Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

Forest Bueller said:

---

How can anybody discredit the FOF.

It's like I wrote an autobiography and nobody is allowed to research the source of my writings.

When you control the story, the narrative and the research and nobody can investigate the background of any of it, you have foolproof control of the narrative.

There is nothing to refute, it's a self serving document.

---

Written by a self serving bor.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You are so out of touch - 99.9% of those who know of this have his position. You just live in the incestuous .1% that affirms every wacky theory each of you gives the other.

---

Maybe I misunderstand your stand on this issue, but how could Briles start what had been the campus culture for many years, at least from an administrative point of view, to sweep these assault accusations under the rug, often ending up with the victim being punished for drinking, doing drugs or having sex.

It has been going on for many years, we can ignore the voices from the past that say this has been happening for many years, the victims voices, or we can believe them.

It is no longer acceptable to dismiss these accusations without due process for the victim, maybe that is the way it used to be, it is obvious that is what happened on the Baylor campus for many years, that mindset will never be acceptable again.

---

You are conflating two different things

University "cultural" problems: naive, insensitive to the needs of assault victims, 50's church lady "why that does not happen here" attitude. T9 cases not being properly investigated. No one is arguing these did not precede Briles

Football cultural problem: above the law, no consequences for bad behavior, - drugs, dog fights, guns, academic fraud, violence against women, hide it from judicial affairs - harassment of victims.

These are two different things - an no one in any official capacity has blamed Briles for the University level one. The ones Thee is referring to are definitely on Briles.

---

Please point to PROOF of academic fraud, and notify the NCAA for credible findings leading to sanctions. They've camped out here for years.... Are we under NCAA violations for academic fraud?

As for drugs and bad behavior, he kicked impact players off the team for both, (NFL talent), yet he was going to cover up rape for players who'd never played for Baylor? Listen Briles Made Mistakes, But Briles is gone. The only difference is he wasn't given the chance to fix his own mistakes and redeem himself, like the BoR was.

We can create a similar list for the BoR. Meddling, conflict of interest, lack of institutional control, lieing, cover ups...etc. ALL have been alleged by more sources than what you bring against Briles..including testimony under oath, their own PH Report, etc.

This is where your intellectual dishonesty shines. This is where you have NO credibility and are spotlighted as a shill. You can't have it both ways. Some
"Reports are real..others aren't." Just conveniently only the ones anti-briles and pro BoR.

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

---

Exactly! That's the nature of the problem that Herb Reynolds, Ph.D. created for Baylor.

How do you know "board approval" of a candidate IS what you suggested it might be? How do you know that it will remain unchanged beyond the next meeting of the bor?

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

---

You answer every question by spin. It's hilarious. It the same as asking you: How do you know the BoRs standards are what you "suggest"? Prove that your "suggestion" is correct. You can't. There's no transparency. This is a BoR that was literally chastised by their own investigations for meddling and conflicts of interest. You understand how absurd you sound?

All we have is speculation based on credibility of the players. Are you actually suggesting the BoR is currently in good standing regarding credibility these days? Scratch that, your bias enough To probably think they are credible.. "They've done an amazing job too date!"

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

---

Exactly! That's the nature of the problem that Herb Reynolds, Ph.D. created for Baylor.

How do you know "board approval" of a candidate IS what you suggested it might be? How do you know that it will remain unchanged beyond the next meeting of the bor?

---

I don't know 57 - that is why I am asking. I think we all don't know and it would be a good thing to find out.

There is a broad spectrum of what "board approval" of a candidate could mean. I think there are a good number of people assuming the most nefarious of the possibilities without really knowing what the right answer is.

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

---

Exactly! That's the nature of the problem that Herb Reynolds, Ph.D. created for Baylor.

How do you know "board approval" of a candidate IS what you suggested it might be? How do you know that it will remain unchanged beyond the next meeting of the bor?

---

I don't know 57 - that is why I am asking. I think we all don't know and it would be a good thing to find out.

There is a broad spectrum of what "board approval" of a candidate could mean. I think there are a good number of people assuming the most nefarious of the possibilities without really knowing what the right answer is.

---

THEY WERE REPRIMANDED FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, MEDDLING, and TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. Yes..assumptions are being made...BASED ON THEIR OWN HISTORY!!

It should be TRUST BUT VERIFY on EVERYTHING the do..but that's impossible when there's no transparency.

Today's Rorschach ink blot test: Ian's testimony about the PH lawyer allegedly asking a coach about black players:

Dman said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

---

Exactly! That's the nature of the problem that Herb Reynolds, Ph.D. created for Baylor.

How do you know "board approval" of a candidate IS what you suggested it might be? How do you know that it will remain unchanged beyond the next meeting of the bor?

---

I don't know 57 - that is why I am asking. I think we all don't know and it would be a good thing to find out.

There is a broad spectrum of what "board approval" of a candidate could mean. I think there are a good number of people assuming the most nefarious of the possibilities without really knowing what the right answer is.

---

THEY WERE REPRIMANDED FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, MEDDLING, and TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. Yes..assumptions are being made...BASED ON THEIR OWN HISTORY!!

It should be TRUST BUT VERIFY on EVERYTHING the do..but that's impossible when there's no transparency.

---

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me again after I find out that you've been fooling a lot of people for a long time, shame on me.

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

---

from baylor.edu:
Procedures for Elections of Alumni-Elected Regents

"Candidates for subsequent elections of Alumni-Elected Regents will be nominated by a committee composed of four members: two members appointed by the Chairman of the Baylor University Board of Regents and the two Alumni-Elected Regents not currently standing for re-election"

"The Nominating Committee will meet with candidates, review applications, decide whether candidates meet the qualifications set forth herein and select the three best candidates to appear on the ballot for an open Alumni-Elected Regent seat."
____________________________________

The candidates aren't chosen by the rank-and-file alumni, they are chosen by a committee of four regents, half of which are even hand-picked by the Chairman of the BOR.
____________________________________

"Baylor shall have the right to confirm (or not to confirm with good cause) the Directors elected by the
BGCT as set forth in this Appendix A after the BGCT's annual meeting at which a Baylor Director is
elected by the BGCT. Good cause is defined to mean that confirmation would not be in Baylor's best
interest as determined in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors upon a majority vote of Directors
present at a special or regular meeting.4"

"4 Pursuant to the Relationship Agreement, Baylor University unilaterally establishes the right to confirm or not to confirm in Baylor's governing documents. The standard not to confirm is a low threshold because it is an election standard, not a standard for removal addressed at Section 1.11. Under Baylor's accreditation standards, the Baylor Board of Directors has an obligation to protect Baylor from inappropriate outside influence. Accordingly, the Baylor Board of Directors applies its own independent judgment to whether service by such Directors is in Baylor's best interests."

__________________________________

Fair enough?

Franko said:

---

Today's Rorschach ink blot test: Ian's testimony about the PH lawyer allegedly asking a coach about black players:

---

Why would he otherwise have knowledge (or anyone else that wasn't in the interview) unless he was told directly by the person interviewed? Seems like an easy corroboration to me. Depose the coach and ask him.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Dman said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are requirements that the Board Members must be made up of certain percentages of Christians, Baptist, Texas residents, and alumni. I

---

Those requirements mean nothing - the bor can do what it wants to, any time it wants to, and without answering to anybody.

---

And how do you know this?

I know you are implying that they may use what ever subjective criteria they so choose. That would be very "not good" - and I would agree with you 100% - but how do you know? How do you know "board approval" of a candidate is not what I suggested it might be?

---

Exactly! That's the nature of the problem that Herb Reynolds, Ph.D. created for Baylor.

How do you know "board approval" of a candidate IS what you suggested it might be? How do you know that it will remain unchanged beyond the next meeting of the bor?

---

I don't know 57 - that is why I am asking. I think we all don't know and it would be a good thing to find out.

There is a broad spectrum of what "board approval" of a candidate could mean. I think there are a good number of people assuming the most nefarious of the possibilities without really knowing what the right answer is.

---

THEY WERE REPRIMANDED FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, MEDDLING, and TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. Yes..assumptions are being made...BASED ON THEIR OWN HISTORY!!

It should be TRUST BUT VERIFY on EVERYTHING the do..but that's impossible when there's no transparency.

---

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me again after I find out that you've been fooling a lot of people for a long time, shame on me.

---

The moment an alumni body/university loses trust in a BOR and is put in a situation where they must TRUST BUT VERIFY, due to well documented historical actions of that BoR, is the moment you have the wrong BoR. Throw on top, that it's actually impossible due to total lack of transparency. This is plain to anyone not called Keyser.

Yes, fair - thanks for taking the time to look that up

Nothing wrong with "for good cause" - I hope that is narrowly defined somewhere, but you are correct a door is open there.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Yes, fair - thanks for taking the time to look that up

Nothing wrong with "for good cause" - I hope that is narrowly defined somewhere, but you are correct a door is open there.

---

It is not narrowly defined, rather it is a low threshold.

Sampi82 said:

---

Briles didn't start what had been an ongoing campus wide problem before his arrival. His mismanagement and irresponsible behavior as CEO of the football program brought campus wide issues to light. The BoR covering this up for years is a big reason why this is not going away anytime soon. It is clear now why the BoR didn't defend Baylor. Plenty of blame to go around but the buck stops at the very top as with any other organization and their "volunteer" status is no excuse. The PH "mandates" make that abundantly clear.

---

Yep.....Briles screwed up...but if the Regents had not been running such a clown show for years in terms of responding to sexual assault we would not be in the situation....or at least it would not be nearly a big a scandal as it has become.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Yes, fair - thanks for taking the time to look that up

Nothing wrong with "for good cause" - I hope that is narrowly defined somewhere, but you are correct a door is open there.

---

And that "open door" was used prior to 2017 (at least) to strong-arm the BGCT nominating committee into placing the Board choices in the place of the BGCT choices while the committee was in the process of compiling those nominations. The message given was "here are your nominations and if you nominate anyone else, we will not install your nomination as a Regent. Go ahead and sue us."

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Yes, fair - thanks for taking the time to look that up

Nothing wrong with "for good cause" - I hope that is narrowly defined somewhere, but you are correct a door is open there.

---

And that "open door" was used prior to 2017 (at least) to strong-arm the BGCT nominating committee into placing the Board choices in the place of the BGCT choices while the committee was in the process of compiling those nominations. The message given was "here are your nominations and if you nominate anyone else, we will not install your nomination as a Regent. Go ahead and sue us."

---

Thanks witchmo

The reforms to the BOR hit in early 2017. Based on what Malbec posted, that same discretion still exists - I hope it would be used appropriately, but we may not have the ability to know one way or the other.

Malbec said:

---

____________________________________

... "Baylor shall have the right to confirm (or not to confirm with good cause) the Directors elected by the
BGCT as set forth in this Appendix A after the BGCT's annual meeting at which a Baylor Director is
elected by the BGCT. Good cause is defined to mean that confirmation would not be in Baylor's best
interest as determined in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors upon a majority vote of Directors present at a special or regular meeting.4" ...

---

Is there anything that is not subject to: "in Baylor's best interest as determined in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors upon a majority vote of Directors present at a special or regular meeting."

Keyser Soze said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Yes, fair - thanks for taking the time to look that up

Nothing wrong with "for good cause" - I hope that is narrowly defined somewhere, but you are correct a door is open there.

---

And that "open door" was used prior to 2017 (at least) to strong-arm the BGCT nominating committee into placing the Board choices in the place of the BGCT choices while the committee was in the process of compiling those nominations. The message given was "here are your nominations and if you nominate anyone else, we will not install your nomination as a Regent. Go ahead and sue us."

---

Thanks witchmo

The reforms to the BOR hit in early 2017. Based on what Malbec posted, that same discretion still exists - I hope it would be used appropriately, but we may not have the ability to know one way or the other.

---

So let me get this straight. We are supposed to hope The reform that was needed before 2017 because of meddling, conflicts of interest, and lack of transparency... "would be used appropriately"...by the same body Of people still in place, without any additional transparency to confirm by anyone? You're good with that? Good lord I'm grateful our alum as a whole are smarter and not so bias as Baghdad Bob/Keyser.

The BOR micro-managed Baylor for years, and then when everything hits the fan, they blame someone else. Those sanctimonious blankity- blanks.

Keyser

Simple question. Why in God's name not expect and demand more for our university? Why try so hard to defend at BEST mediocrity or at worst outright ineptitude and incompetence from the BoR? Baylor has access to brilliant minds far more capable than this.

Prove you're not a blatant shill. Simply agree with this non-controversial statement:

"Baylor would have been much better off with a clean start from ALL involved. A committee could have been formed, new regents phased in under a controlled transition. Even if no fault
Was EVER acknowledged, if for no other reason than to give the school a clean start and to heal. Versus years and years of this controversy"

Agree?

The board wasn't great and then came along Briles who wouldn't be allowed to babysit dogs in the southeastern part of the United States, according to their fanbases.
Now, Baylor has to fix its problems while Briles continues to be avoided by all those with sitting boards and insurance carriers.
Once Briles' supporters move onto something other than the findings of fact (which is in line with everything else published by the regents and has strong evidence to back it up (or enough that those wanting to sue them will lose and pay for the attorneys (and face a public beating in the media)) we might have a chance to reform the board. Until then, expect cries from the Briles supporters because they aren't bringing anything other than tears.
The cannot refute anything or they would have already done so.

xiledinok said:

---

The board wasn't great and then came along Briles who wouldn't be allowed to babysit dogs in the southeastern part of the United States, according to their fanbases.
Now, Baylor has to fix its problems while Briles continues to be avoided by all those with sitting boards and insurance carriers.
Once Briles' supporters move onto something other than the findings of fact (which line everything else published by the regents has strong evidence to back it up (or enough that those wanting to sue them will lose and pay for the attorneys (and face a public beating in the media)) we might have a chance to reform the board. Until then, expect cries from the Briles supporters because they aren't bringing anything other than tears.
The cannot refute anything or they would have already done so.

---

I don't care about Briles.

I want the BOR gone for simply being present and failing on PR during the scandal.

xiledinok said:

---

The board wasn't great and then came along Briles who wouldn't be allowed to babysit dogs in the southeastern part of the United States, according to their fanbases.
Now, Baylor has to fix its problems while Briles continues to be avoided by all those with sitting boards and insurance carriers.
Once Briles' supporters move onto something other than the findings of fact (which is in line with everything else published by the regents and has strong evidence to back it up (or enough that those wanting to sue them will lose and pay for the attorneys (and face a public beating in the media)) we might have a chance to reform the board. Until then, expect cries from the Briles supporters because they aren't bringing anything other than tears.
The cannot refute anything or they would have already done so.

---

.

False argument. Briles is gone. This has nothing to do with him. He Has been for years. Our beloved university isn't capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time? How long are we supposed to be held hostage by an inept BoR with just as much "FoF" against them as anyone else? Do we not deserve better?

Do you realize how incompetent we look as a university by saying "this is best we got. There was
No one better. We are keeping them.."

Anyone else not find it pretty telling that BU's response confirms that Ian our former AD was shooting at the BOR in a sworn deposition? I mean I guess we all figured Dunham was not dumb enough to directly lie about his sworn testimony but still I had a few doubts about how strong Ian hit back...and it looks like from how much squealing BU is doing it was pretty hard. Do you BOR apologists not at least acknowledge that Ian as the ex-AD involved up to his neck in all this is a pretty damming witness to your side of the argument? Not say he did not lie through his teeth but still...what sworn testimony do you guys have to point to? We now have Patty Crawford ex title IX administrator and our ex AD both shooting squarely at the BOR and SR administration folks...where there is smoke?

Is Dunham's case still scheduled to come to trial in October 2018?

Keyser Soze said:

---

You are so out of touch - 99.9% of those who know of this have his position. You just live in the incestuous .1% that affirms every wacky theory each of you gives the other.

---

25 page thread so far and this is the dumbest post

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

DAC said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You are so out of touch - 99.9% of those who know of this have his position. You just live in the incestuous .1% that affirms every wacky theory each of you gives the other.

---

25 page thread so far and this is the dumbest post

---

It's hard to narrow down. But it's an accurate reflection of just How out of touch he is. Rest assured. Even he doesn't believe this. But Baghdad Bob is too far gone to stop now.

Dman said:

---

DAC said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You are so out of touch - 99.9% of those who know of this have his position. You just live in the incestuous .1% that affirms every wacky theory each of you gives the other.

---

25 page thread so far and this is the dumbest post

---

It's hard to narrow down. But it's an accurate reflection of just How out of touch he is. Rest assured. Even he doesn't believe this. But Baghdad Bob is too far gone to stop now.

---

I think 99.9% is an underestimate. I think 100% of all released information in the future is going to support your opinion. Well, except for the fake stuff that doesn't.

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

TexAgs and Shaggy are morons when it comes to evaluating the Baylor situation.

They just run with 53/45/9 or whatever it was, say most of the team were rapist and say that Briles actively covered up over 50 rapes.

They are clueless.

Thee University said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

That's a lot of words that aren't worth a bucket of warm piss attempting to crawfish back an asinine defense of the undefendable; creepily sycophantic. Let me quote your insinuation again as to the lengths our BOR and Pat Neff staff would go to cover up decades of sexual assault....

"This sewer hole must stink so bad that a cover up was the only thing to do. BU is going to protect the school/brand over football all day long. As well they should." - Thee

You may just as well get that coveted seat on the BOR yet with that kind of belief. Maybe you could instill discipline, self-control, honor, and pride amongst the BOR....Hahahaha!
!
Briles has been held accountable, yet there's still nothing by way of resignations from our BOR. That silence is deafening.

---

Hide and watch.

As your savior so eloquently put it.........................................Truth don't lie!

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/people-blast-art-briles-twitter-truth-dont-lie-tweet-baylor-bears-football

http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/baylor-coaches-protest-administration-truth-dont-lie-tweets/327442

So classy.

Briles started this BS. The BOR ended it. Yes, they made some mistakes but as they say - desperate times call for desperate measures.

They gave him everything he asked for and needed to build the program. What did he do? He built it on shifting sands.

When Briles gives his unearned hush money to the female victims of his ineptitude, I'll quit hammering you pitiful hero worshipers.

---

Love it! Your answer to everything is Briles...Briles...Briles...but Briles did it...it's Briles fault...2 decades of sexual assault possibly unaccounted for because Briles...Briles....BUPD Chief but Briles....TLD, RR, Buddy, Dary because Briles....failure to implement T9 because, well, Briles...

You're a broken record.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

TexAgs and Shaggy are morons when it comes to evaluating the Baylor situation.

They just run with 53/45/9 or whatever it was, say most of the team were rapist and say that Briles actively covered up over 50 rapes.

They are clueless.

---

We are not talking about what is accurate - you are off topic

But I do agree many on Texas Ags and Shaggy are / were clueless.