Please reply to this post with the quote,
"Art Briles Will Always Be A Baylor Bear"...
"Art Briles Will Always Be A Baylor Bear"...
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?
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".
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.
LOL!xiledinok said:
I read it on Wiki.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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