Booray said:

---

In Art's case, he was being paid millions to win football games. Its the school's job to control admissions and behavior.

If Art did anything to subvert that process, its on him also. Don't know if he did or not.

---

Don't you think it would be imperative and moral to explain to Alumni and everyone associated with Baylor before firing?

There is no smoking gun, there is no violation of contract: that we know of.
To accuse Briles of wrongdoing is fundamentally agreeing with a conclusion based on ZERO facts.

The board should be held in contempt. They should be compelled to give reason fully based on facts. And not just facts based on hearsay but in physical evidence.

If anyone is against smearing the BOR without facts...just remember you're smearing Briles and Co. without facts.

I have long been an advocate of a report in the style Penn State did; full accounting of the facts and circumstances and let the chips fall where they may. Our BOR has done just the opposite, to our lasting damage and shame.

PartyBear said:

---

The media wasn't really going after Briles until the Regents did. This whole cluster including the Pr debacle is the BOR's doing.

I also don't understand the criticism of Ian and people saying they support his firing now based on what he said. Because he told some unflattering truth about what was going down in spring of 16? A lot of folks already knew this. This is the first time it has been publicly stated however.

---

Ian didn't call a press conference. He was subpoenaed. He was placed under oath. His deposition was given 6 months ago.

I believe him. He has no motive to mislead people; no advantage to him, none.

Who has the motive to lie? Lying racist regents who CYA and did not fulfill their fiduciary duty to the university.

I know I meant publicly revealed through official documents. It wasn't really a public statement.

This thread is not long for this world. It will either soon be locked or moved to the Knitting and Sewing Board.

Brian Ethridge said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

This thread is not long for this world. It will either soon be locked or moved to the Knitting and Sewing Board.

---

You keep saying this, but here it remains.

---

Thank you, Mr.Ethridge, for allowing the discussion to continue.

Norm Hitzges is doing a segment about it on the Ticket right now.

Norm wondering out loud why CAB back in 2016 would remain quiet about bigger university issues when the heat was coming down on him. Obviously that's what the $15 million settlement money was for. I thought this was common knowledge now but maybe it just seems like common knowledge to me because we are so close to it here.

Norm and Donnie speculating that this could now turn into a huge issue for Baylor if it's determined the cover up was done at higher levels than just the football program.

The alumni couldn't turn up the heat enough on the BORs potential culpability in all of this....but maybe if the media turns their attention to the BOR something might shake lose.

PartyBear said:

---

The media wasn't really going after Briles until the Regents did. This whole cluster including the Pr debacle is the BOR's doing.

---

I agree with the second sentence. I think the BOR (or its advisors) knew that the media would love to go after Briles and the football program, as it was already happening. That's juicy. People will read about college football scandals, especially if it puts the pain-in-the-ass Baptists and their swaggering coach back in their place. So they offered them up as raw meat for the crowd. When the remainder of the coaching staff pushed back against the narrative, our BOR buried them (and, frankly, all of us) in the WSJ and a totally gratuitous pleading in a lawsuit. None of this is under oath, subject to penalties of perjury, nor really binding on anyone, no more so than the 13 page "summary," so it is all easily done from that perspective.

By making the football program the bright shiny object to distract everyone, I believe the BOR made this scandal far worse from a PR perspective than it had to be (ignoring the fact that they ruined the best football program we will ever have). So why would they do this? One explanation is Ian's explanation (we are tuition dependent, don't want to scare away students, etc.). Another possible explanation is that some BOR members felt like they had personal exposure. Tough to say. Either way, I don't think fiduciary duty weighed nearly as heavily here as it should have.

Booray said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

A university wide problem, which Ian didn't bother to do anything about when he could have stopped it.
Character matters?

---

As someone on here is fond of saying, Ian was a ribbon clerk-he could not have stopped anything.

My best take on this whole thing is that we had a lax to non-existent adjudication and enforcement policy for sexual assault, campus wide. We thumbed our nose at the Dear Colleague letter becuase we did not believe that the federal government had any right to tell us how to run the school.

Briles, with Ian's help, took advantage of our lax policy becuase: (1) he was paid to win football games not to function as a campus cop, prosecutor and judge; (2) he sincerely believed in giving kids second chances and (3) there was never a situation in which he knew for sure that his kid had sexually assaulted someone.

{When ESPN and a couple of others in the media focused on football to get their clicks}; they (the BOR) were God's messengers so surely the blame could not be on them. As much as they loved their shiny new toy, it {was convenient for the focus to} be Briles' fault. This decision was made easier when {Briles' friends an I also think family decided to go with the no rapes, nuts and ****s Clinton defense}.

---

FIFY. Otherwise I think you nailed it.

I have posted for nearly 10 years that I think a handful of Regents run the show. They have key committee chairs and sit at top of the board. They control the agenda and what the other regents see and discuss. They have the convenient confidentially and gag order in place. The ruling few also seems to be part of the old Friends of Baylor group that defended Sloan and the Vision. The FOB may be a coincidence or maybe all of you upset about this have been snoozing for a decade in regards to the real problem. We lost the BOR to a handful of ideologues a decade ago. Most thought it ended with ousting Sloan. Nope. It just went underground.

The other regents are sheep.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

In Art's case, he was being paid millions to win football games. Its the school's job to control admissions and behavior.

If Art did anything to subvert that process, its on him also. Don't know if he did or not.

---

Don't you think it would be imperative and moral to explain to Alumni and everyone associated with Baylor before firing?

There is no smoking gun, there is no violation of contract: that we know of.
To accuse Briles of wrongdoing is fundamentally agreeing with a conclusion based on ZERO facts.

The board should be held in contempt. They should be compelled to give reason fully based on facts. And not just facts based on hearsay but in physical evidence.

If anyone is against smearing the BOR without facts...just remember you're smearing Briles and Co. without facts.

---

The reason that it is sometimes difficult to have meaningful discussions about topics like this is that there are separate issues that get bundled together to reach certain conclusions without explaining how the conclusions were made on each issue to arrive at that conclusion.

Here, for example:
1. The BOR didn't have to separately explain to anyone why it fired Briles.
2. The BOR didn't fire Briles for violating his contract.
3. The existence of the text messages, which have never been in doubt, were sufficient to terminate Briles regardless of anything else he did, the BOR did, or anything third party did.
4. The BOR isn't going to be compelled to do much of anything short of legal proceedings, and, even then, if the BOR can settle before any attempts at those legal proceedings taking place.
5. Physical evidence like the text messages? They meet the definition of physical in terms of evidence.

At a high level, whether Briles did anything wrong and whether the BOR did anything wrong are two separate issues and yet they constantly get conflated on this board.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

In Art's case, he was being paid millions to win football games. Its the school's job to control admissions and behavior.

If Art did anything to subvert that process, its on him also. Don't know if he did or not.

---

Don't you think it would be imperative and moral to explain to Alumni and everyone associated with Baylor before firing?

There is no smoking gun, there is no violation of contract: that we know of.
To accuse Briles of wrongdoing is fundamentally agreeing with a conclusion based on ZERO facts.

The board should be held in contempt. They should be compelled to give reason fully based on facts. And not just facts based on hearsay but in physical evidence.

If anyone is against smearing the BOR without facts...just remember you're smearing Briles and Co. without facts.

---

The reason that it is sometimes difficult to have meaningful discussions about topics like this is that there are separate issues that get bundled together to reach certain conclusions without explaining how the conclusions were made on each issue to arrive at that conclusion.

Here, for example:
1. The BOR didn't have to separately explain to anyone why it fired Briles.
2. The BOR didn't fire Briles for violating his contract.
3. The existence of the text messages, which have never been in doubt, were sufficient to terminate Briles regardless of anything else he did, the BOR did, or anything third party did.
4. The BOR isn't going to be compelled to do much of anything short of legal proceedings, and, even then, if the BOR can settle before any attempts at those legal proceedings taking place.
5. Physical evidence like the text messages? They meet the definition of physical in terms of evidence.

At a high level, whether Briles did anything wrong and whether the BOR did anything wrong are two separate issues and yet they constantly get conflated on this board.

---

I disagree with number 3. Not sufficient enough to terminate and out of context.

OldSchoolBU said:

---

And ignore the attention seeking low life Brenda Tracy. She's the worst form of human that this social media society has created.

---

We agree here.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

In Art's case, he was being paid millions to win football games. Its the school's job to control admissions and behavior.

If Art did anything to subvert that process, its on him also. Don't know if he did or not.

---

Don't you think it would be imperative and moral to explain to Alumni and everyone associated with Baylor before firing?

There is no smoking gun, there is no violation of contract: that we know of.
To accuse Briles of wrongdoing is fundamentally agreeing with a conclusion based on ZERO facts.

The board should be held in contempt. They should be compelled to give reason fully based on facts. And not just facts based on hearsay but in physical evidence.

If anyone is against smearing the BOR without facts...just remember you're smearing Briles and Co. without facts.

---

The reason that it is sometimes difficult to have meaningful discussions about topics like this is that there are separate issues that get bundled together to reach certain conclusions without explaining how the conclusions were made on each issue to arrive at that conclusion.

Here, for example:
1. The BOR didn't have to separately explain to anyone why it fired Briles.
2. The BOR didn't fire Briles for violating his contract.
3. The existence of the text messages, which have never been in doubt, were sufficient to terminate Briles regardless of anything else he did, the BOR did, or anything third party did.
4. The BOR isn't going to be compelled to do much of anything short of legal proceedings, and, even then, if the BOR can settle before any attempts at those legal proceedings taking place.
5. Physical evidence like the text messages? They meet the definition of physical in terms of evidence.

At a high level, whether Briles did anything wrong and whether the BOR did anything wrong are two separate issues and yet they constantly get conflated on this board.

---

I disagree with number 3. Not sufficient enough to terminate and out of context.

---

There are lots of ways to frame the Briles question that yield different answers. Here are just a few.

1. Was there "sufficient" evidence to fire him if that's what you wanted to do? Yeah, probably.
2. Was there enough evidence to fire him for cause? Unclear, but probably not IMO based on what I've seen. Would've been a long and ugly fight in any event, and everyone would've left bloody.
3. Was there enough evidence that we were compelled to fire him? Certainly not from what I've seen.

So, if you weren't compelled to fire him, was it a good idea? I think that answer is a resounding no, but plenty of posters around here disagree with me.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

In Art's case, he was being paid millions to win football games. Its the school's job to control admissions and behavior.

If Art did anything to subvert that process, its on him also. Don't know if he did or not.

---

Don't you think it would be imperative and moral to explain to Alumni and everyone associated with Baylor before firing?

There is no smoking gun, there is no violation of contract: that we know of.
To accuse Briles of wrongdoing is fundamentally agreeing with a conclusion based on ZERO facts.

The board should be held in contempt. They should be compelled to give reason fully based on facts. And not just facts based on hearsay but in physical evidence.

If anyone is against smearing the BOR without facts...just remember you're smearing Briles and Co. without facts.

---

The reason that it is sometimes difficult to have meaningful discussions about topics like this is that there are separate issues that get bundled together to reach certain conclusions without explaining how the conclusions were made on each issue to arrive at that conclusion.

Here, for example:
1. The BOR didn't have to separately explain to anyone why it fired Briles.
2. The BOR didn't fire Briles for violating his contract.
3. The existence of the text messages, which have never been in doubt, were sufficient to terminate Briles regardless of anything else he did, the BOR did, or anything third party did.
4. The BOR isn't going to be compelled to do much of anything short of legal proceedings, and, even then, if the BOR can settle before any attempts at those legal proceedings taking place.
5. Physical evidence like the text messages? They meet the definition of physical in terms of evidence.

At a high level, whether Briles did anything wrong and whether the BOR did anything wrong are two separate issues and yet they constantly get conflated on this board.

---

I disagree with number 3. Not sufficient enough to terminate and out of context.

---

It's fine to disagree, but that does not mean that it's not true.

If #2 is true, then #3 doesn't matter since he was not fired for violating his contract so they could fire him for whatever reason they wanted as long as it was not a reason that they could not do so under Texas state and Federal law.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

In Art's case, he was being paid millions to win football games. Its the school's job to control admissions and behavior.

If Art did anything to subvert that process, its on him also. Don't know if he did or not.

---

Don't you think it would be imperative and moral to explain to Alumni and everyone associated with Baylor before firing?

There is no smoking gun, there is no violation of contract: that we know of.
To accuse Briles of wrongdoing is fundamentally agreeing with a conclusion based on ZERO facts.

The board should be held in contempt. They should be compelled to give reason fully based on facts. And not just facts based on hearsay but in physical evidence.

If anyone is against smearing the BOR without facts...just remember you're smearing Briles and Co. without facts.

---

The reason that it is sometimes difficult to have meaningful discussions about topics like this is that there are separate issues that get bundled together to reach certain conclusions without explaining how the conclusions were made on each issue to arrive at that conclusion.

Here, for example:
1. The BOR didn't have to separately explain to anyone why it fired Briles.
2. The BOR didn't fire Briles for violating his contract.
3. The existence of the text messages, which have never been in doubt, were sufficient to terminate Briles regardless of anything else he did, the BOR did, or anything third party did.
4. The BOR isn't going to be compelled to do much of anything short of legal proceedings, and, even then, if the BOR can settle before any attempts at those legal proceedings taking place.
5. Physical evidence like the text messages? They meet the definition of physical in terms of evidence.

At a high level, whether Briles did anything wrong and whether the BOR did anything wrong are two separate issues and yet they constantly get conflated on this board.

---

I disagree with number 3. Not sufficient enough to terminate and out of context.

---

It's fine to disagree, but that does not mean that it's not true.

If #2 is true, then #3 doesn't matter since he was not fired for violating his contract so they could fire him for whatever reason they wanted as long as it was not a reason that they could not do so under Texas state and Federal law.

---

The reason is CYA

Quote:

---

I have posted for nearly 10 years that I think a handful of Regents run the show.

---

And many believe you are correct. Not only that but that some former Regents are still calling shots from afar.

OldSchoolBU said:

---

A few comments

The circle jerk is not on premium. It is here. Talk about an echo chamber. Premium is more 50/50.

I had Taylor Young's back. Went to every game at McLane and cheered hard for them.

I think most of Baylor Nation had Art Briles and Ian McCaws backs until their negligence became apparent.

They may be fine men but they were asleep at the wheel with our regents but they were being paid millions to not be asleep at the wheel.

---

Not sure the purpose of this. Of course most here knew Briles had to go the way this thing was handled, panic, followed by more panic.

Anybody with a pulse knew a few on the board was dirty when they continued the charade of being clean, as they tried to continue the narrative Baylor was a pure environment. People at every level, from the BOR, down to assistant coaches, down to those who were supposed to advocate for the young women assaulted fell short.

Is it wrong to expect all involved to share some in of the punishment. You had Taylor's back, good for you. A shame nobody in the higher ups of the University shared in your support. Their continued Friday releases and then silence, condemned all the football team. Most of whom are good guys.

NoBSU said:

---

Booray said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

A university wide problem, which Ian didn't bother to do anything about when he could have stopped it.
Character matters?

---

As someone on here is fond of saying, Ian was a ribbon clerk-he could not have stopped anything.

My best take on this whole thing is that we had a lax to non-existent adjudication and enforcement policy for sexual assault, campus wide. We thumbed our nose at the Dear Colleague letter becuase we did not believe that the federal government had any right to tell us how to run the school.

Briles, with Ian's help, took advantage of our lax policy becuase: (1) he was paid to win football games not to function as a campus cop, prosecutor and judge; (2) he sincerely believed in giving kids second chances and (3) there was never a situation in which he knew for sure that his kid had sexually assaulted someone.

{When ESPN and a couple of others in the media focused on football to get their clicks}; they (the BOR) were God's messengers so surely the blame could not be on them. As much as they loved their shiny new toy, it {was convenient for the focus to} be Briles' fault. This decision was made easier when {Briles' friends an I also think family decided to go with the no rapes, nuts and ****s Clinton defense}.

---

FIFY. Otherwise I think you nailed it.

I have posted for nearly 10 years that I think a handful of Regents run the show. They have key committee chairs and sit at top of the board. They control the agenda and what the other regents see and discuss. They have the convenient confidentially and gag order in place. The ruling few also seems to be part of the old Friends of Baylor group that defended Sloan and the Vision. The FOB may be a coincidence or maybe all of you upset about this have been snoozing for a decade in regards to the real problem. We lost the BOR to a handful of ideologues a decade ago. Most thought it ended with ousting Sloan. Nope. It just went underground.

The other regents are sheep.

---

Robemcdo was indeed Ian's mole and Ian actually believes he'll win going race card route. His approach to defend himself is crazier than 9 drunk Indians.

Brenda built her questionable advocacy off the backs of those named in her post. Their idiocy made her a name.

Forest Bueller said:

---

OldSchoolBU said:

---

A few comments

The circle jerk is not on premium. It is here. Talk about an echo chamber. Premium is more 50/50.

I had Taylor Young's back. Went to every game at McLane and cheered hard for them.

I think most of Baylor Nation had Art Briles and Ian McCaws backs until their negligence became apparent.

They may be fine men but they were asleep at the wheel with our regents but they were being paid millions to not be asleep at the wheel.

---

Not sure the purpose of this. Of course most here knew Briles had to go the way this thing was handled, panic, followed by more panic.

Anybody with a pulse knew a few on the board was dirty when they continued the charade of being clean, as they tried to continue the narrative Baylor was a pure environment. People at every level, from the BOR, down to assistant coaches, down to those who were supposed to advocate for the young women assaulted fell short.

Is it wrong to expect all involved to share some in of the punishment. You had Taylor's back, good for you. A shame nobody in the higher ups of the University shared in your support. Their continued Friday releases and then silence, condemned all the football team. Most of whom are good guys.

---

No one had their backs. I haven't seen their former coaches defend them. Parents? Friends? Only KM who comes off worst than a drunk girl from Louisiana on Live PD,
Utter ridiculous to think the board was interested in defending them. What obligation did they have to protect them? The troubling numbers were higher than another other specific group on campus.

xiledinok said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

OldSchoolBU said:

---

A few comments

The circle jerk is not on premium. It is here. Talk about an echo chamber. Premium is more 50/50.

I had Taylor Young's back. Went to every game at McLane and cheered hard for them.

I think most of Baylor Nation had Art Briles and Ian McCaws backs until their negligence became apparent.

They may be fine men but they were asleep at the wheel with our regents but they were being paid millions to not be asleep at the wheel.

---

Not sure the purpose of this. Of course most here knew Briles had to go the way this thing was handled, panic, followed by more panic.

Anybody with a pulse knew a few on the board was dirty when they continued the charade of being clean, as they tried to continue the narrative Baylor was a pure environment. People at every level, from the BOR, down to assistant coaches, down to those who were supposed to advocate for the young women assaulted fell short.

Is it wrong to expect all involved to share some in of the punishment. You had Taylor's back, good for you. A shame nobody in the higher ups of the University shared in your support. Their continued Friday releases and then silence, condemned all the football team. Most of whom are good guys.

---

No one had their backs. I haven't seen their former coaches defend them. Parents? Friends? Only KM who comes off worst than a drunk girl from Louisiana on Live PD,
Utter ridiculous to think the board was interested in defending them. What obligation did they have to protect them? The troubling numbers were higher than another other specific group on campus.

---

How would we really know that, if the Title 9 director tallied 300 complaints in 23 months and said herself there was no unusual pattern in athletics. Sound more like other specific groups simply weren't scrutinized the way the athletic department was.

Of course the board wouldn't defend them, they were creating the illusion that they are the primary problem. I believe 300 complaints in less that 2 years is proclaiming, they were just another part of a campus wide problem.

Doesn't gather near as much ESPN or "Outside the LInes" time if Billy Frat Member takes advantage of a drunken sorority girl at a mixer, does it. I don't see Brenda after that demographic either. It ain't no money maker.

xiledinok said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

OldSchoolBU said:

---

A few comments

The circle jerk is not on premium. It is here. Talk about an echo chamber. Premium is more 50/50.

I had Taylor Young's back. Went to every game at McLane and cheered hard for them.

I think most of Baylor Nation had Art Briles and Ian McCaws backs until their negligence became apparent.

They may be fine men but they were asleep at the wheel with our regents but they were being paid millions to not be asleep at the wheel.

---

Not sure the purpose of this. Of course most here knew Briles had to go the way this thing was handled, panic, followed by more panic.

Anybody with a pulse knew a few on the board was dirty when they continued the charade of being clean, as they tried to continue the narrative Baylor was a pure environment. People at every level, from the BOR, down to assistant coaches, down to those who were supposed to advocate for the young women assaulted fell short.

Is it wrong to expect all involved to share some in of the punishment. You had Taylor's back, good for you. A shame nobody in the higher ups of the University shared in your support. Their continued Friday releases and then silence, condemned all the football team. Most of whom are good guys.

---

No one had their backs. I haven't seen their former coaches defend them. Parents? Friends? Only KM who comes off worst than a drunk girl from Louisiana on Live PD,
Utter ridiculous to think the board was interested in defending them. What obligation did they have to protect them? The troubling numbers were higher than another other specific group on campus.

---

Didn't get a wink of sleep last night did you!!!

REX said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

OldSchoolBU said:

---

A few comments

The circle jerk is not on premium. It is here. Talk about an echo chamber. Premium is more 50/50.

I had Taylor Young's back. Went to every game at McLane and cheered hard for them.

I think most of Baylor Nation had Art Briles and Ian McCaws backs until their negligence became apparent.

They may be fine men but they were asleep at the wheel with our regents but they were being paid millions to not be asleep at the wheel.

---

Not sure the purpose of this. Of course most here knew Briles had to go the way this thing was handled, panic, followed by more panic.

Anybody with a pulse knew a few on the board was dirty when they continued the charade of being clean, as they tried to continue the narrative Baylor was a pure environment. People at every level, from the BOR, down to assistant coaches, down to those who were supposed to advocate for the young women assaulted fell short.

Is it wrong to expect all involved to share some in of the punishment. You had Taylor's back, good for you. A shame nobody in the higher ups of the University shared in your support. Their continued Friday releases and then silence, condemned all the football team. Most of whom are good guys.

---

No one had their backs. I haven't seen their former coaches defend them. Parents? Friends? Only KM who comes off worst than a drunk girl from Louisiana on Live PD,
Utter ridiculous to think the board was interested in defending them. What obligation did they have to protect them? The troubling numbers were higher than another other specific group on campus.

---

Didn't get a wink of sleep last night did you!!!

---

xiled is like exlax. May take a while to get going, but once it does, a turd drops every 10-15 minutes.

Booray said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

A university wide problem, which Ian didn't bother to do anything about when he could have stopped it.
Character matters?

---

As someone on here is fond of saying, Ian was a ribbon clerk-he could not have stopped anything.

My best take on this whole thing is that we had a lax to non-existent adjudication and enforcement policy for sexual assault, campus wide. We thumbed our nose at the Dear Colleague letter becuase we did not believe that the federal government had any right to tell us how to run the school.

Briles, with Ian's help, took advantage of our lax policy becuase: (1) he was paid to win football games not to function as a campus cop, prosecutor and judge; (2) he sincerely believed in giving kids second chances and (3) there was never a situation in which he knew for sure that his kid had sexually assaulted someone.

When the kitchen heated up, the BOR felt that it had to blame someone; they were God's messengers so surely the blame could not be on them. As much as they loved their shiny new toy, it must be Briles' fault. This decision was made easier when they told themselves that the toy would be shiny again soon becuase of the neat playroom they had built.

---

I am a Briles fan but I agree with just about all of this. Blame all around is what happened in this thing. But only a few were fired. And not the ones who deserved it most.

Russell Gym said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

An off season thread that is interesting. It's about time!

Question... does this mean the Big12 will ask that all of our games be moved to Facebook?

---

It doesn't matter. We are 75 percent members until the next realignment at best, then Baylor will be kicked to the fringe curb.

---

We've shown everyone that we don't belong. Our organization was not run well enough to handle big time football.

PartyBear said:

---

The media wasn't really going after Briles until the Regents did. This whole cluster including the Pr debacle is the BOR's doing.

I also don't understand the criticism of Ian and people saying they support his firing now based on what he said. Because he told some unflattering truth about what was going down in spring of 16? A lot of folks already knew this. This is the first time it has been publicly stated however.

---

This isn't true.

Also, strangely, you and others forget that Starr was also fired.

The difference is that you and others of your ilk cared about Briles and didn't care about Starr.

I still don't get the bizarre and illogical theory that the BOR decided to make their cash cow their scapegoat. It makes absolutely no sense and flies in the face of all the support Briles got over the years from the BOR, including first-class facilities.

Also, as Clavine has said, you and others think the BOR was so incompetent, yet was competent enough to come up with this convoluted scheme to make Briles the scapegoat.

There's plenty of BOR failure, but firing Briles was part of cleaning up the mess.

George Truett said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

The media wasn't really going after Briles until the Regents did. This whole cluster including the Pr debacle is the BOR's doing.

I also don't understand the criticism of Ian and people saying they support his firing now based on what he said. Because he told some unflattering truth about what was going down in spring of 16? A lot of folks already knew this. This is the first time it has been publicly stated however.

---

This isn't true.

Also, strangely, you and others forget that Starr was also fired.

The difference is that you and others of your ilk cared about Briles and didn't care about Starr.

I still don't get the bizarre and illogical theory that the BOR decided to make their cash cow their scapegoat. It makes absolutely no sense and flies in the face of all the support Briles got over the years from the BOR, including first-class facilities.

Also, as Clavine has said, you and others think the BOR was so incompetent, yet was competent enough to come up with this convoluted scheme to make Briles the scapegoat.

There's plenty of BOR failure, but firing Briles was part of cleaning up the mess.

---

This isn't true

George Truett said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

The media wasn't really going after Briles until the Regents did. This whole cluster including the Pr debacle is the BOR's doing.

I also don't understand the criticism of Ian and people saying they support his firing now based on what he said. Because he told some unflattering truth about what was going down in spring of 16? A lot of folks already knew this. This is the first time it has been publicly stated however.

---

This isn't true.

Also, strangely, you and others forget that Starr was also fired.

The difference is that you and others of your ilk cared about Briles and didn't care about Starr.

I still don't get the bizarre and illogical theory that the BOR decided to make their cash cow their scapegoat. It makes absolutely no sense and flies in the face of all the support Briles got over the years from the BOR, including first-class facilities.

Also, as Clavine has said, you and others think the BOR was so incompetent, yet was competent enough to come up with this convoluted scheme to make Briles the scapegoat.

There's plenty of BOR failure, but firing Briles was part of cleaning up the mess.

---

Folks, this is what's called a BOFR talking point. I've seen it on the twitter 2x today.

George Truett said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

The media wasn't really going after Briles until the Regents did. This whole cluster including the Pr debacle is the BOR's doing.

I also don't understand the criticism of Ian and people saying they support his firing now based on what he said. Because he told some unflattering truth about what was going down in spring of 16? A lot of folks already knew this. This is the first time it has been publicly stated however.

---

This isn't true.

Also, strangely, you and others forget that Starr was also fired.

The difference is that you and others of your ilk cared about Briles and didn't care about Starr.

I still don't get the bizarre and illogical theory that the BOR decided to make their cash cow their scapegoat. It makes absolutely no sense and flies in the face of all the support Briles got over the years from the BOR, including first-class facilities.

Also, as Clavine has said, you and others think the BOR was so incompetent, yet was competent enough to come up with this convoluted scheme to make Briles the scapegoat.

There's plenty of BOR failure, but firing Briles was part of cleaning up the mess.

---

Was Starr also fired or was Briles fired so that Starr could be fired?

Dia del DougO said:

---

The media lapped it up with a spoon the way they wanted to read it. Even the PH findings said it was widespread institutional failure to properly implement Title IX procedures, not a football scandal. But they needed a human sacrifice, and Briles the man who made Baylor a national football power, was the attention-grabbing scapegoat they could roast.

---

Yeah, this is the part about McCaw's statements that I don't get. What was it about the 13-page summary that he alleges was a lie? I read the whole thing (twice) back when it came out. The summary didn't make football take the blame for everything. Before you even could get to the part about the football program, you had to read through 9 pages detailing the INSTITUTIONAL failures. So I'd like to see more of what's behind the claim that the summary was full of lies.

I have no doubt that the BoR tried to make football the scapegoat for the overall failings by the school, but it looks to me like this occurred mostly after (and separate from) the summary of the PH findings.

And let's not forget ESPN's role in all this. Because they're focused on sports, their OTL report focused only on athletics and completely missed the wider scandal. Much of the rest of the media (at least outside of Waco, like the lazy-ass DMN) ran with the misleading narrative that the ESPN report had established. and BoR members who wanted to blame it all on football and distract everyone from the rest were only to happy to promote this narrative.

Nothing about the non-transparent way the BoR handled this makes sense, and we are still left with the old, lingering questions.

If Art deserved to be fired for cause, why did they pay him $15 million? The only answer that makes sense is that they wanted to buy his silence.

The summary of the PH report faulted the coaching staff, not just Briles. So if some/all of the staff deserved to be fired, why did they fire only Art? The only answer that makes sense is that they could get an interim head coach but couldn't replace an entire staff in June with any hope of fielding a team by Labor Day. So they did the very thing that Briles was accused of doing -- looking the other way at misconduct for the sake of football.

Yes, at this stage we only have a filing from a party with a grievance. We haven't seen Baylor's response.

But a point that might get missed in all this is that there is no reason anymore to view Baylor's responses as trustworthy. We've seen them lie about the BAA and the Alumni Center. We've seen them lie about the football scandal.

This is why I believe that anyone still on the board from 2016 needs to go. It's not just about whether they actually went along with throwing football under the bus. It's that they have lost all credibility with Baylor alumni and, for that matter, the general public. The only way to restore credibility is for them to go away for good.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Russell Gym said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

An off season thread that is interesting. It's about time!

Question... does this mean the Big12 will ask that all of our games be moved to Facebook?

---

It doesn't matter. We are 75 percent members until the next realignment at best, then Baylor will be kicked to the fringe curb.

---

We've shown everyone that we don't belong. Our organization was not run well enough to handle big time football.

---

Try to remember that our conference has teams that have graduation rates that are lower than a medium security prison.

Starr was fired because (i) many of them had wanted to do it anyway for quite some time and (ii) if anyone is going to get blamed for campus wide failures then the president actually makes a lot of sense. Starr was also very replaceable. Those last two statements are far less true for Briles.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Russell Gym said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

An off season thread that is interesting. It's about time!

Question... does this mean the Big12 will ask that all of our games be moved to Facebook?

---

It doesn't matter. We are 75 percent members until the next realignment at best, then Baylor will be kicked to the fringe curb.

---

We've shown everyone that we don't belong. Our organization was not run well enough to handle big time football.

---

Try to remember that our conference has teams that have graduation rates that are lower than a medium security prison.

---

That's industry standard. Massive, humiliating rape scandals are not.

bubbadog said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

The media lapped it up with a spoon the way they wanted to read it. Even the PH findings said it was widespread institutional failure to properly implement Title IX procedures, not a football scandal. But they needed a human sacrifice, and Briles the man who made Baylor a national football power, was the attention-grabbing scapegoat they could roast.

---

Yeah, this is the part about McCaw's statements that I don't get. What was it about the 13-page summary that he alleges was a lie? I read the whole thing (twice) back when it came out. The summary didn't make football take the blame for everything. Before you even could get to the part about the football program, you had to read through 9 pages detailing the INSTITUTIONAL failures. So I'd like to see more of what's behind the claim that the summary was full of lies.

I have no doubt that the BoR tried to make football the scapegoat for the overall failings by the school, but it looks to me like this occurred mostly after (and separate from) the summary of the PH findings.

And let's not forget ESPN's role in all this. Because they're focused on sports, their OTL report focused only on athletics and completely missed the wider scandal. Much of the rest of the media (at least outside of Waco, like the lazy-ass DMN) ran with the misleading narrative that the ESPN report had established. and BoR members who wanted to blame it all on football and distract everyone from the rest were only to happy to promote this narrative.

Nothing about the non-transparent way the BoR handled this makes sense, and we are still left with the old, lingering questions.

If Art deserved to be fired for cause, why did they pay him $15 million? The only answer that makes sense is that they wanted to buy his silence.

The summary of the PH report faulted the coaching staff, not just Briles. So if some/all of the staff deserved to be fired, why did they fire only Art? The only answer that makes sense is that they could get an interim head coach but couldn't replace an entire staff in June with any hope of fielding a team by Labor Day. So they did the very thing that Briles was accused of doing -- looking the other way at misconduct for the sake of football.

Yes, at this stage we only have a filing from a party with a grievance. We haven't seen Baylor's response.

But a point that might get missed in all this is that there is no reason anymore to view Baylor's responses as trustworthy. We've seen them lie about the BAA and the Alumni Center. We've seen them lie about the football scandal.

This is why I believe that anyone still on the board from 2016 needs to go. It's not just about whether they actually went along with throwing football under the bus. It's that they have lost all credibility with Baylor alumni and, for that matter, the general public. The only way to restore credibility is for them to go away for good.

---

Should you even be reading 4 pages of football-specific findings from an investigation that was supposed to be about "the institution's response to Title IX complaints?" The fact is, it was a football investigation. The cases reviewed involved football players. How many individual cases were presented to the BOR for their "calling out" sessions that involved alleged perpetrators outside of football? The problem for the BOR was that when you follow the Title IX trail from a football player's case, it's going to lead you through the administrative jungle, and there's lots of things in the jungle that can jump up and bite you.