Maybe: football cash cow << tuition cash cow. No new students, no university. Period.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.
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.
tommie said:
Blaming black people never ends well. That's just my experience.
Here are 2 things that cost me greatly after I blamed a black guy.
1. I got really really drunk one night and crashed my car. Cop pull up with me behind the wheel. I said officer, it wasn't me. A black guy did it.
I got a DWI.
2. My wife walked in on me getting down with a woman half her age. (I was just about to finish). I said honey, I'm not cheating. It was a black guy.
I got divorced.
Please!! Your not helping Baylor look any better with your prejudice and racist views. STOP YOURSELFxiledinok said:NoBSU said:FIFY. Otherwise I think you nailed it.Booray said:As someone on here is fond of saying, Ian was a ribbon clerk-he could not have stopped anything.xiledinok said:
A university wide problem, which Ian didn't bother to do anything about when he could have stopped it.
Character matters?
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}.
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.
ESPN, Dallas Morning News, and all others missed the real story. It was campus-wide. That also means that it was on the football team Robedmcdo and other posters. Most here don't blame Starr enough because they agree with his political views that adhering to Obama's expansion of Title IX was wrong. We knew it and some people hid it. Hiding it for years helped all races of men.bubbadog said: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.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.
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.
I agree. I mean title IX and Obama was an absolute disaster yes.NoBSU said:ESPN, Dallas Morning News, and all others missed the real story. It was campus-wide. That also means that it was on the football team Robedmcdo and other posters. Most here don't blame Starr enough because they agree with his political views that adhering to Obama's expansion of Title IX was wrong. We knew it and some people hid it. Hiding it for years helped all races of men.bubbadog said: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.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.
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.
I have always had a radical thought around here. That lending a compassionate and non-judging ear to a young women who was drunk and had a poor experience, referring her to the appropriate people, separating her from the other party, and getting her counseling is a good Christian practice. It also is the front end of adhering to Obama Title IX that has opened Baylor up to legal exposure in Title IX lawsuits. Totally separate issue from "Kangaroo courts" and "due process" arguments.
They basically avoided the question: "how did you guys let this happen?!"Quote:
"Outside factors" is what caused the problem not Us!
You don't? Well, let me paint the picture for you.George Truett said:
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.
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.
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.
Pecos 45 said:
Funny stuff, tommie.
But all joking aside, this deposition pretty much sums up what many of us have thought.
The BOR didn't want the world to know that students get drunk and have freaky sex here (they did when I was at BU) so they threw the football team under the bus.
ESPN was bad enough, but I reserve a special scorn for the DMN. Even with cutbacks that have affected all newsrooms, they could have owned this story. They should have sent two reporters to camp out in Waco for a month and file stories every couple of days, and they could have earned all kinds of awards. Instead, they were content to do a bunch of drive-by reporting, with the feckless Sharon Grigsby throwing in some lightning bolts from the editorial page. The story was right under their nose, and they missed it. And they should have understood the underlying culture at Baylor a lot better than a bunch of Connecticut Yankees.NoBSU said:
ESPN, Dallas Morning News, and all others missed the real story. It was campus-wide. That also means that it was on the football team Robedmcdo and other posters. Most here don't blame Starr enough because they agree with his political views that adhering to Obama's expansion of Title IX was wrong. We knew it and some people hid it. Hiding it for years helped all races of men.
I have always had a radical thought around here. That lending a compassionate and non-judging ear to a young women who was drunk and had a poor experience, referring her to the appropriate people, separating her from the other party, and getting her counseling is a good Christian practice. It also is the front end of adhering to Obama Title IX that has opened Baylor up to legal exposure in Title IX lawsuits. Totally separate issue from "Kangaroo courts" and "due process" arguments.
Convincing. Makes sensebubbadog said:You don't? Well, let me paint the picture for you.George Truett said:
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.
BoR knew from the PH report they had a huge problem. It wasn't just because of football that the mullahs put their heads down on the conference table and wailed to God when they heard the report. As the summary of findings suggested, the problem encompassed the entire school.
The question was not whether they were going to pay a huge price. They were. It was just a question of how big. There was no question about huge damage to reputation. It was how big.
So, much as they loved football, much as they had invested in it, they made a calculation. They decided to let football and the reputation of the program take the rap in hopes of salvaging the reputation of the larger school. They had already seen from basketball that it was possible for a major program to go as low as it could and recover in time. It would be harder with football but still do-able, they thought, especially since we now had the huge asset of a new stadium.
Besides, they thought the alternative was worse.
If nice Baptist mommies and daddies think that Baylor isn't safe for their nice daughters, or if the school is going to look the other way if they become victims of sexual assault, then Baylor is no longer what they thought it was, and they're not going to pay a small fortune to send their kids there. But if you can convince them that the problem was a few unruly big, scary black dudes who were allowed by one bad man to get out of control, then the situation becomes more manageable. "See?" they can tell Baylor people, "we cut out the tumor, and now the cancer is all gone." Except that it wasn't. But they calculated based on what they could sell and what their audience would buy. The fuller truth was a tertiary consideration.
Osodecentx said:Convincing. Makes sensebubbadog said:You don't? Well, let me paint the picture for you.George Truett said:
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.
BoR knew from the PH report they had a huge problem. It wasn't just because of football that the mullahs put their heads down on the conference table and wailed to God when they heard the report. As the summary of findings suggested, the problem encompassed the entire school.
The question was not whether they were going to pay a huge price. They were. It was just a question of how big. There was no question about huge damage to reputation. It was how big.
So, much as they loved football, much as they had invested in it, they made a calculation. They decided to let football and the reputation of the program take the rap in hopes of salvaging the reputation of the larger school. They had already seen from basketball that it was possible for a major program to go as low as it could and recover in time. It would be harder with football but still do-able, they thought, especially since we now had the huge asset of a new stadium.
Besides, they thought the alternative was worse.
If nice Baptist mommies and daddies think that Baylor isn't safe for their nice daughters, or if the school is going to look the other way if they become victims of sexual assault, then Baylor is no longer what they thought it was, and they're not going to pay a small fortune to send their kids there. But if you can convince them that the problem was a few unruly big, scary black dudes who were allowed by one bad man to get out of control, then the situation becomes more manageable. "See?" they can tell Baylor people, "we cut out the tumor, and now the cancer is all gone." Except that it wasn't. But they calculated based on what they could sell and what their audience would buy. The fuller truth was a tertiary consideration.
REX said:xiledinok said:Forest Bueller said: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.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.
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!!!
Just a guess, but I thought that they used Grigsby because she could represent women's issues and deflect any criticism of persecuting Baylor (as a graduate). It was lazy reporting that was seeking clicks rather than the truth.bubbadog said:ESPN was bad enough, but I reserve a special scorn for the DMN. Even with cutbacks that have affected all newsrooms, they could have owned this story. They should have sent two reporters to camp out in Waco for a month and file stories every couple of days, and they could have earned all kinds of awards. Instead, they were content to do a bunch of drive-by reporting, with the feckless Sharon Grigsby throwing in some lightning bolts from the editorial page. The story was right under their nose, and they missed it. And they should have understood the underlying culture at Baylor a lot better than a bunch of Connecticut Yankees.NoBSU said:
ESPN, Dallas Morning News, and all others missed the real story. It was campus-wide. That also means that it was on the football team Robedmcdo and other posters. Most here don't blame Starr enough because they agree with his political views that adhering to Obama's expansion of Title IX was wrong. We knew it and some people hid it. Hiding it for years helped all races of men.
I have always had a radical thought around here. That lending a compassionate and non-judging ear to a young women who was drunk and had a poor experience, referring her to the appropriate people, separating her from the other party, and getting her counseling is a good Christian practice. It also is the front end of adhering to Obama Title IX that has opened Baylor up to legal exposure in Title IX lawsuits. Totally separate issue from "Kangaroo courts" and "due process" arguments.
whitetrash said:xiled is like exlax. May take a while to get going, but once it does, a turd drops every 10-15 minutes.REX said:xiledinok said:Forest Bueller said: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.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.
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!!!
NoBSU said:Just a guess, but I thought that they used Grigsby because she could represent women's issues and deflect any criticism of persecuting Baylor (as a graduate). It was lazy reporting that was seeking clicks rather than the truth.bubbadog said:ESPN was bad enough, but I reserve a special scorn for the DMN. Even with cutbacks that have affected all newsrooms, they could have owned this story. They should have sent two reporters to camp out in Waco for a month and file stories every couple of days, and they could have earned all kinds of awards. Instead, they were content to do a bunch of drive-by reporting, with the feckless Sharon Grigsby throwing in some lightning bolts from the editorial page. The story was right under their nose, and they missed it. And they should have understood the underlying culture at Baylor a lot better than a bunch of Connecticut Yankees.NoBSU said:
ESPN, Dallas Morning News, and all others missed the real story. It was campus-wide. That also means that it was on the football team Robedmcdo and other posters. Most here don't blame Starr enough because they agree with his political views that adhering to Obama's expansion of Title IX was wrong. We knew it and some people hid it. Hiding it for years helped all races of men.
I have always had a radical thought around here. That lending a compassionate and non-judging ear to a young women who was drunk and had a poor experience, referring her to the appropriate people, separating her from the other party, and getting her counseling is a good Christian practice. It also is the front end of adhering to Obama Title IX that has opened Baylor up to legal exposure in Title IX lawsuits. Totally separate issue from "Kangaroo courts" and "due process" arguments.
TellMeYouLoveMe said:
As flattering as it is to hear Ken Starr say Briiles and McCaw are men of integrity and character,
I'd be a lot more impressed if they let their daughters and granddaughters go in a date chaperoned by Tevin Elliott or KD Cannon.
I suspect that's exactly why they used her, plus they/she thought that a Baylor grad might have more insight into the nuances of the school's culture.NoBSU said:Just a guess, but I thought that they used Grigsby because she could represent women's issues and deflect any criticism of persecuting Baylor (as a graduate). It was lazy reporting that was seeking clicks rather than the truth.bubbadog said:ESPN was bad enough, but I reserve a special scorn for the DMN. Even with cutbacks that have affected all newsrooms, they could have owned this story. They should have sent two reporters to camp out in Waco for a month and file stories every couple of days, and they could have earned all kinds of awards. Instead, they were content to do a bunch of drive-by reporting, with the feckless Sharon Grigsby throwing in some lightning bolts from the editorial page. The story was right under their nose, and they missed it. And they should have understood the underlying culture at Baylor a lot better than a bunch of Connecticut Yankees.NoBSU said:
ESPN, Dallas Morning News, and all others missed the real story. It was campus-wide. That also means that it was on the football team Robedmcdo and other posters. Most here don't blame Starr enough because they agree with his political views that adhering to Obama's expansion of Title IX was wrong. We knew it and some people hid it. Hiding it for years helped all races of men.
I have always had a radical thought around here. That lending a compassionate and non-judging ear to a young women who was drunk and had a poor experience, referring her to the appropriate people, separating her from the other party, and getting her counseling is a good Christian practice. It also is the front end of adhering to Obama Title IX that has opened Baylor up to legal exposure in Title IX lawsuits. Totally separate issue from "Kangaroo courts" and "due process" arguments.
Doc Holliday said:I agree. I mean title IX and Obama was an absolute disaster yes.NoBSU said:ESPN, Dallas Morning News, and all others missed the real story. It was campus-wide. That also means that it was on the football team Robedmcdo and other posters. Most here don't blame Starr enough because they agree with his political views that adhering to Obama's expansion of Title IX was wrong. We knew it and some people hid it. Hiding it for years helped all races of men.bubbadog said: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.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.
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.
I have always had a radical thought around here. That lending a compassionate and non-judging ear to a young women who was drunk and had a poor experience, referring her to the appropriate people, separating her from the other party, and getting her counseling is a good Christian practice. It also is the front end of adhering to Obama Title IX that has opened Baylor up to legal exposure in Title IX lawsuits. Totally separate issue from "Kangaroo courts" and "due process" arguments.
Lending a compassionate and non-judging ear to a young women who was drunk and had a poor experience, referring her to the appropriate people, separating her from the other party, and getting her counseling is a good Christian practice...
but Baylor's problem is that it decided to avoid this to hide the fact that bad things happen at Baylor and used Football as a scapegoat and cause because of the magnitude. Lending a hand is an admission that Baylor isn't a perfectly safe space.
Essentially:They basically avoided the question: "how did you guys let this happen?!"Quote:
"Outside factors" is what caused the problem not Us!
YoakDaddy said:TellMeYouLoveMe said:
As flattering as it is to hear Ken Starr say Briiles and McCaw are men of integrity and character,
I'd be a lot more impressed if they let their daughters and granddaughters go in a date chaperoned by Tevin Elliott or KD Cannon.
What does KD have to do with anything? That's news to me. I thought it was Tevin Elliott and Sam U.
KD? You're gonna have to come back here and explain yourself.TellMeYouLoveMe said:
As flattering as it is to hear Ken Starr say Briiles and McCaw are men of integrity and character,
I'd be a lot more impressed if they let their daughters and granddaughters go in a date chaperoned by Tevin Elliott or KD Cannon.
REX said:YoakDaddy said:TellMeYouLoveMe said:
As flattering as it is to hear Ken Starr say Briiles and McCaw are men of integrity and character,
I'd be a lot more impressed if they let their daughters and granddaughters go in a date chaperoned by Tevin Elliott or KD Cannon.
What does KD have to do with anything? That's news to me. I thought it was Tevin Elliott and Sam U.
Both were Briles recruits and that makes them guilty no doubt!!
Oh snap wait a minute maybe they are not. Truth don't lie.
Agree, and it's really the same mindset that outlawed dancing on campus but had no qualms about sanctioned organizations like frats and sororities holding dances off-campus. As long as it happened off-campus, they could tell Baylor stakeholders that there was no dancing on campus, and they could pretend it just didn't exist. That's how they viewed sex, too -- consensual and otherwise.Pecos 45 said:
What bubbadog said:
If nice Baptist mommies and daddies think that Baylor isn't safe for their nice daughters, or if the school is going to look the other way if they become victims of sexual assault, then Baylor is no longer what they thought it was, and they're not going to pay a small fortune to send their kids there. But if you can convince them that the problem was a few unruly big, scary black dudes who were allowed by one bad man to get out of control, then the situation becomes more manageable. "See?" they can tell Baylor people, "we cut out the tumor, and now the cancer is all gone." Except that it wasn't. But they calculated based on what they could sell and what their audience would buy. The fuller truth was a tertiary consideration.
I was at BU from 1970-74 (with Buddy Jones, no less) and I can tell you that "nice daughters" were getting drunk and having freaky sex then, and it was not "assault"........ it was consensual.
It's been like that since I was on the Brazos, but some folks prefer to believe the myth.
Roasting the football team, and the bad, head coach who allowed this to happen, was a lot easier than admitting that 19-year-old women enjoy sex.
And drinking.
And smoking pot. (Hence the "little tarts" story.)
IMO it's because we have so many preachers on our BOR who do not see the world as it really is and perpetuate the fairy tale.
Maybe they should just let Peter Pan be our chief recruiter and say, "Come with me to Baylor and you'll never grow up."
EvilTroyAndAbed said:KD? You're gonna have to come back here and explain yourself.TellMeYouLoveMe said:
As flattering as it is to hear Ken Starr say Briiles and McCaw are men of integrity and character,
I'd be a lot more impressed if they let their daughters and granddaughters go in a date chaperoned by Tevin Elliott or KD Cannon.
bubbadog said:Agree, and it's really the same mindset that outlawed dancing on campus but had no qualms about sanctioned organizations like frats and sororities holding dances off-campus. As long as it happened off-campus, they could tell Baylor stakeholders that there was no dancing on campus, and they could pretend it just didn't exist. That's how they viewed sex, too -- consensual and otherwise.Pecos 45 said:
What bubbadog said:
If nice Baptist mommies and daddies think that Baylor isn't safe for their nice daughters, or if the school is going to look the other way if they become victims of sexual assault, then Baylor is no longer what they thought it was, and they're not going to pay a small fortune to send their kids there. But if you can convince them that the problem was a few unruly big, scary black dudes who were allowed by one bad man to get out of control, then the situation becomes more manageable. "See?" they can tell Baylor people, "we cut out the tumor, and now the cancer is all gone." Except that it wasn't. But they calculated based on what they could sell and what their audience would buy. The fuller truth was a tertiary consideration.
I was at BU from 1970-74 (with Buddy Jones, no less) and I can tell you that "nice daughters" were getting drunk and having freaky sex then, and it was not "assault"........ it was consensual.
It's been like that since I was on the Brazos, but some folks prefer to believe the myth.
Roasting the football team, and the bad, head coach who allowed this to happen, was a lot easier than admitting that 19-year-old women enjoy sex.
And drinking.
And smoking pot. (Hence the "little tarts" story.)
IMO it's because we have so many preachers on our BOR who do not see the world as it really is and perpetuate the fairy tale.
Maybe they should just let Peter Pan be our chief recruiter and say, "Come with me to Baylor and you'll never grow up."
Dude, seriously? I didn't think anybody at BU could have been that shut in.TellMeYouLoveMe said:bubbadog said:Agree, and it's really the same mindset that outlawed dancing on campus but had no qualms about sanctioned organizations like frats and sororities holding dances off-campus. As long as it happened off-campus, they could tell Baylor stakeholders that there was no dancing on campus, and they could pretend it just didn't exist. That's how they viewed sex, too -- consensual and otherwise.Pecos 45 said:
What bubbadog said:
If nice Baptist mommies and daddies think that Baylor isn't safe for their nice daughters, or if the school is going to look the other way if they become victims of sexual assault, then Baylor is no longer what they thought it was, and they're not going to pay a small fortune to send their kids there. But if you can convince them that the problem was a few unruly big, scary black dudes who were allowed by one bad man to get out of control, then the situation becomes more manageable. "See?" they can tell Baylor people, "we cut out the tumor, and now the cancer is all gone." Except that it wasn't. But they calculated based on what they could sell and what their audience would buy. The fuller truth was a tertiary consideration.
I was at BU from 1970-74 (with Buddy Jones, no less) and I can tell you that "nice daughters" were getting drunk and having freaky sex then, and it was not "assault"........ it was consensual.
It's been like that since I was on the Brazos, but some folks prefer to believe the myth.
Roasting the football team, and the bad, head coach who allowed this to happen, was a lot easier than admitting that 19-year-old women enjoy sex.
And drinking.
And smoking pot. (Hence the "little tarts" story.)
IMO it's because we have so many preachers on our BOR who do not see the world as it really is and perpetuate the fairy tale.
Maybe they should just let Peter Pan be our chief recruiter and say, "Come with me to Baylor and you'll never grow up."
There were off campus dances? I'll be the first to say i was a shut in, but I think I'd have known about that..
bubbadog said:Dude, seriously? I didn't think anybody at BU could have been that shut in.TellMeYouLoveMe said:bubbadog said:Agree, and it's really the same mindset that outlawed dancing on campus but had no qualms about sanctioned organizations like frats and sororities holding dances off-campus. As long as it happened off-campus, they could tell Baylor stakeholders that there was no dancing on campus, and they could pretend it just didn't exist. That's how they viewed sex, too -- consensual and otherwise.Pecos 45 said:
What bubbadog said:
If nice Baptist mommies and daddies think that Baylor isn't safe for their nice daughters, or if the school is going to look the other way if they become victims of sexual assault, then Baylor is no longer what they thought it was, and they're not going to pay a small fortune to send their kids there. But if you can convince them that the problem was a few unruly big, scary black dudes who were allowed by one bad man to get out of control, then the situation becomes more manageable. "See?" they can tell Baylor people, "we cut out the tumor, and now the cancer is all gone." Except that it wasn't. But they calculated based on what they could sell and what their audience would buy. The fuller truth was a tertiary consideration.
I was at BU from 1970-74 (with Buddy Jones, no less) and I can tell you that "nice daughters" were getting drunk and having freaky sex then, and it was not "assault"........ it was consensual.
It's been like that since I was on the Brazos, but some folks prefer to believe the myth.
Roasting the football team, and the bad, head coach who allowed this to happen, was a lot easier than admitting that 19-year-old women enjoy sex.
And drinking.
And smoking pot. (Hence the "little tarts" story.)
IMO it's because we have so many preachers on our BOR who do not see the world as it really is and perpetuate the fairy tale.
Maybe they should just let Peter Pan be our chief recruiter and say, "Come with me to Baylor and you'll never grow up."
There were off campus dances? I'll be the first to say i was a shut in, but I think I'd have known about that..
I think you need to be careful with how you phrase things. This entire thread revolves around how sexual assaults were handled...the first player you mentioned is convicted of rape....what other conclusion do you expect people to make when you toss KD's name in there too. I understand you may think the guy is immature, or self-centered, or a jerk...but they don't put you in jail for any of those things.TellMeYouLoveMe said:EvilTroyAndAbed said:KD? You're gonna have to come back here and explain yourself.TellMeYouLoveMe said:
As flattering as it is to hear Ken Starr say Briiles and McCaw are men of integrity and character,
I'd be a lot more impressed if they let their daughters and granddaughters go in a date chaperoned by Tevin Elliott or KD Cannon.
I didn't say Cannon was guilty of anything, just saying it would speak a lot louder if these men of integrity and character were to let their children spend an evening with these gentlemen.
