Hope you enjoy entertaining yourself.
Reply Quote
1
xiledinok
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SATXBear • 12:47p, 2/5/19
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.


Now you resort to name calling...lol. Judging by the length of your posts, you are the obsessed fool. Hope you enjoy entertaining yourself.


They dish it out then threaten you when you bring up controversial topics that have tagged behind the former regime for years. It's a bully pulpit m.o.
Reply Quote
Thee University
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 1:51p, 2/5/19
Johnny Bear said:
Thee University said:
chorne68 said:
Art was a scapegoat for the Board of Regents. I wish him well. He should have a statue in front of our stadium.
A statue for a .604 coach?

He was .637 all time thanks to pansy non-con and .565 in Big 12 conference play.

At UH he was .548 all time and .600 in whatever conference UH played in.

I'm not sure that is statue worthy. Elm Mott might allow it but it is way too early for Waco to put one up and Baylor is certainly not going to do it.

Besides, if it looks anything like the RG3 statue I hope we wait until we find a new sculptor.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/baylor-gave-rg3-a-bronze-statue-about-20-years-too-early
Back to back Big 12 Football Titles, recruited and coached a Heisman winner (to date, Baylor's only one), 6 straight bowl appearances (two of them in BCS/New Year's 6 level bowls plus it could be argued 7 straight bowls since the '16 team was for all intents & purposes a decimated CAB team), nationally relevant in his last 3 seasons, and a brand new state of the art stadium got built primarily because of his accomplishments. And none of that happened because he was coaching teams that were "full of rapists". Let's see, the last football HC we had that accomplished anything remotely close to all of that was........oh yeah.......nobody.

Bottom line, it's a moot point because a statue of him is obviously never going to happen, thanks in large part to how BU's leadership handled the whole fiasco - but there should be.

I do agree with your comment about the sculptor of the RGIII statue, however.
If a .600 coach was going to get a "statue" then I want a statue for playing on the greatest Baylor football team in the history of the world.

Grant won 3 championships - 2 outright and 1 tie. Art won 1 and tied for 1.
Grant finished 10-1 back when we only played 11 games per year = .909 which is right there with your Lord & Savior's 11-1 (.917)


That my friend is remotely close.

Art's ego and loose management along with little to no true discipline got him a statue alright.

"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Timbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:19p, 2/5/19
Wow, the fact that Art is merely being interviewed certainly has the resident boo birds energized today.
Reply Quote
10
xiledinok
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:23p, 2/5/19
It actually has people questioning why Southern Mississippi has an athletic program if they have to hire overqualified guys on the rehab circuit to be assistant coaches.
Reply Quote
1
Thee University
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Timbear • 5:05p, 2/5/19
Timbear said:
Wow, the fact that Art is merely being interviewed certainly has the resident boo birds energized today.
Wrong.

The fact that so many of you losers, still, 2+ years later, clinging to the robe of a disgraced coach who ran a program which allowed "very bad things" to taint the reputation of Baylor are stroking each other into orgasmic orbit makes me feel "dirty".

He's going to get a job. Relax. He will be back and you guys can circle up and flail away on each other in a specially built room here on 365. A mini Baylor Bubble constantly oiled down, padded and discreet. Briles Boys Heaven. I know who the pivot man is!
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
Reply Quote
5
Dman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keyser Soze • 5:30p, 2/5/19
Keyser Soze said:
Talk about repeat the same old same old

All those words and not one name or specific act

Tell us the names and what they did !


Yep. It's repeating. The Truth doesn't change depending on the messenger and if it fits a specific narrative. It's constant.

You want examples and names? Why? It won't matter to you. You apply different standards of proof depending on who's delivering the message and if it fits your narrative. You will be given examples but then want witness statements, exact times of days, and barometric pressure on the day it happened...or it didn't happen. You used to say we couldn't know what happened in those meetings because we weren't there. Then an actual BoR who member was there gave examples of the BoRs failures and mismanagement and their agenda. Nope you..that one didn't count. You spent days discrediting him. You have examples from staff who were there and involved, from depositions and legal proceedings. All more substantive than the media allegations and FoF written by and for the BoR you were so fond of quoting.

So..no..you don't want specifics. You will simply attempt to discredit. You want only what fits your narrative.
Reply Quote
3
Dman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SATXBear • 5:37p, 2/5/19
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.


Now you resort to name calling...lol. Judging by the length of your posts, you are the obsessed fool. Hope you enjoy entertaining yourself.


Yawn. Sit this one out. Let the adults with actual experience with serving on BoRs at high levels handle this.
Reply Quote
4
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thee University • 5:39p, 2/5/19
Thee University said:
Timbear said:
Wow, the fact that Art is merely being interviewed certainly has the resident boo birds energized today.
Wrong.

The fact that so many of you losers, still, 2+ years later, clinging to the robe of a disgraced coach who ran a program which allowed "very bad things" to taint the reputation of Baylor are stroking each other into orgasmic orbit makes me feel "dirty".

He's going to get a job. Relax. He will be back and you guys can circle up and flail away on each other in a specially built room here on 365. A mini Baylor Bubble constantly oiled down, padded and discreet. Briles Boys Heaven. I know who the pivot man is!
We don't believe the BULL**** narrative that the BOR are feeding us Thee.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You give me a smoking gun and I will. I will NEVER buy into an accusation that has no proof.
Reply Quote
7
Chuckroast
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dman • 5:40p, 2/5/19
Dman said:
Keyser Soze said:
Talk about repeat the same old same old

All those words and not one name or specific act

Tell us the names and what they did !


Yep. It's repeating. The Truth doesn't change depending on the messenger and if it fits a specific narrative. It's constant.

You want examples and names? Why? It won't matter to you. You apply different standards of proof depending on who's delivering the message and if it fits your narrative. You will be given examples but then want witness statements, exact times of days, and barometric pressure on the day it happened...or it didn't happen. You used to say we couldn't know what happened in those meetings because we weren't there. Then an actual BoR who member was there gave examples of the BoRs failures and mismanagement and their agenda. Nope you..that one didn't count. You spent days discrediting him. You have examples from staff who were there and involved, from depositions and legal proceedings. All more substantive than the media allegations and FoF written by and for the BoR you were so fond of quoting.

So..no..you don't want specifics. You will simply attempt to discredit. You want only what fits your narrative.
Plus - he's changing the argument from whether a non-profit director can be personally liable to asking for proof of what our directors have done . . . Nice deflection.

You can get sued whether you've done anything wrong or not. You can also be found guilty if you have acted outside the scope of your authority or in bad faith, and our regents don't want to spend the next few years leaving it up to others whether they acted in good faith. I think some of our regents understand their potential exposure and refuse to resign because of it.
Reply Quote
4
Reverend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thee University • 5:42p, 2/5/19
You are one sick ****.
Reply Quote
4
Dman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SATXBear • 5:43p, 2/5/19
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
SATXBear said:
Dman said:
Any good attorney will have already told the BoR about their personal exposure. All that's needed is enough information to pierce the veil.

Control of the information was IMPERATIVE to protect themselves personally. Therein lies the BIGGEST reason none of this was done through an outside independent investigation not controlled by the BOR. It's also the reason they claim PH was legal..and therefore client/attorney confidentiality applied. They have done everything exactly right..through careful legal guidance, to minimize PERSONAL exposure.


DMan writes some of the best fiction in Texas. He needs to publish his book.


If you don't think the BoR is actively do their best to control their personal liability and exposure. You're a fool and would be in the minority'. If you don't think this BoR would have been replaced had they answered to anyone but themselves..you're beyond just a everyday fool.


Now you resort to name calling...lol. Judging by the length of your posts, you are the obsessed fool. Hope you enjoy entertaining yourself.


Yawn. Why don't you sit this one out if you don't have something to actually contribute. Let the adults who have served on BoRs at high levels handle this.
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.