Football
Sponsored by

K Starr financially supports Oakman's defense & maintains SamU's innocence

28,846 Views | 203 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Thee University
MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

Thee University said:

xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?

Do you really want to know?
Maybe he helped him out a lot and doesn't want everyone to know. Believe it or not but that kind of stuff happens. Have you ever helped anyone without standing on a pedestal and beating your chest ?
Just curious
Yeah, Art Briles is renowned for his humility...
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
I have no idea why you "shudder" thinking about Livingstone being in those shoes. Ken Starr is a brilliant lawyer, no doubt. However, the decision to not waive our right to a lawsuit was, in my opinion, more of a business decision than it was a legal one. I think the Ph.D. and former GWU and Pepperdine business school dean would have made the choice to avoid losing millions of dollars, too.
Because had that been the case, I've got a feeling there's a good chance we'd be playing Homecoming games against a conference "rival" like Rice in front of 12K fans in the coolest stadium in Conference USA (or something similar) these days. And that could still yet happen at some point in the future (certainly hope it doesn't, but it could).
Ok, but what exactly makes you think that? Has she shown a propensity to throw money away? Or not care about athletics?
She's an academic and an administrator - not an accomplished Judge and Attorney with a brilliant legal mind. I'm not at all convinced that she would've been smart enough to not just capitulate like the other B12 schools and sign that waiver with the SEC at the time. In any event, glad we at least had Ken Starr at that point in time.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Henessey said:

The fact that Starr isn't even in competition for worst President we've had in the past 25 years is damning evidence as to how sorry our leadership has been.

I've said it several times here before, but for those holding Starr up on a pedestal, he refused to implement a compliant Title IX program because he believed it to be unconstitutional and was preparing a challenge to it that he hoped would go all the way to the Supreme Court, almost like that would be his legacy. I have that from a very good source in the Athletic Department.

Say what you want about Title IX and its probable overreaches, but simply not complying with a federal mandate is the DUMBEST way to handle that situation. I lay most of the blame for this whole debacle at the feet of our wholly incompetent BOR, but Starr is far from blameless, nor is Briles.

In truth, everyone deserved to lose their jobs, and yet the BOR found a way to save their own (that they burned down the school in the process seems to have little effect on the culpable parties, unfortunately).
Agreed. For having such a brilliant legal mind, the plug your ears and singing lalalalala approach is the worst way of handling the Title IX situation. Ignoring it and the problems it brought has to be one of the worst decisions a school president could make. Just unreal in his lack of leadership and now most just groan and roll their eyes whenever he comes up in the news. We would've been better off without him and with a more competent President who wouldn't ignore major issues like Title IX.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Starr is such a monster.....how dare he help a young man prove his innocence in a court of Law.
Too bad he never helped any innocent man in the court of law in his life prior to Oakman and did it to only help himself.

Starr has bad reputation among law enforcement. They didn't want to work with him.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

xiledinok said:

REX said:

Thee University said:

xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?

Do you really want to know?
Maybe he helped him out a lot and doesn't want everyone to know. Believe it or not but that kind of stuff happens. Have you ever helped anyone without standing on a pedestal and beating your chest ?
Just curious
Art guaranteed Oakman's name was linked to his name. Art did do that for Oakman. Oakman apparently still needs help to the point he is asking for it. Where is Art?
The NFL won't be bothering with either one of them. Oakman wasn't good enough to be a big trouble maker and make it.
Art comes off as not remorseful and a rootin tootin country bumpkin with little class. The NFL doesn't need his association and already has had a legendary country ball coach, the great Bum Phillips.

Party, Starr shows up after the fact to get his press clippings. He has done more damage in his life than good.

Are you and thee one in the same?
Derp, why are you even here? You are not a fan and attack our current staff. Baylor must have been bigger than Rex because you might be the only person associated with another staff (FSU) who actively goes after another school online. Go play on power lines, get some juice going through your derp mind.


Thee's question is for me, not some derp not associated with Baylor. Art did nothing for Oakman. It was Baylor people who spent their own time and money to help a guy with nothing.
Now, Oakman is free but still tied into Art, Baylor and our mess.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
I have no idea why you "shudder" thinking about Livingstone being in those shoes. Ken Starr is a brilliant lawyer, no doubt. However, the decision to not waive our right to a lawsuit was, in my opinion, more of a business decision than it was a legal one. I think the Ph.D. and former GWU and Pepperdine business school dean would have made the choice to avoid losing millions of dollars, too.
Because had that been the case, I've got a feeling there's a good chance we'd be playing Homecoming games against a conference "rival" like Rice in front of 12K fans in the coolest stadium in Conference USA (or something similar) these days. And that could still yet happen at some point in the future (certainly hope it doesn't, but it could).
Ok, but what exactly makes you think that? Has she shown a propensity to throw money away? Or not care about athletics?
She's an academic and an administrator - not an accomplished Judge and Attorney with a brilliant legal mind. I'm not at all convinced that she would've been smart enough to not just capitulate like the other B12 schools and sign that waiver with the SEC at the time. In any event, glad we at least had Ken Starr at that point in time.
People tell me they don't think he was that good dealing with law enforcement. They thought he was some dork who couldn't relate to them and their jobs.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
I have no idea why you "shudder" thinking about Livingstone being in those shoes. Ken Starr is a brilliant lawyer, no doubt. However, the decision to not waive our right to a lawsuit was, in my opinion, more of a business decision than it was a legal one. I think the Ph.D. and former GWU and Pepperdine business school dean would have made the choice to avoid losing millions of dollars, too.
Because had that been the case, I've got a feeling there's a good chance we'd be playing Homecoming games against a conference "rival" like Rice in front of 12K fans in the coolest stadium in Conference USA (or something similar) these days. And that could still yet happen at some point in the future (certainly hope it doesn't, but it could).
Ok, but what exactly makes you think that? Has she shown a propensity to throw money away? Or not care about athletics?
She's an academic and an administrator - not an accomplished Judge and Attorney with a brilliant legal mind. I'm not at all convinced that she would've been smart enough to not just capitulate like the other B12 schools and sign that waiver with the SEC at the time. In any event, glad we at least had Ken Starr at that point in time.
People tell me they don't think he was that good dealing with law enforcement. They thought he was some dork who couldn't relate to them and their jobs.
Uh, yeah, sure. "Dorks" manage to rise to positions like Solicitor General and become Federal Judges all the time. That's almost as ridiculous as the Trump haters who assert that he's some kind of an incompetent, failed businessman. Give me a break.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

PartyBear said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:

Did he raise that much money? Money was pouring in because his presidency coincided with a football program he inherited that was raking in money and donations, which as I mentioned his legacy is the burning down of the rain maker.
The "rain maker" got burned down not because of Starr, but because of a largely manufactured "scandal" that could've been handled vastly different by a BOR that immediately bent over and grabbed its ankles. There were all kinds of ways to deal with that situation that didn't involve burning the program to the ground and killing the goose that laid the golden egg (note how differently Tennessee, Florida State and especially Michigan State handled similar if not even worse "scandals" and none of them involved nuking their programs or anything remotely close to that). I'll give you that Starr could've done a better job with dealing with the overly expanded Title IX obligations, but I completely understand and agree with his position that everything related to that issue had become ridiculous as far as colleges being expected to be a virtual judge, jury and executioner for issues that should be dealt with exclusively through the criminal and civil justice systems (thank you President Obummer!). In any event, laying all of that or even most of it at Starr's feet is way off base.


I think people here know my position about the BOR. But Starr had a large role. Other presidents of major universities managed to implement the system. Starr should have as well. Having a law degree and being a former federal judge makes his direlection even more unconscionable.

As to stars I rarely star anyone. I sure as hell don't star myself. Is there not a way to see who makes stars?
That's a fallacy. Very few universities had fully implemented the OCR guidance prior to the Baylor "scandal." In fact, it was very difficult for institutions to even find administrators to lead these departments because there simply were hardly any with experience since the guidance didn't exist before 2011 and the number of institutions that had implemented full-time staff was miniscule. Universities were building these departments "on the fly" with people who had to try and understand the guidance as they built.
It is not a fallacy. Your second sentence states very few universities had fully implemented the OCR guidance prior to the Baylor scandal. Perhaps true. Starr however did not even make an attempt to implement anything. His dereliction was unconscionable, even if he did not have a law degree and was not a former federal judge.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

xiledinok said:

Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
I have no idea why you "shudder" thinking about Livingstone being in those shoes. Ken Starr is a brilliant lawyer, no doubt. However, the decision to not waive our right to a lawsuit was, in my opinion, more of a business decision than it was a legal one. I think the Ph.D. and former GWU and Pepperdine business school dean would have made the choice to avoid losing millions of dollars, too.
Because had that been the case, I've got a feeling there's a good chance we'd be playing Homecoming games against a conference "rival" like Rice in front of 12K fans in the coolest stadium in Conference USA (or something similar) these days. And that could still yet happen at some point in the future (certainly hope it doesn't, but it could).
Ok, but what exactly makes you think that? Has she shown a propensity to throw money away? Or not care about athletics?
She's an academic and an administrator - not an accomplished Judge and Attorney with a brilliant legal mind. I'm not at all convinced that she would've been smart enough to not just capitulate like the other B12 schools and sign that waiver with the SEC at the time. In any event, glad we at least had Ken Starr at that point in time.
People tell me they don't think he was that good dealing with law enforcement. They thought he was some dork who couldn't relate to them and their jobs.
Uh, yeah, sure. "Dorks" manage to rise to positions like Solicitor General and become Federal Judges all the time. That's almost as ridiculous as the Trump haters who assert that he's some kind of an incompetent, failed businessman. Give me a break.


They didn't think he was good at his job. It's not what you know, it's who you know in their opinions.
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

REX said:

xiledinok said:

REX said:

Thee University said:

xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?

Do you really want to know?
Maybe he helped him out a lot and doesn't want everyone to know. Believe it or not but that kind of stuff happens. Have you ever helped anyone without standing on a pedestal and beating your chest ?
Just curious
Art guaranteed Oakman's name was linked to his name. Art did do that for Oakman. Oakman apparently still needs help to the point he is asking for it. Where is Art?
The NFL won't be bothering with either one of them. Oakman wasn't good enough to be a big trouble maker and make it.
Art comes off as not remorseful and a rootin tootin country bumpkin with little class. The NFL doesn't need his association and already has had a legendary country ball coach, the great Bum Phillips.

Party, Starr shows up after the fact to get his press clippings. He has done more damage in his life than good.

Are you and thee one in the same?
Derp, why are you even here? You are not a fan and attack our current staff. Baylor must have been bigger than Rex because you might be the only person associated with another staff (FSU) who actively goes after another school online. Go play on power lines, get some juice going through your derp mind.


Thee's question is for me, not some derp not associated with Baylor. Art did nothing for Oakman. It was Baylor people who spent their own time and money to help a guy with nothing.
Now, Oakman is free but still tied into Art, Baylor and our mess.

Who is derp?
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Starr was right about TItle IX from a policy perspective, but from a managerial perspective he absolutely should have slavishly adhered to the bad system in place until it got fixed. Not doing so was a major mistake. We should've handled the fallout infinitely better, but it was still a big mistake.

Baylor (unlike some large institutions) can't afford to have a non-manager as President. We aren't organized that way. But we should've known that. Or changed our structure to compensate for it. The BOR hired a hand-shaking big picture CEO, then acted surprised that's what they got.

Starr has represented numerous pro bono legal defendants for free. Safe to say he's done more for defendants than the vast majority of people around here.

He also no doubt helped save the Big 12 by slowing things down, and did it in a pretty subtle/elegant fashion.

He did a great deal to bring the Baylor family together, before our pre-existing dynamic inevitably chewed him up, as it has done with some who came before him and will again for some who come after.

I don't know what went on with the law school, but they should've been chomping at the bit to keep around a former Solicitor General of the US and former DC Circuit court judge. We don't have anyone around of that pedigree and likely won't.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There was clearly some inside baseball going on that neither the public nor alums were and arent aware of regarding Starr that made the law school not want him anywhere around it despite he credentials. I have no idea what it was. I doubt seriously it was screwing up Title 9 compliance alone unless they had been advising him to start taking Title 9 seriously and they were pissed he didnt and about the horrid fall out. May not have been that at all though. Hence why I said earlier that I'm sure he had and left behind at least several non media attention grabbing debacles and messes that only the faculty and staff know about, if he had the high profile one.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

Thee University said:

xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?

Do you really want to know?
Maybe he helped him out a lot and doesn't want everyone to know. Believe it or not but that kind of stuff happens. Have you ever helped anyone without standing on a pedestal and beating your chest ?
Just curious
All I want you to do is give me the Spaghetti Football League scores. Is Art really coaching 6 man football over there?
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
bularry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.


I don't think this is true


Empty lawsuit threats didn't do anything
Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Starr is such a monster.....how dare he help a young man prove his innocence in a court of Law.

Nobody said he was a monster. His intentions are commendable.

He is just a self-important, overrated, opportunist who never did anything positive for Baylor except run out on the football field with the freshmen.
I'm a Bearbacker
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.


I don't think this is true


Empty lawsuit threats didn't do anything
It wasn't a "lawsuit threat". It was a refusal to waive our legal rights simply because it appeared to be the PC thing to do. Stop reading Texags.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Robert Wilson said:

Starr was right about TItle IX from a policy perspective, but from a managerial perspective he absolutely should have slavishly adhered to the bad system in place until it got fixed. Not doing so was a major mistake. We should've handled the fallout infinitely better, but it was still a big mistake.

[Correct]

Baylor (unlike some large institutions) can't afford to have a non-manager as President. We aren't organized that way. But we should've known that. Or changed our structure to compensate for it. The BOR hired a hand-shaking big picture CEO, then acted surprised that's what they got.

[Yep, the Regents blow it again....more incompetence on their part]

Starr has represented numerous pro bono legal defendants for free. Safe to say he's done more for defendants than the vast majority of people around here.

[Probably true]

He also no doubt helped save the Big 12 by slowing things down, and did it in a pretty subtle/elegant fashion.

[It certainly helped by slowing things down]

He did a great deal to bring the Baylor family together, before our pre-existing dynamic inevitably chewed him up, as it has done with some who came before him and will again for some who come after.

[Yea he did do a good job at that....really helped heal some wounded feelings....part of his over all CEO hand shaker style. Some of the Regents didn't like him reaching out to Baylor alumni association types]

I don't know what went on with the law school, but they should've been chomping at the bit to keep around a former Solicitor General of the US and former DC Circuit court judge. We don't have anyone around of that pedigree and likely won't.

[The law school is its own animal....run by Texas Dems and Liberals...its a boot camp for trial lawyers....and the faculty and Law school alumni barely even care about being associated with the main university which they regard as too churchy and too conservative. There is a reason its over by itself and very isolated from the rest of campus. A law student or faculty member can literal work or go to school there without ever having to set foot on the main campus. They have cultivated a real "Harvard Business School" type haughty atmosphere over there.]
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Malbec said:

PartyBear said:




I think people here know my position about the BOR. But Starr had a large role. Other presidents of major universities managed to implement the system. Starr should have as well. Having a law degree and being a former federal judge makes his direlection even more unconscionable.

As to stars I rarely star anyone. I sure as hell don't star myself. Is there not a way to see who makes stars?
That's a fallacy. Very few universities had fully implemented the OCR guidance prior to the Baylor "scandal." In fact, it was very difficult for institutions to even find administrators to lead these departments because there simply were hardly any with experience since the guidance didn't exist before 2011 and the number of institutions that had implemented full-time staff was miniscule. Universities were building these departments "on the fly" with people who had to try and understand the guidance as they built.
It is not a fallacy. Your second sentence states very few universities had fully implemented the OCR guidance prior to the Baylor scandal. Perhaps true. Starr however did not even make an attempt to implement anything. His dereliction was unconscionable, even if he did not have a law degree and was not a former federal judge.
I understand that you are a Clintonista, but you are just wrong. Even Keyser will tell you so. Baylor did have some level of T9 protocol in place, even if they still operated it under 1950s puritanical standards. The problem was that Baylor was just like the vast majority of colleges in America, but when the breeze met the excrement, it was Baylor that was soaking in the media hot tub. There were literally more than 100 universities under federal investigation for T9 irregularities at the time it all broke loose on Baylor, and BU was not one of those. Even if you believe that Starr had some philosophical legal differences with the OCR guidance (as many did and still do), he did no less than most every other university president in the nation, including those at state institutions with more at stake in the federal funding lottery.

While it may be true that it took a media firestorm of epic proportions for Baylor to step up its game in this part of T9 direction, they had not completely ignored it before, and were on par with the vast majority of institutions in the country. So, if you want to say that Starr was not a pacesetter when it came to toeing the line of the recent OCR guidance, that would be a fair statement. However, to suggest that somehow he was a "derelict" administrator when compared to just about every other college president and chancellor in the nation is just nonsense. It's just more piling on by those who simply never liked the guy.
Eball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You know I try to stay out of/limit myself in regard to these discussions because pretty much, we all make the same points over and over but occasionally, I will see something that catches my eye and I just have to respond. Starr gave my kids, Son and daughter, their law school, undergrad and seminary diplomas...they always liked him and still speak highly of him. I liked the guy as well...

I will also say again that no matter who you say caused it...he was President during a time when the school really was on the rise....the advances under Ian and CAB as well were pretty remarkable.

It has always seemed to me that after Herb, the BOR took over ultimate control of that office and if you did not bow and scrape and or/heaven forbid challenged their authority that would get you removed. It is always a challenge for a President to move an agenda forward in the best interest of the school as you have to have a majority of support and that involves politics because the individual agendas of the individual BOR members year to year is different.

Even if you hold Starr, Ian, CAB the BOR, RR whoever to blame for our mess you can't overlook the fact that during their overlapping time periods Baylor really moved forward....in a lot of areas.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eball said:

You know I try to stay out of/limit myself in regard to these discussions because pretty much, we all make the same points over and over but occasionally, I will see something that catches my eye and I just have to respond. Starr gave my kids, Son and daughter, their law school, undergrad and seminary diplomas...they always liked him and still speak highly of him. I liked the guy as well...

I will also say again that no matter who you say caused it...he was President during a time when the school really was on the rise....the advances under Ian and CAB as well were pretty remarkable.

It has always seemed to me that after Herb, the BOR took over ultimate control of that office and if you did not bow and scrape and or/heaven forbid challenged their authority that would get you removed. It is always a challenge for a President to move an agenda forward in the best interest of the school as you have to have a majority of support and that involves politics because the individual agendas of the individual BOR members year to year is different.

Even if you hold Starr, Ian, CAB the BOR, RR whoever to blame for our mess you can't overlook the fact that during their overlapping time periods Baylor really moved forward....in a lot of areas.
Great post. I agree.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To put it very briefly and succinctly.

Art Briles, who Starr inherited would uncontroversially be the Baylor HC right now if Starr had done a decent job as President. That would mean Baylor would have had a lot more $$ rolling in as well over the past few years. Starr screwed up royally his inheritance.

My hunch is several other things that are low profile got screwed up as well. Hence the law school's reaction to his assignment there, which ended up not even lasting a couple of months.

Having said that I'm sure Starr is a very pleasant person and probably great to drink coffee with and have a cordial political or philosophical discussion with.
bularry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

bularry said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.


I don't think this is true


Empty lawsuit threats didn't do anything
It wasn't a "lawsuit threat". It was a refusal to waive our legal rights simply because it appeared to be the PC thing to do. Stop reading Texags.


Don't be an ass. Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it true. We, BU, didn't do anything that furthered the Big12 by "refusing rights" than I did by farting.

But if it makes you feel good, keep believing a fantasy
Eball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Makes me wonder how your resume compares to Ken's.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rex,

Give me the spaghetti scores! I'd rather take in an Evant Elks game.
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

Rex,

Give me the spaghetti scores! I'd rather take in an Evant Elks game.

30-2
DoubleBearClaw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deleted for being dumb
Sent from hybrid satellite phone.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

Johnny Bear said:

bularry said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.


I don't think this is true


Empty lawsuit threats didn't do anything
It wasn't a "lawsuit threat". It was a refusal to waive our legal rights simply because it appeared to be the PC thing to do. Stop reading Texags.


Don't be an ass. Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it true. We, BU, didn't do anything that furthered the Big12 by "refusing rights" than I did by farting.

But if it makes you feel good, keep believing a fantasy
Like I said, stop reading Texags.
oldbear69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.


Thank God there is still some backbone and truth around here.

It is amazing how many of you limp wrists clamor all over one another if there is even a popcorn fart of a chance to spin some positive out of a debacle.


aw, aint that cute...party bear and thee doing a little cuddling...
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

Thee University said:

Rex,

Give me the spaghetti scores! I'd rather take in an Evant Elks game.

30-2
Come on. Did I hurt your feelings?
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

REX said:

Thee University said:

Rex,

Give me the spaghetti scores! I'd rather take in an Evant Elks game.

30-2
Come on. Did I hurt your feelings?

30-2 didn't hurt my feelings
Yours?
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stranger and X's problem with Starr goes back to the dozing of the worthless Alumni center that catered to the tea and crumpet crowd.

I think it is 50/50 as to whether or not Starr was a great or horrible President. BTW, I hear nothing about our current one. The only opinion that matters is that of the faculty and as far as I know they haven't said much about either Star of Livingstone.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland said:

Stranger and X's problem with Starr goes back to the dozing of the worthless Alumni center that catered to the tea and crumpet crowd.

I think it is 50/50 as to whether or not Starr was a great or horrible President. BTW, I hear nothing about our current one. The only opinion that matters is that of the faculty and as far as I know they haven't said much about either Star of Livingstone.


Starr was more than the alumni center though Baylor had witnesses lying on the stand and Kenny Starr had no issue with it.

Stranger can give you the back story on Starr.
Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland said:

Stranger and X's problem with Starr goes back to the dozing of the worthless Alumni center that catered to the tea and crumpet crowd.

I think it is 50/50 as to whether or not Starr was a great or horrible President. BTW, I hear nothing about our current one. The only opinion that matters is that of the faculty and as far as I know they haven't said much about either Star of Livingstone.


You're right that I do remember history when it comes to facts about Baylor. My opinion of Starr is rooted in that history. Starr came with great promise and almost immediately caved to pressure by rogue regents Buddy Jones and Dary Stone and Reagan Ramsower.

He could have been a healer but instead became a bystander while they inflicted damage upon the Baylor family. Starr proved he couldn't lead a silent prayer. Or more likely he just never bonded with Baylor. He was just here for the prestige and the fat paycheck.

He never raised money, never administered or did much of anything constructive. He just drew a check.

Had he been involved he would have prevented the Briles/title IX debacle. Ultimately he pissed off Buddy and the BOR decided the easiest way to rid themselves of Starr was to take Briles and Ian with him. Then there remained no blood on the hands of the regents.

Starr's legacy at Baylor was not a pretty one.
I'm a Bearbacker
Stan Mikita
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Ken Starr doesn't do the whole legacy thing good for anything/anybody.
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

PartyBear said:

Malbec said:

PartyBear said:




I think people here know my position about the BOR. But Starr had a large role. Other presidents of major universities managed to implement the system. Starr should have as well. Having a law degree and being a former federal judge makes his direlection even more unconscionable.

As to stars I rarely star anyone. I sure as hell don't star myself. Is there not a way to see who makes stars?
That's a fallacy. Very few universities had fully implemented the OCR guidance prior to the Baylor "scandal." In fact, it was very difficult for institutions to even find administrators to lead these departments because there simply were hardly any with experience since the guidance didn't exist before 2011 and the number of institutions that had implemented full-time staff was miniscule. Universities were building these departments "on the fly" with people who had to try and understand the guidance as they built.
It is not a fallacy. Your second sentence states very few universities had fully implemented the OCR guidance prior to the Baylor scandal. Perhaps true. Starr however did not even make an attempt to implement anything. His dereliction was unconscionable, even if he did not have a law degree and was not a former federal judge.
I understand that you are a Clintonista, but you are just wrong. Even Keyser will tell you so. Baylor did have some level of T9 protocol in place, even if they still operated it under 1950s puritanical standards. The problem was that Baylor was just like the vast majority of colleges in America, but when the breeze met the excrement, it was Baylor that was soaking in the media hot tub. There were literally more than 100 universities under federal investigation for T9 irregularities at the time it all broke loose on Baylor, and BU was not one of those. Even if you believe that Starr had some philosophical legal differences with the OCR guidance (as many did and still do), he did no less than most every other university president in the nation, including those at state institutions with more at stake in the federal funding lottery.

While it may be true that it took a media firestorm of epic proportions for Baylor to step up its game in this part of T9 direction, they had not completely ignored it before, and were on par with the vast majority of institutions in the country. So, if you want to say that Starr was not a pacesetter when it came to toeing the line of the recent OCR guidance, that would be a fair statement. However, to suggest that somehow he was a "derelict" administrator when compared to just about every other college president and chancellor in the nation is just nonsense. It's just more piling on by those who simply never liked the guy.

Agree. Yes Baylor was behind on T9, but they certainly looked more like than dislike other Universities.

Prior to Pepper, they had other audits and recommendations. The result was the hiring of Patti Crawford as Baylor's first full time T9 coordinator in Nov 2014 (previously the job was handled by Judicial Affairs). Crawford's staff was undersized and I think she was overwhelmed by the job - but all that was a learn as go basis.










 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.