TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

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..

---

Dude, my frat (and all others) had to hold EVERY dance off campus from 70-74.
As a matter of fact, the Baylor Homecoming Dance was always held at the Heart of Texas Coliseum.
We had to tell Dean DuBose WHERE we would be holding our off-campus dances so they could possibly drop by for a "spot check."

I cannot believe you did not know this.
It was Standard Operational Procedure.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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."

---

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.

---

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..

---

Dude, seriously? I didn't think anybody at BU could have been that shut in.

---

I just don't call things a 'dance' when no one is dancing. There, I said it.

---

They sure were dancing at the events I went to.

I can't believe you didn't know this either. All fraternity and sororities had to tell where t or which town their dances were held in 74-77

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Then she got pissed off when they went to the WSJ instead.

---

I thought WSJ was first and then they went to Grigsby. I thought the problem with the interview was that they pushed the items that they discussed with the WSJ then used privacy to dodge answering other items.

bubbadog is still correct. The DMN could have used this explore the subject and the university in detail. Instead they went with the same irrelevant Baylor didn't have a Title IX Coordinator until ... BS. A school needed to name a coordinator with the Department of Education. You could be paying that designee as a law professor, judicial affairs official, or dogcatcher. Having a department named Title IX and an executive titled Title IX Coordinator did not matter. We had a designee without that job title that testified at the Sam U trial. So that media timeline was a waste of ink. The important question to ask was when did Baylor require employees to report knowledge of an alleged assault to a specific person or office. I think that we all guess that that was WAY after the volleyball player timeline which makes that whole timeline irrelevant to Briles. Garland as interim president and department head couldn't explain any reporting poilcy in his deposition. That is just one example of a key fact that we will never know. Of course, it was reported to Ian or an AAD. We know that.

NoBSU said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I now realize that, by "they" you meant the BoR rather than the DMN editorial leadership. I was referring to the choice of people to write the editorials about BU on the DMN's behalf, which was happening before the BoR members did their interview tour. I believe you're right that the WSJ was first. Also think you're right about why the BoR wanted Grigsby as their interlocutor.

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 would speculate that it comes from the fact that Baylor addressed the institution wide situation by firing the football coach, and whatever parting words were said by them in describing their remedy.

Dia del DougO said:

---

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 would speculate that it comes from the fact that Baylor addressed the institution wide situation by firing the football coach, and whatever parting words were said by them in describing their remedy.

---

Well, the football team was the face of the problem. They were the largest number of incidents and of course they were on scholarship. No one can run a story on the campus wide problem because it doesn't compare poorly to other schools. They can run a story on the football team and get attention.

Where is Robemcdo? He was the first guy trial ballooning innocence and other things to divert away from Ian?

I may not have understood X clearly, but the FB team was only a small % of the entire university's problem, yet they had to withstand 100% of the blame, as did Art.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

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.

---

When the day comes that your kid has to apply for a job, I hope someone notices that his Dad is so willfully blind he completely forgets a RAPE conviction. That should go over real well.

Damn, Rex, even for you, that's poor.

I'm sure Cannon is a heck of a guy, I just can't understand why none of his teammates would congratulate him after he scored a touchdown.

---

KD was convicted of rape?
I sure missed that one

Timbear said:

---

I may not have understood X clearly, but the FB team was only a small % of the entire university's problem, yet they had to withstand 100% of the blame, as did Art.

---

They drew the media attention. It's not rocket science that the media is only interested in football. Art and Ian's text messages blew the doors off the brand's image. You cannot go around the chicken dinners and tell alumni a DE is going to start once he clears up an issue, the issue is rape and he gets convicted.
They had the most instances of any group. People actually want to know whose at the top of those lists. A few guys helped put football at the top.
100 percent of the blame? No, but the post firing actions didn't help the cause. The jihadi offensive lineman chaseing a girl and a professor into a safe zone looked really bad. Things tend to flow downhill and it doesn't help that there were more issues after the firing.

xiledinok said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

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 would speculate that it comes from the fact that Baylor addressed the institution wide situation by firing the football coach, and whatever parting words were said by them in describing their remedy.

---

Well, the football team was the face of the problem. They were the largest number of incidents and of course they were on scholarship.

---

You know I love you man, but this statement is pure bull**** and you know it! It has been pretty well established that the football players represented about 10 percent of the sexual assault allegations.

Are you and Thee both going to be eating jumbo shrimp and drinking adult beverages in a Regent's skybox this season?

Pecos 45 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

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..

---

Dude, my frat (and all others) had to hold EVERY dance off campus from 70-74.
As a matter of fact, the Baylor Homecoming Dance was always held at the Heart of Texas Coliseum.
We had to tell Dean DuBose WHERE we would be holding our off-campus dances so they could possibly drop by for a "spot check."

I cannot believe you did not know this.
It was Standard Operational Procedure.

---

Deduct points if you actually danced.

I just remember standing around drinking.

REX said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

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.

---

When the day comes that your kid has to apply for a job, I hope someone notices that his Dad is so willfully blind he completely forgets a RAPE conviction. That should go over real well.

Damn, Rex, even for you, that's poor.

I'm sure Cannon is a heck of a guy, I just can't understand why none of his teammates would congratulate him after he scored a touchdown.

---

KD was convicted of rape?
I sure missed that one

---

You mind explaining to me why none of his teammates wanted to congratulate him after a TD? And how he was never punished for breaking team rules?

I'm sure you know the reason, you have an answer to EVERYTHING

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.

---

Tommie, you're the funniest person on the internet!

I'm looking for an obligatory one black friend for my facebook account, would you be interested?

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

He's not a convicted rapist. Let's agree on that.

---

To the best of my knowledge, you are not a convicted rapist either. Let's agree on that,

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Then she got pissed off when they went to the WSJ instead.

---

I thought WSJ was first and then they went to Grigsby. I thought the problem with the interview was that they pushed the items that they discussed with the WSJ then used privacy to dodge answering other items.

bubbadog is still correct. The DMN could have used this explore the subject and the university in detail. Instead they went with the same irrelevant Baylor didn't have a Title IX Coordinator until ... BS. A school needed to name a coordinator with the Department of Education. You could be paying that designee as a law professor, judicial affairs official, or dogcatcher. Having a department named Title IX and an executive titled Title IX Coordinator did not matter. We had a designee without that job title that testified at the Sam U trial. So that media timeline was a waste of ink. The important question to ask was when did Baylor require employees to report knowledge of an alleged assault to a specific person or office. I think that we all guess that that was WAY after the volleyball player timeline which makes that whole timeline irrelevant to Briles. Garland as interim president and department head couldn't explain any reporting poilcy in his deposition. That is just one example of a key fact that we will never know. Of course, it was reported to Ian or an AAD. We know that.

---

That's right. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

bubbadog said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I now realize that, by "they" you meant the BoR rather than the DMN editorial leadership. I was referring to the choice of people to write the editorials about BU on the DMN's behalf, which was happening before the BoR members did their interview tour. I believe you're right that the WSJ was first. Also think you're right about why the BoR wanted Grigsby as their interlocutor.

---

Yes I meant DMN because they could have had some backlash following an ESPN led story. But now that you say that, the BOR/Crisis Mgt firm might have shopped her rather than shopped DMN.

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.

---

Wrong black guy

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.

---

Man, it is nice to see someone a little bit older than me acknowledge this fact. Of course back in the day we did not have phone cameras or social media. To send a dick pic, we had to have a polaroid camera, an envelope, and a fifteen cent stamp!

PacificBear said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

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.

---

Please!! Your not helping Baylor look any better with your prejudice and racist views. STOP YOURSELF

---

What if I was with them or one of them?

Does anyone find it odd that Robemcdo was spewing race as the issue at Baylor?
Granted, the regents weren't from diverse backgrounds and hadn't listened to THA Dogg Pound or understood different trains of thought.
They worry about the "brand" and it was clear from alumni association that the board would go great lengths to protect it. Those in they know told Baylor alumni via message boards years ago.

xiledinok said:

---

PacificBear said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

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.

---

Please!! Your not helping Baylor look any better with your prejudice and racist views. STOP YOURSELF

---

What if I was with them or one of them?

Does anyone find it odd that Robemcdo was spewing race as the issue at Baylor?
.

---

No

xiledinok said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

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 would speculate that it comes from the fact that Baylor addressed the institution wide situation by firing the football coach, and whatever parting words were said by them in describing their remedy.

---

Well, the football team was the face of the problem. They were the largest number of incidents and of course they were on scholarship. No one can run a story on the campus wide problem because it doesn't compare poorly to other schools. They can run a story on the football team and get attention.

Where is Robemcdo? He was the first guy trial ballooning innocence and other things to divert away from Ian?

---

Race became a HUGE message of Robemcdo in his later stages of posting here. Maybe that was a trial balloon also.

The sports team rape and cover-up stories get the most press it seems. The ironic part is that in the early stages of ESPN reporting, posters objected to the "win at all costs" accusations by ESPN. Sample this forum since last September and see if there isn't some smoke there. First you had to read on here a couple of hundred times that there were zero rapes by football players. Then you buy into the all nuts and ****s explanation and can go all-in on wanting the old staff back.

DAC said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

PacificBear said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

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.

---

Please!! Your not helping Baylor look any better with your prejudice and racist views. STOP YOURSELF

---

What if I was with them or one of them?

Does anyone find it odd that Robemcdo was spewing race as the issue at Baylor?
.

---

No

---

Thrilled to know he was sending out Ian's trial balloons.
DAC, I hate to tell you but most people were surprised Ian would play the race card. He needs to get specific. He has nothing to lose.

NoBSU said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

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 would speculate that it comes from the fact that Baylor addressed the institution wide situation by firing the football coach, and whatever parting words were said by them in describing their remedy.

---

Well, the football team was the face of the problem. They were the largest number of incidents and of course they were on scholarship. No one can run a story on the campus wide problem because it doesn't compare poorly to other schools. They can run a story on the football team and get attention.

Where is Robemcdo? He was the first guy trial ballooning innocence and other things to divert away from Ian?

---

Race became a HUGE message of Robemcdo in his later stages of posting here. Maybe that was a trial balloon also.

The sports team rape and cover-up stories get the most press it seems. The ironic part is that in the early stages of ESPN reporting, posters objected to the "win at all costs" accusations by ESPN. Sample this forum since last September and see if there isn't some smoke there. First you had to read on here a couple of hundred times that there were zero rapes by football players. Then you buy into the all nuts and ****s explanation and can go all-in on wanting the old staff back.

---

Zero rapes, ****s, *****s and white girls wanting black men.
Players had no cover and this was Plan A.

xiledinok said:

---

DAC said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

PacificBear said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

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.

---

Please!! Your not helping Baylor look any better with your prejudice and racist views. STOP YOURSELF

---

What if I was with them or one of them?

Does anyone find it odd that Robemcdo was spewing race as the issue at Baylor?
.

---

No

---

Thrilled to know he was sending out Ian's trial balloons.
DAC, I hate to tell you but most people were surprised Ian would play the race card. He needs to get specific. He has nothing to lose.

---

He played the truth card. Others should

xiledinok said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

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 would speculate that it comes from the fact that Baylor addressed the institution wide situation by firing the football coach, and whatever parting words were said by them in describing their remedy.

---

Well, the football team was the face of the problem. They were the largest number of incidents and of course they were on scholarship. No one can run a story on the campus wide problem because it doesn't compare poorly to other schools. They can run a story on the football team and get attention.

Where is Robemcdo? He was the first guy trial ballooning innocence and other things to divert away from Ian?

---

Race became a HUGE message of Robemcdo in his later stages of posting here. Maybe that was a trial balloon also.

The sports team rape and cover-up stories get the most press it seems. The ironic part is that in the early stages of ESPN reporting, posters objected to the "win at all costs" accusations by ESPN. Sample this forum since last September and see if there isn't some smoke there. First you had to read on here a couple of hundred times that there were zero rapes by football players. Then you buy into the all nuts and ****s explanation and can go all-in on wanting the old staff back.

---

Zero rapes, ****s, *****s and white girls wanting black men.
Players had no cover and this was Plan A.

---

As I told you earlier today, I think white girls having consensual (group) sex with black athletes was more than our all-white BOR with a mindset in the 1960s could handle. It made some of them cry out to God. As a result, the football team was blown up and the female participants got huge checks from Baylor.

Anyone here thinking race did NOT factor into this mess are being extremely naive. This opinion comes from a guy that thinks Affirmative Action in the year of our Lord 2018 is wrong and absolutely sucks!

bubbadog said:

---

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.

---

...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.

---

You are probably right; Baylor's BOR probably did try to maintain this pristine image of Baylor. The ironic part is that, even before the scandal, I really don't think many people (even within the Baylor family) had that view of Baylor--most people probably understood that the Baylor experience would be somewhere between massive state party school and a convent. Enormous cost to maintain a facade that everyone knew was just that.

howhardcanitbe said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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.

---

...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.

---

You are probably right; Baylor's BOR probably did try to maintain this pristine image of Baylor. The ironic part is that, even before the scandal, I really don't think many people (even within the Baylor family) had that view of Baylor--most people probably understood that the Baylor experience would be somewhere between massive state party school and a convent. Enormous cost to maintain a facade that everyone knew was just that.

---

Completely agree with this post. Only out of touch fuddy duddy idiots thought that the old mid 20th century image of the school was still the actual image of the university at this stage of the 21st century to begin with even if there had been no scandal.

I'm pretty sure that at least some of the regents get it that college kids, even at Baylor, are having sex. This was even written about in Friday Night Lights, over two decades ago.

But let's not make it sound like EVERY Baylor kid is exploring BDSM and gay sex.

Just because that's what "PartyBear" is into, doesn't make it so.

There is no response other than you are an idiot and lack credibility if you can only respond like a 4th grader.

Also, some of the pay board people read this thread and apparently aren't aware that some of our Big Money Donors, aka BMDs, promptly told our board of regents to (not my words) "**** off."

This isn't a deal where some magic donor is going to write a check and it all go away.

There are pissed off people, with money. But the Board isn't listening.

PartyBear said:

---

There is no response other than you are an idiot and lack credibility if you can only respond like a 4th grader.

---

I prefer to be called a 5th grader. Thank you.

And spare me the sanctimonious lecture that you're the voice of sex on a college campus.. You don't know *****

FTR, I'm not near campus right now, so I can't say what happened in the past semester.

But I've never gotten drunk with other men and played a game called cornhole, either..so there..

NoBSU said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

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 would speculate that it comes from the fact that Baylor addressed the institution wide situation by firing the football coach, and whatever parting words were said by them in describing their remedy.

---

Well, the football team was the face of the problem. They were the largest number of incidents and of course they were on scholarship. No one can run a story on the campus wide problem because it doesn't compare poorly to other schools. They can run a story on the football team and get attention.

Where is Robemcdo? He was the first guy trial ballooning innocence and other things to divert away from Ian?

---

Race became a HUGE message of Robemcdo in his later stages of posting here. Maybe that was a trial balloon also.

The sports team rape and cover-up stories get the most press it seems. The ironic part is that in the early stages of ESPN reporting, posters objected to the "win at all costs" accusations by ESPN. Sample this forum since last September and see if there isn't some smoke there. First you had to read on here a couple of hundred times that there were zero rapes by football players. Then you buy into the all nuts and ****s explanation and can go all-in on wanting the old staff back.

---

Latter stages of his posting? LOL. He was on race as a major theme ages ago back on Baylorfans. Mostly directed at the Waco prosecutor's office. I remember telling him I would believe it when he had some actual evidence.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

REX said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

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.

---

When the day comes that your kid has to apply for a job, I hope someone notices that his Dad is so willfully blind he completely forgets a RAPE conviction. That should go over real well.

Damn, Rex, even for you, that's poor.

I'm sure Cannon is a heck of a guy, I just can't understand why none of his teammates would congratulate him after he scored a touchdown.

---

KD was convicted of rape?
I sure missed that one

---

You mind explaining to me why none of his teammates wanted to congratulate him after a TD? And how he was never punished for breaking team rules?

I'm sure you know the reason, you have an answer to EVERYTHING

---

So....since he was a rapist no one wanted to high five him after a TD and he was allowed to break team rules since he was a rapist...is that where you are headed with this?