NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

No, you're defending lying regents who wrote the FoF upon which you base your charges. Briles was scapegoated.
Chuck is being polite

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

I agreed with your trash is trash statement, but on these boards your entire focus seems to be "shoring" up the BOR malfeasance.

That is seriously Fantasyland in it's own right.

Thee University said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

This has to be one of, if not the, most idiotic posts in the history of 365. By far.

Where do you start? This entire post or the poster sucks donkey balls.

The worst of the worst:

"The BOR sets the culture of the university"

"The BOR presided over football"

Are you kidding me?

I'll tell you what I am carrying. A warm bucket of piss. That is what Briles left us with. Piss!

Once a kid hits the campus it is ALL team coach's responsibility to make certain the kids understand the mission statement of Baylor and they conform to that statement. It is the coaches that spend at least 5 hours per day with these kids and it does not take long to find out who the potential firebombs are.

---

Too bad it wasn't like the glory days when you graced the campus. First, my post dealt with admission decisions . . . not what happens after the kid comes to campus . . . and I have no doubt you know more about the football culture at Baylor since you were a former player, but you're making my point. Baylor wants to disown the problems that it failed to attempt to govern. Not all private universities have a football first culture that allows the football program to do whatever in the heck it wants. Schools like Vanderbilt, Stanford, and plenty of others have admission standards that aren't decided by the football coach. That's partly why Vanderbilt has been a coaches' graveyard in the SEC.

You seem to think Baylor's team was a bunch of thugs under Briles - the same players that most every other school's coaches wanted and that Baylor chose to admit. I have no doubt that there were bad apples on the football team. Briles kicked several off the team. You want us all to believe that Briles is responsible for his team's collective behavior. Who's responsible for the actions of the student behavior that committed the other 90% of the sexual assaults?

There was a great article a while back comparing the legal troubles of football teams across the country, arrest records, etc., and we compared favorably to our conference counterparts and many other programs around the nation. Briles must have been doing something right.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

What exactly did the BOR try to pin on Briles?

The President was removed, however, he was not fired because he was also a tenured professor at the time of his removal. Nevertheless, he resigned on his own accord.

---

The BOR sat by quietly while the media rushed to judgment that Briles covered up rape. They encouraged that narrative and did nothing to defend him publicly because I'm sure they were relieved he was taking the heat and not them. The school's general counsel very privately wrote a letter exonerating Briles of covering up rape, but they never had the intestinal fortitude simply to say what he did and did not do.

Osodecentx said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

No, you're defending lying regents who wrote the FoF upon which you base your charges. Briles was scapegoated.
Chuck is being polite

---

BS. Don't worry about being polite. Keep floating that crap that coaches don't know the most about players before and after they hit campus. Keep blue starring it and maybe the magic of Disney will make your wish come true.

Oh, thanks again for proving my point that for you guys this discussion is all about protecting Briles.

Osodecentx said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

No, you're defending lying regents who wrote the FoF upon which you base your charges. Briles was scapegoated.
Chuck is being polite

---

Thanks - trying to be polite. Don't want to resort to the hyperbole of Thee and BSU

So......Rhule knew he was bringing some guys who would have criminal issues in as well then?

Forest Bueller said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

I agreed with your trash is trash statement, but on these boards your entire focus seems to be "shoring" up the BOR malfeasance.

That is seriously Fantasyland in it's own right.

---

You come from a family of high school football coaches, correct? When college coaches call or visit to discuss a player that might be a knucklehead, does your family speak candidly or give all glowing reports? Who knows more about a recruit ' s character - a college coach or a college admission worker?

PartyBear said:

---

So......Rhule knew he was bringing some guys who would have criminal issues in as well then?

---

Maybe. If he did then I have a problem with that. We can flip this to discussing Drew and Lace playing his senior season of you guys are too Briles focused to carry on a discussion. While some like me think Lace should have been suspended from the team, I also admire the masterful use of a fixer. That exceeded OU quality of fixing.

Seriously, some you need to take a step back.

Chuckroast said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

This has to be one of, if not the, most idiotic posts in the history of 365. By far.

Where do you start? This entire post or the poster sucks donkey balls.

The worst of the worst:

"The BOR sets the culture of the university"

"The BOR presided over football"

Are you kidding me?

I'll tell you what I am carrying. A warm bucket of piss. That is what Briles left us with. Piss!

Once a kid hits the campus it is ALL team coach's responsibility to make certain the kids understand the mission statement of Baylor and they conform to that statement. It is the coaches that spend at least 5 hours per day with these kids and it does not take long to find out who the potential firebombs are.

---

Too bad it wasn't like the glory days when you graced the campus. First, my post dealt with admission decisions . . . not what happens after the kid comes to campus . . . and I have no doubt you know more about the football culture at Baylor since you were a former player, but you're making my point. Baylor wants to disown the problems that it failed to attempt to govern. Not all private universities have a football first culture that allows the football program to do whatever in the heck it wants. Schools like Vanderbilt, Stanford, and plenty of others have admission standards that aren't decided by the football coach. That's partly why Vanderbilt has been a coaches' graveyard in the SEC.

You seem to think Baylor's team was a bunch of thugs under Briles - the same players that most every other school's coaches wanted and that Baylor chose to admit. I have no doubt that there were bad apples on the football team. Briles kicked several off the team. You want us all to believe that Briles is responsible for his team's collective behavior. Who's responsible for the actions of the student behavior that committed the other 90% of the sexual assaults?

There was a great article a while back comparing the legal troubles of football teams across the country, arrest records, etc., and we compared favorably to our conference counterparts and many other programs around the nation. Briles must have been doing something right.

---

Or was it all the work of the Admission's office? Those broads can really break down game film and weigh it against a high school transcript.

PartyBear said:

---

So......Rhule knew he was bringing some guys who would have criminal issues in as well then?

---

including a coach

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

I agreed with your trash is trash statement, but on these boards your entire focus seems to be "shoring" up the BOR malfeasance.

That is seriously Fantasyland in it's own right.

---

You come from a family of high school football coaches, correct? When college coaches call or visit to discuss a player that might be a knucklehead, does your family speak candidly or give all glowing reports? Who knows more about a recruit ' s character - a college coach or a college admission worker?

---

I'll humor you and agree that I'm sure coaches hear things about certain players on the recruiting trail. Briles or some of his assistants may have too - who knows?. Do you know for a fact that Briles or someone on his staff recruited players that he knew might be a sexual assault risk? Is a coach responsible for uncovering the potential for that type of behavior on the recruiting trail?

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

I agreed with your trash is trash statement, but on these boards your entire focus seems to be "shoring" up the BOR malfeasance.

That is seriously Fantasyland in it's own right.

---

You come from a family of high school football coaches, correct? When college coaches call or visit to discuss a player that might be a knucklehead, does your family speak candidly or give all glowing reports? Who knows more about a recruit ' s character - a college coach or a college admission worker?

---

I'll humor you and agree that I'm sure coaches hear things about certain players on the recruiting trail. Briles or some of his assistants may have too - who knows?. Do you know for a fact that Briles or someone on his staff recruited players that he knew might be a sexual assault risk? Is a coach responsible for uncovering the potential for that type of behavior on the recruiting trail?

---

That's a wild tangent that you went on. One small step for man. One giant leap for Sicem 365....

How do you get that out of my questions for FB?

Chuckroast said:

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. ...

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would have been in the BOR's best interest to persuade the BMD that CAB deserved to be fired. That didn't happen! I rather doubt that the bor values "us" nearly as much as it did the BMD - and that didn't seem to be much.

There was 1 person who had the opportunity to talk with the PH lawyers and witness how Briles handled a major rape situation. Barnes. He said the reason all this happened is because the BOR got played by the 2 female lawyers. Both lawyers made it clear that their life mission was to make University sexual assault a front page issue. They lost the chance on some other cases but Baylor was just what they needed. Briles was the name to blow it all up and keep it on the front pages. All they had to do was dupe the regents with a filthy picture to put them on the edge. Plus there were regents looking for an excuse to move on Starr. Perfect recipe. Then they told them BU would go down unless they sunk Briles. Then they stepped back and watched it implode. Boom, on the front page.
They asked Barnes if he was going to sue because they had evidence he was fired to help cover up the VB case. He passed so he could continue to coach.

Again the 2 lawyers played the school like a puppet master. It's as simple as that.

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

What exactly did the BOR try to pin on Briles?

The President was removed, however, he was not fired because he was also a tenured professor at the time of his removal. Nevertheless, he resigned on his own accord.

---

The BOR sat by quietly while the media rushed to judgment that Briles covered up rape. They encouraged that narrative and did nothing to defend him publicly because I'm sure they were relieved he was taking the heat and not them. The school's general counsel very privately wrote a letter exonerating Briles of covering up rape, but they never had the intestinal fortitude simply to say what he did and did not do.

---

The BOR didn't have an obligation to defend him, and, because there is virtually no (enforceable) way for someone to contractually agree to publicly defend someone else whenever a third party criticizes them, there is no way for Briles to have gotten the university to agree to doing that in his settlement even if the university wanted to do so.

The Findings of Fact made it very clear that there was a university wide issue, and the letter wasn't an exoneration letter - it literally said that he did not do 3 specific things. In contrast, an exoneration letter would say that, to their knowledge, he had done nothing illegal/against university policy/unethical/etc.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

What exactly did the BOR try to pin on Briles?

The President was removed, however, he was not fired because he was also a tenured professor at the time of his removal. Nevertheless, he resigned on his own accord.

---

The BOR sat by quietly while the media rushed to judgment that Briles covered up rape. They encouraged that narrative and did nothing to defend him publicly because I'm sure they were relieved he was taking the heat and not them. The school's general counsel very privately wrote a letter exonerating Briles of covering up rape, but they never had the intestinal fortitude simply to say what he did and did not do.

---

The BOR didn't have an obligation to defend him, and, because there is virtually no (enforceable) way for someone to contractually agree to publicly defend someone else whenever a third party criticizes them, there is no way for Briles to have gotten the university to agree to doing that in his settlement even if the university wanted to do so.

The Findings of Fact made it very clear that there was a university wide issue, and the letter wasn't an exoneration letter - it literally said that he did not do 3 specific things. In contrast, an exoneration letter would say that, to their knowledge, he had done nothing illegal/against university policy/unethical/etc.

---

Walter would kick your ass.... change your name *****

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

What exactly did the BOR try to pin on Briles?

The President was removed, however, he was not fired because he was also a tenured professor at the time of his removal. Nevertheless, he resigned on his own accord.

---

The BOR sat by quietly while the media rushed to judgment that Briles covered up rape. They encouraged that narrative and did nothing to defend him publicly because I'm sure they were relieved he was taking the heat and not them. The school's general counsel very privately wrote a letter exonerating Briles of covering up rape, but they never had the intestinal fortitude simply to say what he did and did not do.

---

The BOR didn't have an obligation to defend him, and, because there is virtually no (enforceable) way for someone to contractually agree to publicly defend someone else whenever a third party criticizes them, there is no way for Briles to have gotten the university to agree to doing that in his settlement even if the university wanted to do so.

The Findings of Fact made it very clear that there was a university wide issue, and the letter wasn't an exoneration letter - it literally said that he did not do 3 specific things. In contrast, an exoneration letter would say that, to their knowledge, he had done nothing illegal/against university policy/unethical/etc.

---

Not suggesting that Baylor had a legal obligation to defend CAB - just a moral obligation. The media was promoting a narrative that CAB was guilty of the specific things the letter exonerated him for. As a Christian university, why couldn't Baylor have publicly announced what they privately wrote in the letter and help put some of the media speculation to rest? answer: because it was all too convenient that Briles was taking the heat and not them.

Since some board members went out of their way to bring heat on CAB, I still wonder why Baylor's general counsel wrote the letter. I wonder if it was demanded by the Briles team as a condition for dropping his lawsuit or not bringing a new one.

We you perpetuate a false narrative and turn several very big money donors and a good chunk of alumni against the University that sent you packing with a $15 mill parachute ... kinda wishful thinking they are gonna throw you a hand when the press gets rough

Cove Dawg said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

One thing is abundantly clear and that is the people just learning about Ian have their heads in the sand. Whether they admit that is their problem. People that could see Ian's involvement closer saw through the smoke.

Btw, if you want to sign on to this site and try spinning the logic of, "well, I haven't seen Ian do anything bad in my browser window, so he isn't bad."

All you're really telling anyone is that you are A) a friend of Ian B) utterly clueless.

If you don't know what an Athletic Director does, please invest in finding out. Here is a hint, it involves a budget. And managing employees. it isn't an endorsement to say that Ian was nice to you at the movie theater. But for the last time, Ian was responsible, directly for the compliance function that should have identified these problems and reported them. Ian should have immediately countered any claim from ESPN. He failed miserably in that role. He also raised no money for the department, and even went so far as to divert money raised by others which he claimed was his doing. When confronted by this, he quickly changed his story. Just poor, deceptive behavior.

In Ian's parting defense, do I think he was controlled by specific regents? Absolutely. And those regents need to burn. But to suggest that Ian was accomplished, or successful is stretching it at best.

---

---

Originally posted by Cove Dog: Well he did oversee the Athletics Department during the most succcessful period in Baylor athletics history, so there's that!

Brilliant. So by that standard, let's call any game where we have a lead a victory, even if we get blown out the remainder of the game and lose.

We have posters that think Ian left us in a good position,.yikes.

PartyBear said:

---

It seems you don't understand xile that repeatedly calling Ian a pawn of the Regents completely backs up what Ian is saying under oath and how he was powerless against the scapegoat set ups and racism and cover ups they were orchestrating. It doesn't contradict it all. It is a poor defense of the BOR to keep pointing out that Ian's testimony under oath is accurate.

---

Powerless.

You sure about that? He couldn't resign? Walk out? Say something? Write a book even? He could file a qui tam lawsuit, claim to be a whistleblower and have oodles of protection.

Ian was a lot of things. But powerless in this situation is not one of them.

WatersSharpton2020 said:

---

Reporter said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Ashley Hodge said:

---

moved the other two threads on this topic to R&P. If you all want to keep beating the dead horse on this thread on the football board, we will leave it up.

---

Moved to R&P...now it's a conspiracy to hide their light under a bushel

---

Make an effort to kill a thread with 5.8K views in just a day and a half. Yep, makes perfectly good business sense to me. Let the voyage of the Good Ship Lollipop continue! LOL!!! Better put your life jackets on folks.

---

Maybe 7.4% of the posters will reply on the other thread.

---

You don't need to worry about that malcontent anymore. I understand that he has been banned from this site.

---

Deuces

Keyser Soze said:

---

We you perpetuate a false narrative and turn several very big money donors and a good chunk of alumni against the University that sent you packing with a $15 mill parachute ... kinda wishful thinking they are gonna throw you a hand when the press gets rough

---

Well someone actually under oath did say a false narrative was presented.

You certainly wouldn't expect those who created that narrative to defend the coach they most damaged with it.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

We you perpetuate a false narrative and turn several very big money donors and a good chunk of alumni against the University that sent you packing with a $15 mill parachute ... kinda wishful thinking they are gonna throw you a hand when the press gets rough

---

Well someone actually under oath did say a false narrative was presented.

You certainly wouldn't expect those who created that narrative to defend the coach they most damaged with it.

---

We don't even know if we have an accurate representation of what McCaw said much less if what McCaw said is accurate. It looks like a repetition of same excuses used by a failed staff, none of which had any legs.

In the FofF football makes up 2.5 of 13 pages in a report that clearly states we had a wide institutional failure. Briles himself more or less admitted everything in those pages. So what is not accurate?

Here is the document

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/266596.pdf pages 10 to 13

Keyser Soze said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

We you perpetuate a false narrative and turn several very big money donors and a good chunk of alumni against the University that sent you packing with a $15 mill parachute ... kinda wishful thinking they are gonna throw you a hand when the press gets rough

---

Well someone actually under oath did say a false narrative was presented.

You certainly wouldn't expect those who created that narrative to defend the coach they most damaged with it.

---

We don't even know if we have an accurate representation of what McCaw said much less if what McCaw said is accurate. It looks like a repetition of same excuses used by a failed staff, none of which had any legs.

In the FofF football makes up 2.5 of 13 pages in a report that clearly states we a wide institutional failure. Briles himself more or less admitted everything in those pages. So what is not accurate?

Here is the document

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/266596.pdf pages 10 to 13

---

How many posts have attacked you Keyser this last year for posting information in a court filing? Now we have people quoting a plaintiff attorney in a filing and declaring it gospel.

I have tried to get them to think about what they are posting. They repeat each other and call it fact. A father of a lower level football staffer tosses out paraphrases from coaches saying it is fact. Fact is first-hand not 3rd or 4th hand.

We have very little information out now. I hope these cases go to trial. We may someday actually get to read some facts.

I have a couple of busy days ahead. Everybody try to use your brains that Baylor had a part in shaping. I hope on Wednesday that I don't walk back into the same ****show I saw here Friday night.

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.

What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.

Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.

This is from Baylor.edu

While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

NoBSU said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Not sure I agree with the racist part. That's why I didn't mention it. BU had a longstanding effort to present a wholesome image to the world. That is where they ran into troubles. To continue to present this image you have to do a lot of rug sweeping.

It is not unique to BU, all campuses, all Universities, at some level share in the blame.

I am sure the racist part is absolutely real. In discussing the issue,I had a regent personally tell me that he thought that Briles shouldn't have brought in "those kind of black kids".

It was enough to clue me in on the regents mindset.

---

---

That mindset rolls back the clock about half a century or more. There is certainly a line in history, that some folks raised during segregation, still think like that, a few younger raised in a very separated social setting, still do to.

That may well be a part of this entire fiasco too.

---

FB

Trash is trash. It doesn't matter how rich or poor. The wealth matters when they get caught and lawyer up. The more money then the better the attorney. I am reminded of this when I see certain Anheuser Busch commercials featuring IV.

If you recruit troublemakers, then you had better babysit them. I guess thanks to Ian and some internet paraphrases of regent(s) I need to reword that. If you recruit black/brown/red/white/yellow troublemakers, then you need to babysit them. Another option is to not take that risk.

Or I guess a third option exists - the double down. You know where I am going with that. Don't fix the dangerous behavior. Let the players celebrate it. Let it grow. Ride the wave.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

No, you're defending lying regents who wrote the FoF upon which you base your charges. Briles was scapegoated.
Chuck is being polite

---

BS. Don't worry about being polite. Keep floating that crap that coaches don't know the most about players before and after they hit campus. Keep blue starring it and maybe the magic of Disney will make your wish come true.

Oh, thanks again for proving my point that for you guys this discussion is all about protecting Briles.

---

Briles won't get to be responsible for another football team because he could not be responsible in the past.
Judy Admissions is easy to blame because she works at a university, must be liberal, and makes less money than Lebby because her father in law isn't a renegade football coach that runs his weakling boss.
Did I miss anything?

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

He works for Baylor. He's supposed to follow their protocol. I m sure he was happy to sweep it under the table but that's not how it works.

We have some naive people on this thread. These programs know these kids and their issues prior to Baylor. It's easier to win when you can take any recycled turd.

Again, details that don't make a difference to people with common sense.

The idea that Briles was some sort of callous monster because he did not report an incident:

1) that the victim did not want reported;

2) that that had been reported to her own coach and to the AD;

3) when he had not been trained on the policy you cite;

4) when JA was sweeping all of these incidents--not just football--under the rug anyway

5) when he favored criminal prosecution of his own players.

(Number 3 is a little hazy, but Barnes' letter indicates that he had not been trained.)

Nobody in his/her right mind would look at that scenario and see a football coach who was so win at all costs that he would turn his head to sexual assault. Yet, that is exactly how the BOR tried to use the incident.

I don't like the idea that our football players were involved in whatever went on with this VB player and given Tevin Elliott; Sam U. and Chatman/Armistead on top of it, there is plenty of smoke. Briles and staff were clearly not above bending things in players' favor on minor infractions.

So again, I am not saying he should not have been fired. I would love to have a complete, honest report about the issue so I could make up my own mind. Maybe something written by someone other than the BOR itself. But that is never going to happen, becuase the BOR won't let it happen.

I am saying that there is real evidence that the BOR used this incident to exaggerate Briles' failings to protect their own hide.

xiledinok said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

He works for Baylor. He's supposed to follow their protocol. I m sure he was happy to sweep it under the table but that's not how it works.

We have some naive people on this thread. These programs know these kids and their issues prior to Baylor. It's easier to win when you can take any recycled turd.

---

1. Ignores the fact that Barnes says no training on the "protocol."

2. Ignores the fact that the "protocol" is ridiculous.

3. Ignores the fact that if he followed the "protocol" gets the victim **** shamed.

4. Ignores the fact that victim was either leaving or had left the school.

5. Ignores the fact you have no clue who was involved or what their prior history was, if any.

Other than that, a damn solid post.

EXACTLY!

Barnes made it clear and it's documented that there was no tittle 9 training at THAT TIME. The "protocol" was to report to the AD. Which was done repeatedly. PH said Barnes did everything he could do in that situation and praised his efforts. When he asked why they were going after Briles they had no good answer. It was clear Pinning it on Briles made this issue go public.

The AD was supposed to take it from there. He did not. In fact he covered it up when asked about it by Crawford.

PartyBear said:

---

It seems you don't understand xile that repeatedly calling Ian a pawn of the Regents completely backs up what Ian is saying under oath and how he was powerless against the scapegoat set ups and racism and cover ups they were orchestrating. It doesn't contradict it all. It is a poor defense of the BOR to keep pointing out that Ian's testimony under oath is accurate.

---

Ian was powerless against everyone and everything. Namely Arthur Briles.

Booray said:

---

Again, details that don't make a difference to people with common sense.

The idea that Briles was some sort of callous monster because he did not report an incident:

1) that the victim did not want reported; not relevant information -

2) that that had been reported to her own coach and to the AD; they should report too

3) when he had not been trained on the policy you cite; he knew enough policy he was hiding other things left and right from Judicial Affairs

4) when JA was sweeping all of these incidents--not just football--under the rug anyway - there has been no evidence of JA affairs sweeping ANYTHING under the rug ! Stop repeating this nonsense.

5) when he favored criminal prosecution of his own players. He suggested the police be called - he also knew the girl did not want to call the police. Favored prosecution is not a good choice of words.

(Number 3 is a little hazy, but Barnes' letter indicates that he had not been trained.)

Nobody in his/her right mind would look at that scenario and see a football coach who was so win at all costs that he would turn his head to sexual assault. Yet, that is exactly how the BOR tried to use the incident.

I don't like the idea that our football players were involved in whatever went on with this VB player and given Tevin Elliott; Sam U. and Chatman/Armistead on top of it, there is plenty of smoke. Briles and staff were clearly not above bending things in players' favor on minor infractions.

So again, I am not saying he should not have been fired. I would love to have a complete, honest report about the issue so I could make up my own mind. Maybe something written by someone other than the BOR itself. But that is never going to happen, becuase the BOR won't let it happen.

I am saying that there is real evidence that the BOR used exaggerated Briles' failings to protect their own hide. That evidence, has not really surfaced yet - if it exist

---

^bold