57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/higher-education/2016/09/06/2-baylor-university-regents-resign

Howard resigned to dedicate more of his time to his role as president of Robert Morris University in Pennsylvania, a position he assumed in February, the Tribune-Herald reported.

---

Is that the real reason that he resigned In September 2016?

In January 2017, it was announced that Howard was selected to be a member of the College Football Playoff Selection Committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_B._Howard

---

I don't know for sure, but my guess it is far more reliable than what someone likely pulled out of thin air a few post back.

boognish_bear said:

---

TV55 said:

---

Eball said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

REX said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Malbec said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

REX said:

---

Amarillobear said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Stranger said:

---

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

ROK

---

Matt may have missed the part where McCaw acknowledged his mistakes in all this.

---

I'm with Matt on this. Ian was a weakling as an AD. What he testified was probably mostly true but he was part and parcel complicit in every bit of it. He was the hired lackey of the BOR. Did he play a role in everything he described? Most likely.

It was all his version of the truth. CYA.

---

This is the most credible poster on this board. The fastest way to catch up what is the truth is to read him like the Bible.

Ian comes out two years after the fact to throw out the race card. He was holding hands with those he now calls racist.

---

I believe it was Pepper Hamilton that made mention of black athletes having consensual sex with white girls.

---

I know for an absolute fact that PH asked one of the assistant coaches why there were so many black athletes on the team.
Fact

---

Couple of years of making posts on this board and you trot that one out there now. Convenient timing for a memory recall, fact.

---

Not a new revelation.

---

Yea, several were saying that back in 2016 when this broke.

---

I'm not interested in several. I was replying to one specific poster. If you know for a fact then you know the specific coach that said it. Was it the Defense Line coach or other staff that worked with that position. Many of the the accused players played on the defensive line.

---

I stated it two days after everything went down.
Defensive line coaches boss.
Also has anyone ever wondered that if all of the texts were so damning why did Coach and Shack give PH their phones without putting a Hillary ( whitewash) on it??? They didn't just swarm in one day and take phones the coaches were told the time and day to bring their phones in.
Not guilty
Fact

---

I'm lost in this.

Is your point that he was literally dumb enough to share texts where Briles asked if a massage therapist was a stripper or hooker?

Because that didn't look good. Just fyi.

---

I see worse posted on these public forums by some every day.

---

LOL.

Don't like the answer so changing the subject?

I for one and very glad that IF Briles and his staff were indeed racist that ALL OF THEM are now gone. Forever.

Let's all face it. We put up with Briles because he won games. He was a strange dude though. If indeed either he or members of his staff held racist beliefs (basically what many of you are insinuating above), I am glad they are ALL GONE. I want none of that at Baylor. It's wrong.

---

What did I miss? Where was it implied that CAB was racist?

---

You didn't miss anything. Looks like 55 misunderstood the story. Ian wasn't alleging that cab was a racist.

Matt Moseley and others have a point when they ponder why Ian's statements should be taken as gospel.

It's certainly true that statements taken in depositions are under oath and lies told during depositions are subject to perjury charges, but people lie in depositions all of the time in part because they know that even if the lie is discovered, it's extremely unlikely that any charges will be brought even if it can be proven that the lie was a lie.

Moving past that, what exactly did Ian say that's new from the available excerpts from his deposition?
1. He believes the BOR is racist as he concluded by his belief that the football team was scapegoated for a university-wide issue.
2. He believes that he was told to lie by third party firm G.F. Bunting.
3. He believes that third party police were covering up incidents.
4. He believes that the Findings of Fact is phony, false, and misleading without providing a basis for such assertions.
5. He believes that Baylor doesn't have a large endowment, so it is motivated by tuition revenue.

What exactly is new here since:
1. The Findings of Fact made it clear the issue was university wide.
2. Everyone knows that Baylor's endowment isn't competitive with wealthier universities (the list is long, but both public and private schools).
3. It was clear back in 2016 that the local police had been involved.

The only new information appears to be that he believes that he was told to lie by G.F. Bunting and that he disagrees with the Findings of Fact but that he didn't not indicate why that was. That's great, but it doesn't really provide any new information.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Matt Moseley and others have a point when they ponder why Ian's statements should be taken as gospel.

It's certainly true that statements taken in depositions are under oath and lies told during depositions are subject to perjury charges, but people lie in depositions all of the time in part because they know that even if the lie is discovered, it's extremely unlikely that any charges will be brought even if it can be proven that the lie was a lie.

Moving past that, what exactly did Ian say that's new from the available excerpts from his deposition?
1. He believes the BOR is racist as he concluded by his belief that the football team was scapegoated for a university-wide issue.
2. He believes that he was told to lie by third party firm G.F. Bunting.
3. He believes that third party police were covering up incidents.
4. He believes that the Findings of Fact is phony, false, and misleading without providing a basis for such assertions.
5. He believes that Baylor doesn't have a large endowment, so it is motivated by tuition revenue.

What exactly here is new here since:
1. The Findings of Fact made it clear the issue was university wide.
2. Everyone knows that Baylor's endowment isn't competitive with wealthier universities (the list is long, but both public and private schools).
3. It was clear back in 2016 that the local police had been involved.

The only new information appears to be that he believes that he was told to lie by G.F. Bunting and that he disagrees with the Findings of Fact but that he didn't not indicate why that was. That's great, but it doesn't really provide any new information.

---

{yawn}

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Matt Moseley and others have a point when they ponder why Ian's statements should be taken as gospel.

It's certainly true that statements taken in depositions are under oath and lies told during depositions are subject to perjury charges, but people lie in depositions all of the time in part because they know that even if the lie is discovered, it's extremely unlikely that any charges will be brought even if it can be proven that the lie was a lie.

Moving past that, what exactly did Ian say that's new from the available excerpts from his deposition?
1. He believes the BOR is racist as he concluded by his belief that the football team was scapegoated for a university-wide issue.
2. He believes that he was told to lie by third party firm G.F. Bunting.
3. He believes that third party police were covering up incidents.
4. He believes that the Findings of Fact is phony, false, and misleading without providing a basis for such assertions.
5. He believes that Baylor doesn't have a large endowment, so it is motivated by tuition revenue.

What exactly is new here since:
1. The Findings of Fact made it clear the issue was university wide.
2. Everyone knows that Baylor's endowment isn't competitive with wealthier universities (the list is long, but both public and private schools).
3. It was clear back in 2016 that the local police had been involved.

The only new information appears to be that he believes that he was told to lie by G.F. Bunting and that he disagrees with the Findings of Fact but that he didn't not indicate why that was. That's great, but it doesn't really provide any new information.

---

You are messing with science two years in the hoping.

Ashley Hodge said:

---

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

---

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

NoBSU said:

---

Ashley Hodge said:

---

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

---

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

---

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

I go to the beach for a week and Everything goes to hell, again.

Welcome Back. Here we go again.........

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Matt Moseley and others have a point when they ponder why Ian's statements should be taken as gospel.

It's certainly true that statements taken in depositions are under oath and lies told during depositions are subject to perjury charges, but people lie in depositions all of the time in part because they know that even if the lie is discovered, it's extremely unlikely that any charges will be brought even if it can be proven that the lie was a lie.

Moving past that, what exactly did Ian say that's new from the available excerpts from his deposition?
1. He believes the BOR is racist as he concluded by his belief that the football team was scapegoated for a university-wide issue.
2. He believes that he was told to lie by third party firm G.F. Bunting.
3. He believes that third party police were covering up incidents.
4. He believes that the Findings of Fact is phony, false, and misleading without providing a basis for such assertions.
5. He believes that Baylor doesn't have a large endowment, so it is motivated by tuition revenue.

What exactly is new here since:
1. The Findings of Fact made it clear the issue was university wide.
2. Everyone knows that Baylor's endowment isn't competitive with wealthier universities (the list is long, but both public and private schools).
3. It was clear back in 2016 that the local police had been involved.

The only new information appears to be that he believes that he was told to lie by G.F. Bunting and that he disagrees with the Findings of Fact but that he didn't not indicate why that was. That's great, but it doesn't really provide any new information.

---

You pose the correct question: What's new here?

Not the "information", for sure. And that constitutes The "dead horse" which precipitated the move of the thread off football board. A correct one imo.

But I tend to think the old horse got some new life because what is new here is an inside player rolling over on other inside players with a lot of damning accusations, not the least of which is that of overt, maybe intentional, discrimination against black student athletes.

For those two reasons alone, I think this is going to continue to be investigated and people deposed until some cogent explanations are obtained. If the Fed gets involved from a civil rights perspective, Dunham will be a minor irritant by comparison. That is also the opinion of two highly-respects and well-known
Baylor lawyers.

We'll see in time...we'll likely regret we didn't take care of business when wevshould have in the way we should have.

I am sure someone will post it or a link but the Waco Tribune has an Oped today about the issue.

I think it tracks the overall conventional wisdom that BU cannot get this issue behind them until there is more transparency and information.

Eball said:

---

I am sure someone will post it or a link but the Waco Tribune has an Oped today about the issue.

I think it tracks the overall conventional wisdom that BU cannot get this issue behind them until there is more transparency and information.

---

Yes, and the fact that the BoR apparently thinks otherwise tells us that the BoR hasn't really changed. Still high and mighty, still arrogant, still taking the attitude that they don't need to be transparent and we must simply all take the word of a group whose word is mud.

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Matt Moseley and others have a point when they ponder why Ian's statements should be taken as gospel.

It's certainly true that statements taken in depositions are under oath and lies told during depositions are subject to perjury charges, but people lie in depositions all of the time in part because they know that even if the lie is discovered, it's extremely unlikely that any charges will be brought even if it can be proven that the lie was a lie.

Moving past that, what exactly did Ian say that's new from the available excerpts from his deposition?
1. He believes the BOR is racist as he concluded by his belief that the football team was scapegoated for a university-wide issue.
2. He believes that he was told to lie by third party firm G.F. Bunting.
3. He believes that third party police were covering up incidents.
4. He believes that the Findings of Fact is phony, false, and misleading without providing a basis for such assertions.
5. He believes that Baylor doesn't have a large endowment, so it is motivated by tuition revenue.

What exactly is new here since:
1. The Findings of Fact made it clear the issue was university wide.
2. Everyone knows that Baylor's endowment isn't competitive with wealthier universities (the list is long, but both public and private schools).
3. It was clear back in 2016 that the local police had been involved.

The only new information appears to be that he believes that he was told to lie by G.F. Bunting and that he disagrees with the Findings of Fact but that he didn't not indicate why that was. That's great, but it doesn't really provide any new information.

---

Moseley is press and BU alum. He has to walk the fence.

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

---

I think what Forrest described (shocking yet unsurprising) is another manifestation of the "see no evil" mindset. The Baylor Bubble has always been real, and denial is part of what keeps it going. The Bubbleheads who are over-represented on the BoR have never been able to acknowledge that good little Baylor boys and girls, drink, dance and have sex. So when faced with a sex scandal like this, one way the Bubbleheads rationalize it away is to let themselves believe it was all because of the decision to bring in "those kind of black kids" for the sake of football. They blame it on "the other" -- people they don't really know or understand, people who don't live near them, who have never been part of their churches. And if you talk to these Bubbleheads, they will tell you they don't harbor racist feelings, and in their own minds they really are being sincere. They just don't get it. Probably never will.

Mosley has a great reputation. His job has nothing to do with his integrity and those who don't question Ian just do not know or realize that he was a pawn for the regents.
Stranger is spot on that loser.

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

---

FB

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

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

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

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

---

FB

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

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

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

---

University of Miami went the third option route in the 80s and 90s and did pretty well with it for awhile.

bubbadog said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

---

I think what Forrest described (shocking yet unsurprising) is another manifestation of the "see no evil" mindset. The Baylor Bubble has always been real, and denial is part of what keeps it going. The Bubbleheads who are over-represented on the BoR have never been able to acknowledge that good little Baylor boys and girls, drink, dance and have sex. So when faced with a sex scandal like this, one way the Bubbleheads rationalize it away is to let themselves believe it was all because of the decision to bring in "those kind of black kids" for the sake of football. They blame it on "the other" -- people they don't really know or understand, people who don't live near them, who have never been part of their churches. And if you talk to these Bubbleheads, they will tell you they don't harbor racist feelings, and in their own minds they really are being sincere. They just don't get it. Probably never will.

---

So all white kids are the same? All black kids are the same? The Baylor that I went to in the 80s had lots people of different races and different economic backgrounds. Money and race do not make you who you are. Character does.

BellCountyBear said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

---

FB

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

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

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

---

University of Miami went the third option route in the 80s and 90s and did pretty well with it for awhile.

---

Louisville basketball. Ole Miss for a while was a can't miss stop for a fun-loving recruit.

Ashley Hodge said:

---

the days of what the University of Oklahoma did under Switzer; University of Miami in the 80s/90s; Louisville basketball recently; Kansas basketball (day is coming soon) of "you take care of the winning and we'll take care of everything off the field/court" those days are over in today's social media/ #metoo world.

And that is a good thing. Entitled athletes lead to bad adults. Discipline and accountability is a better path.

---

+1

There is a good piece of wisdom in this young writer's article to apply to the Baylor situation. Without this, pulling the Baylor faithful back together again will never happen because of those who got away with no consequences.
###############################


Broward County Student's Investigation Uncovers School Board's Alarming Failure to Keep Students Safe
CARLIN BECKER | APR 27, 2018 | 10:24 AM

Broward County student journalist Kenneth Preston, 19, published the findings of his investigation into "factors and individuals who share blame" in the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, which alleges the school board neglected school safety.

"I have come to the conclusion that Superintendent Runcie and members of the school board have failed at their essential role in keeping our students safe," he wrote.

"If the people who were complicit in facilitating an environment in which something like this could occur don't face consequences, then there is no justice," he continued.

bubbadog said:

---

Eball said:

---

I am sure someone will post it or a link but the Waco Tribune has an Oped today about the issue.

I think it tracks the overall conventional wisdom that BU cannot get this issue behind them until there is more transparency and information.

---

Yes, and the fact that the BoR apparently thinks otherwise tells us that the BoR hasn't really changed. Still high and mighty, still arrogant, still taking the attitude that they don't need to be transparent and we must simply all take the word of a group whose word is mud.

---

The irony here is that the BOR thought a tiny bit of transparency, to justify to the public their chopping the head off (Pres, AD and HC) back in May of 16,would serve them politically. They were idiots to think this and not realize they would be opening the teapot enough for the whole tempest to escape whisk them into the storm. Making it impossible to get the tempest back in the teapot so they could stick it back in the closet.

I bet even the architects of this debacle now wish they had just swept the whole thing under the rug like they do everything else and look for some other reason to fire Starr.

I can't believe the buffoons thought the whole story would be kept secret forever let alone for a relatively short time.

PartyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Eball said:

---

I am sure someone will post it or a link but the Waco Tribune has an Oped today about the issue.

I think it tracks the overall conventional wisdom that BU cannot get this issue behind them until there is more transparency and information.

---

Yes, and the fact that the BoR apparently thinks otherwise tells us that the BoR hasn't really changed. Still high and mighty, still arrogant, still taking the attitude that they don't need to be transparent and we must simply all take the word of a group whose word is mud.

---

The irony here is that the BOR thought a tiny bit of transparency, to justify to the public their chopping the head off (Pres, AD and HC) back in May of 16,would serve them politically. They were idiots to think this and not realize they would be opening the teapot enough for the whole tempest to escape whisk them into the storm. Making it impossible to get the tempest back in the teapot so they could stick it back in the closet.

I bet even the architects of this debacle now wish they had just swept the whole thing under the rug like they do everything else and look for some other reason to fire Starr.

I can't believe the buffoons thought the whole story would be kept secret forever let alone for a relatively short time.

---

I was in New Braunfels yesterday. I saw 30,000 chickens walking north on the I-35 access road. They're coming home boys.

You guys keep throwing our the Jimster and The U.
Name specific events and players.
We were not close to being like the U on or off the field.
You really believe Miami was filling holes with troubled transfers?

It is a deflection to keep bringing up Miami when none can name specific players and incidents.

Do not compound mistakes or take unnecessary risks when trying to build your brand. Also, keep the tv partners happy. Do not piss them off after your football program created zero dollars over a decade and a half for your conference and it's tv partners. Do not go rogue or they will stomp your troubles when given the opportunity. Your arrogance and ego can be crashed.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

Well he did oversee the Athletics Department during the most succcessful period in Baylor athletics history, so there's that!

---

PartyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Eball said:

---

I am sure someone will post it or a link but the Waco Tribune has an Oped today about the issue.

I think it tracks the overall conventional wisdom that BU cannot get this issue behind them until there is more transparency and information.

---

Yes, and the fact that the BoR apparently thinks otherwise tells us that the BoR hasn't really changed. Still high and mighty, still arrogant, still taking the attitude that they don't need to be transparent and we must simply all take the word of a group whose word is mud.

---

The irony here is that the BOR thought a tiny bit of transparency, to justify to the public their chopping the head off (Pres, AD and HC) back in May of 16,would serve them politically. They were idiots to think this and not realize they would be opening the teapot enough for the whole tempest to escape whisk them into the storm. Making it impossible to get the tempest back in the teapot so they could stick it back in the closet.

I bet even the architects of this debacle now wish they had just swept the whole thing under the rug like they do everything else and look for some other reason to fire Starr.

I can't believe the buffoons thought the whole story would be kept secret forever let alone for a relatively short time.

---

They chose ... poorly,

I thought that was incredibly obvious early, but what do I know.

xiledinok said:

---

REX said:

---

Amarillobear said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Stranger said:

---

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

Matt may have missed the part where McCaw acknowledged his mistakes in all this.

---

I'm with Matt on this. Ian was a weakling as an AD. What he testified was probably mostly true but he was part and parcel complicit in every bit of it. He was the hired lackey of the BOR. Did he play a role in everything he described? Most likely.

It was all his version of the truth. CYA.

---

This is the most credible poster on this board. The fastest way to catch up what is the truth is to read him like the Bible.

Ian comes out two years after the fact to throw out the race card. He was holding hands with those he now calls racist.

---

I believe it was Pepper Hamilton that made mention of black athletes having consensual sex with white girls.

---

I know for an absolute fact that PH asked one of the assistant coaches why there were so many black athletes on the team.
Fact

---

Does it make them unqualified to investigate because they aren't sports fans? Obviously, they never heard of Jimmy The Greek.
Finally, PH and the former regime have something in common. Neither side knew what they otherside did or understood their profession. Conference Savior Ken hired them as investigators, not sports experts.

---

Doesn't make them unqualified to investigate, but is certainly a racist comment that a professional agency should not have believed to be an appropriate question.

PartyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Eball said:

---

I am sure someone will post it or a link but the Waco Tribune has an Oped today about the issue.

I think it tracks the overall conventional wisdom that BU cannot get this issue behind them until there is more transparency and information.

---

Yes, and the fact that the BoR apparently thinks otherwise tells us that the BoR hasn't really changed. Still high and mighty, still arrogant, still taking the attitude that they don't need to be transparent and we must simply all take the word of a group whose word is mud.

---

The irony here is that the BOR thought a tiny bit of transparency, to justify to the public their chopping the head off (Pres, AD and HC) back in May of 16,would serve them politically. They were idiots to think this and not realize they would be opening the teapot enough for the whole tempest to escape whisk them into the storm. Making it impossible to get the tempest back in the teapot so they could stick it back in the closet.

I bet even the architects of this debacle now wish they had just swept the whole thing under the rug like they do everything else and look for some other reason to fire Starr.

I can't believe the buffoons thought the whole story would be kept secret forever let alone for a relatively short time.

---

You don't have to be a BOR apologist (as people here like to throw out) to realize that when you have lawsuits, then you don't volunteer evidence to the public to help the plaintiff's case. So you expect some holding back of info and settling some dismissals including NDAs. The regents could open up board meetings for transparency and go into closed session for personnel and lawsuit items.

NoBSU said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

LiBeartarian said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

---

I think what Forrest described (shocking yet unsurprising) is another manifestation of the "see no evil" mindset. The Baylor Bubble has always been real, and denial is part of what keeps it going. The Bubbleheads who are over-represented on the BoR have never been able to acknowledge that good little Baylor boys and girls, drink, dance and have sex. So when faced with a sex scandal like this, one way the Bubbleheads rationalize it away is to let themselves believe it was all because of the decision to bring in "those kind of black kids" for the sake of football. They blame it on "the other" -- people they don't really know or understand, people who don't live near them, who have never been part of their churches. And if you talk to these Bubbleheads, they will tell you they don't harbor racist feelings, and in their own minds they really are being sincere. They just don't get it. Probably never will.

---

So all white kids are the same? All black kids are the same? The Baylor that I went to in the 80s had lots people of different races and different economic backgrounds. Money and race do not make you who you are. Character does.

---

Tell that to the Bubbleheads. They're the ones who needed to hear it.

NoBSU said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Eball said:

---

I am sure someone will post it or a link but the Waco Tribune has an Oped today about the issue.

I think it tracks the overall conventional wisdom that BU cannot get this issue behind them until there is more transparency and information.

---

Yes, and the fact that the BoR apparently thinks otherwise tells us that the BoR hasn't really changed. Still high and mighty, still arrogant, still taking the attitude that they don't need to be transparent and we must simply all take the word of a group whose word is mud.

---

The irony here is that the BOR thought a tiny bit of transparency, to justify to the public their chopping the head off (Pres, AD and HC) back in May of 16,would serve them politically. They were idiots to think this and not realize they would be opening the teapot enough for the whole tempest to escape whisk them into the storm. Making it impossible to get the tempest back in the teapot so they could stick it back in the closet.

I bet even the architects of this debacle now wish they had just swept the whole thing under the rug like they do everything else and look for some other reason to fire Starr.

I can't believe the buffoons thought the whole story would be kept secret forever let alone for a relatively short time.

---

You don't have to be a BOR apologist (as people here like to throw out) to realize that when you have lawsuits, then you don't volunteer evidence to the public to help the plaintiff's case. So you expect some holding back of info and settling some dismissals including NDAs. The regents could open up board meetings for transparency and go into closed session for personnel and lawsuit items.

---

They volunteered all sorts of info to the public in May of 16 that has lead to every lawsuit. The current litigation has turned the focus on them now not as the holders of the check book but as the real culprits

Cove Dawg said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

REX said:

---

Amarillobear said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Stranger said:

---

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

Matt may have missed the part where McCaw acknowledged his mistakes in all this.

---

I'm with Matt on this. Ian was a weakling as an AD. What he testified was probably mostly true but he was part and parcel complicit in every bit of it. He was the hired lackey of the BOR. Did he play a role in everything he described? Most likely.

It was all his version of the truth. CYA.

---

This is the most credible poster on this board. The fastest way to catch up what is the truth is to read him like the Bible.

Ian comes out two years after the fact to throw out the race card. He was holding hands with those he now calls racist.

---

I believe it was Pepper Hamilton that made mention of black athletes having consensual sex with white girls.

---

I know for an absolute fact that PH asked one of the assistant coaches why there were so many black athletes on the team.
Fact

---

Does it make them unqualified to investigate because they aren't sports fans? Obviously, they never heard of Jimmy The Greek.
Finally, PH and the former regime have something in common. Neither side knew what they otherside did or understood their profession. Conference Savior Ken hired them as investigators, not sports experts.

---

Doesn't make them unqualified to investigate, but is certainly a racist comment that a professional agency should not have believed to be an appropriate question.

---

How is it racist?
Why are there so many white golfers? Racist?

Party, what board doesn't go into executive session concerning lawsuits?