PartyBear said:

---

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

---

I realize you don't want to believe me, but the press put blood in the water long before that so the sharks were circling. Suppressing or outright burying complaints without referring it to JA or later Title IX office. Not separating the accused and accused from contact. Not providing counseling. The front in of being compliant with Obama ' s Title IX caused the libility. You didn't need anything with PH, Briles suspension, or Briles buyout for a plaintiff attorney to ask those questions from an accuser. Hernandez had a settlement meeting scheduled with Baylor and Briles settled the day before it.

NoBSU said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

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

---

Hernandez had a settlement meeting scheduled with Baylor and Briles settled the day before it.

---

That bit has akways bothered me. Briles says he testify favorably re: Hernandez's case. BU cuts Briles a check. Briles appears to abandon Hernandez. Bad optics all around.

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.

---

This is the issue.
And I despair that BoR will ever get it or change

quash said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

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

---

Hernandez had a settlement meeting scheduled with Baylor and Briles settled the day before it.

---

That bit has akways bothered me. Briles says he testify favorably re: Hernandez's case. BU cuts Briles a check. Briles appears to abandon Hernandez. Bad optics all around.

---

Close but not quite how it went down...CAB was suspended with intent to terminate...BU had hired lawyers defending him and trying to gather information from him in confidence you know atty client privilege...those same lawyers were also representing BU in the potential litigation between BU and CAB if they decided to terminate with cause and a law suit ensued. Cannon CAB's personal atty called them on it and said wait a second you can't send lawyers to defend CAB in the Hernandez case and gather confidential info and then turn around and potentially use it in the BU c CAB lawsuit...So he filed a motion pointing out the conflict and said get on with it terminate for cause, exercise the buy out or put him back to work. They choose to buy him out. BU then took over his defense again and got him out individually on legal grounds claims against him were dismissed. The settlement came later with Hernandez.

Briles isn't the PR genius a lot of people want to believe.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Briles isn't the PR genius a lot of people want to believe.

---

What are you talking about? Not anyone saying that CAB has been good at PR?

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.

---

That's true.

But they also got away with things that would never work now in the internet age where an incriminating photo would end a career. Just ask Nevin Shapiro. Having an escort waiting in a room for a recruit is something only Miami and maybe three other schools would try,,.

That Baylor is even being discussed with the NCAA is a farce.

Eball said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Briles isn't the PR genius a lot of people want to believe.

---

What are you talking about? Not anyone saying that CAB has been good at PR?

---

Have you met Rex?

xiledinok said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Ribbon clerk, this is America, you should have covered your tail with those phones.
Those text messages burn you badly.
The Canadian was the regent's boy.
Good to see he has the same character to cover his ass as to cover up.

Ian cannot get a job anywhere he wants to these days, so it's back to the drawing board for him. He must attack failed regent leadership. Another sideshow that will most likely end badly for McCaw.

---

Lying racist regents

---

Ian's cards are so bad that he's only left playing the race card.
There were reports on other websites that laid out the issues Baylor had with athletics. It was a Longhorn website. Pretty bad for Ian.
Instead of covering ass, all he had to do was have a few bad apples kicked off and everything would have been good. He has no one to blame but his white ass.

---

McCaw said he resigned because he "did not want to be part of some Enron cover-up scheme."

You can defend BOFR. McCaw tells the truth

---

This part isn't true. With Starr being demoted, somebody in the chain of command had to let CAB go. Ian was left in that chain. He was told to do that then find a replacement coach (Grobe) then to resign. Not doubting the BOFR accusations because of what I have known, but that whole Enron excuse is stupid.

---

We don't know order in which all that happened. The "stay until you fire Briles and hire Grobe" bit could have followed Ian pushing back on the BOR narrative.

---

God, we needed to throw McCaw in the river if he's that kind of character. He needed another job and did what it took to get another job. This is all Ian just creating a narrative that he wasn't responsible. He's right there with the regent board and more because he could have prevented it.

---

McCaw was in a no-win situation for himself. He had Baylor's best coach ever on one side and the BOFR on the other. Some wanted football success at any price and some wanted Baylors name to remain pristine at any price. You need to get off of your high horse and take a long slow sip of reality. Ian's buddy Robert has been telling us that there was a racial component to what was happening behind closed doors, since day one.

Marco, if you had been worth a damn as a message board moderator, Texas Monthly and two half wit journalists wouldn't have had fake accounts they used to write the story.

They used a post from a user that had ONE post from a foreign country and you didn't say a word about it.

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.

---

Totally agree with this. No more sweeping poor abusive behavior under the rug.

xiledinok said:

---

How is it racist?

---

Because the question was raised in the context of the inquiry into sexual assault. It implies that the racial makeup of the team is relevant to the number of sexual assaults.

marco said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Ribbon clerk, this is America, you should have covered your tail with those phones.
Those text messages burn you badly.
The Canadian was the regent's boy.
Good to see he has the same character to cover his ass as to cover up.

Ian cannot get a job anywhere he wants to these days, so it's back to the drawing board for him. He must attack failed regent leadership. Another sideshow that will most likely end badly for McCaw.

---

Lying racist regents

---

Ian's cards are so bad that he's only left playing the race card.
There were reports on other websites that laid out the issues Baylor had with athletics. It was a Longhorn website. Pretty bad for Ian.
Instead of covering ass, all he had to do was have a few bad apples kicked off and everything would have been good. He has no one to blame but his white ass.

---

McCaw said he resigned because he "did not want to be part of some Enron cover-up scheme."

You can defend BOFR. McCaw tells the truth

---

This part isn't true. With Starr being demoted, somebody in the chain of command had to let CAB go. Ian was left in that chain. He was told to do that then find a replacement coach (Grobe) then to resign. Not doubting the BOFR accusations because of what I have known, but that whole Enron excuse is stupid.

---

We don't know order in which all that happened. The "stay until you fire Briles and hire Grobe" bit could have followed Ian pushing back on the BOR narrative.

---

God, we needed to throw McCaw in the river if he's that kind of character. He needed another job and did what it took to get another job. This is all Ian just creating a narrative that he wasn't responsible. He's right there with the regent board and more because he could have prevented it.

---

McCaw was in a no-win situation for himself. He had Baylor's best coach ever on one side and the BOFR on the other. Some wanted football success at any price and some wanted Baylors name to remain pristine at any price. You need to get off of your high horse and take a long slow sip of reality. Ian's buddy Robert has been telling us that there was a racial component to what was happening behind closed doors, since day one.

---

Marco, the ribbon clerk was a pawn for the regents. He road in the car with them. Now, he calls them racist.
Robemcdo was floating the racist stuff on your board for Ian. How convenient to come with it for vague testimony?
Stranger has repeatedly told the Baylor message boards what's happening at Baylor. He told us what happened.
Art and Ian's folks who are determined to run down the new football program and the regent folks don't
like his posts. It's the truth.

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.

---

We totally agree trash is trash nbsu.

I believe rich trash gets away with more though. Not just cause they lawyer up better, but also because more people are willing to or even have to put up with their mess.

But, pretty much agree 100%

bubbadog said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

How is it racist?

---

Because the question was raised in the context of the inquiry into sexual assault. It implies that the racial makeup of the team is relevant to the number of sexual assaults.

---

Do you know the context of their conversation at the time? I d wager the questioner knew about as much about football as Marco would know about Classical Piano.

NoBSU... said:

---

... Hernandez had a settlement meeting scheduled with Baylor and Briles settled the day before it.

---

Jasmin Hernandez, a plaintiff in a Title IX lawsuit filed last year against Baylor University, requested in a filing Tuesday to remove former head football coach Art Briles and former Athletics Director Ian McCaw as defendants.
https://www.wacotrib.com/news/higher_education/hernandez-s-title-ix-suit-against-baylor-briles-mccaw-settled/article_a6aba879-9f2f-5908-ab2b-ad001bbd34ae.html

It seems you don't understand xile that repeatedly calling Ian a pawn of the Regents completely backs up what Ian is saying under oath and how he was powerless against the scapegoat set ups and racism and cover ups they were orchestrating. It doesn't contradict it all. It is a poor defense of the BOR to keep pointing out that Ian's testimony under oath is accurate.

PartyBear said:

---

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

---

They were quite loquacious in the fall of 2016. Made things a lot worse, too.

Robert Wilson said:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

They were quite loquacious in the fall of 2016. Made things a lot worse, too.

---

Those interviews they gave always reminded me of this:

57Bear said:

---

NoBSU... said:

---

... Hernandez had a settlement meeting scheduled with Baylor and Briles settled the day before it.

---

Jasmin Hernandez, a plaintiff in a Title IX lawsuit filed last year against Baylor University, requested in a filing Tuesday to remove former head football coach Art Briles and former Athletics Director Ian McCaw as defendants.
https://www.wacotrib.com/news/higher_education/hernandez-s-title-ix-suit-against-baylor-briles-mccaw-settled/article_a6aba879-9f2f-5908-ab2b-ad001bbd34ae.html

---

Pardon me, mediation meeting not settlement. I have a link also.

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/higher_education/briles-betrays-victim-by-failing-to-apologize-attorneys-say/article_636b1101-000f-593b-8927-27709727a39a.html

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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

Well written, thank you.

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.

---

While there are multiple actions and inactions that lined up in the Swiss cheese incident model for this fiasco to have occurred, the mindset you note with a resulting action Ian noted the BOR's attempt to blame "300 lb black football player" definitely is one of the related causes in that model.

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

Well done, Chuckroast. Er, ah, that is to say, well-worded.

80sBEAR said:

---

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.

---

Maybe 7.4% of the posters will reply on the other thread.

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

I have no connection to CAB - never even met him. Do you have any connection to the BOR?

Chuckroast said:

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

This has to be one of, if not the, most idiotic posts in the history of 365. By far.

Where do you start? This entire post or the poster sucks donkey balls.

The worst of the worst:

"The BOR sets the culture of the university"

"The BOR presided over football"

Are you kidding me?

I'll tell you what I am carrying. A warm bucket of piss. That is what Briles left us with. Piss!

Once a kid hits the campus it is ALL team coach's responsibility to make certain the kids understand the mission statement of Baylor and they conform to that statement. It is the coaches that spend at least 5 hours per day with these kids and it does not take long to find out who the potential firebombs are.

Reporter said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

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.

---

Maybe 7.4% of the posters will reply on the other thread.

---

You don't need to worry about that malcontent anymore. I understand that he has been banned from this site.

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

LOL. All you seem to want to do is defend Briles.

What is the incoming class size at Baylor now? How many on the admissions staff?

25 frosh football recruits and some transfers. What is the size of the football staff including their analysts and support staff?

Are you serious with what you just posted? Is your drive to defend Briles that strong?

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON. I'M JUDY FROM THE BAYLOR ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT. I USUALLY MAKE QUARTERLY VISITS TO YOUR SON'S HIGH SCHOOL TO SHOOT THE CRAP WITH HIS COACHES. I AM HERE FOR OUR OFFICIAL HOME VISIT. IT IS GOOD TO FINALLY TALK TO YOU IN PERSON.

---

If Briles deserved to be fired, it would be in the BOR's best interest simply to tell us what he did. We could all then move on. It would have been so easy to do that if Baylor's problems were primarily a football problem. I'm defending Briles because the facts and circumstances lead me to believe the BOR fired him in an effort to kill the story . . . because after all, who fires one of the best coaches in college football and nobody else unless the blame is all his.

All the BOR has produced were selective and incomplete text messages with no context - supplied months later when they were defending their own livelihood - and combined with veiled threats against young Briles. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Briles and his staff deserved to have their reputations and careers killed.

CAB seemed to me a good man, and I'm not going to believe otherwise without proof simply for the convenience of my alma mater.

---

I am talking reality and policy for all coaches in all sports. Chuck is talking Fantasyland where all roads lead to shoring up Briles.

---

I have no connection to CAB - never even met him. Do you have any connection to the BOR?

---

Take off the blinders. I am talking policy not Briles vs. BOR.

For the 10th time: I do not know nor am I related to anyone on the Baylor Board of Regents. In 1983 or 1984 I attended the wedding of an employee in the Athletic Department but that ended in divorce and I was friends with the ex. I go to church with the father of a Baylor English professor. That is my entire connection to Baylor staff unless there are a buch of faculty around from 1981-85.

I know a Chemistry professor at Ouchita Baptist University. Does that count?

Your theories on coaches having little responsibility for who they recruit are laughable.

Chuckroast said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Chuckroast 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.

---

I agree that character is critical and that it can be present as well as lacking in students all across the university. Where I take issue with this post is with the verbs "recruit" and "babysit" . . . as if it's all on the coach that a student athlete at Baylor did something wrong. CAB essentially recruited the same kids that everyone else did (don't want to get in the Sam U. debate here). While a coach needs to identify great players for his program, I still contend it's the admissions office that ultimately has to make the decision to admit a kid. I've seen the admissions office thwart the coaches all too often at Vanderbilt, the other school I support . . and Vanderbilt still had a horrible gang rape scandal of their own which they were able to deal with quickly because it was all on videotape. The coach didn't get fired, and Vanderbilt was also transparent and didn't have years of baggage.

Baylor has for years, and long before CAB came along, balanced the scales of admissions standards for student/athletes more in favor of the athlete, and that mindset starts at the top. In a perfect world, the NFL would have a minor league system, and colleges could focus more on admitting student/athletes, but as long as P5 universities and other conferences are willing to be the minor league system for NFL football, they have allowed for the creation of a system sometimes at odds with their original mission of education.

So if anyone is going to use revisionist history to suggest that Briles recruited kids with bad character, I contend that the blame should still fall more on the admissions office. Briles has to coach football and manage a program . . . the admissions office is expressly charged with deciding whom to admit, and yet many of you seem to believe the blame for admissions should fall on the coach and not the school. To many of you, I suppose any issues with campus police or even the Waco PD are probably Ian's and CAB's fault also because football was just too important.

I know you are content to blame Ian and CAB for much of what happened at Baylor. Just remember that the BOR sets the culture of the university. The BOR presided over football, the admissions office including its admissions standards, student affairs, the title IX office (or lack thereof), and all other facets of the university. I'm sickened that the BOR has tried to pin the fallout of their governance as well as the really bad decisions of some of its students on CAB, and some of you are just carrying their water.

---

What a convenient load of revisionist crap on your part. Your admissions argument is all Sam U. Same old tired admissions department blame game. Why don't you grab a bunch of D1 athletes. Have them list the names of coaches and team staff that they got to know during recruiting. Then have them list the names of employees of the admissions department that they got to know during their recruiting. Which list do you think is longer.

The admissions department is seeing the high school transcript and any possible legal record. They are there for grade risks and what is basically on a back-ground checks. The Baylor coaches have these guys on social media for years and they talk to the high school staffs. A kid can certainly keep his social media clean and the high school staff can hide issues. I wouldn't blame Baylor coaches when they never see it coming. In other cases, they agree to recruit kids that they know have character issues. It is the the coaches responsibility to keep a closer eye on those kids so they don't embarrass the program.

If a previously clean kid starts to show signs of heading into trouble then they need to keep a closer eye on them. You say that coaches have no responsibility to do this. The PH FofF say Briles staff ran their own discipline outside of JA. I expect that. OU excels at this. We sucked.

My nephew was a D1 athlete. I have heard all the stories of screw-ups, the fixers, and the stories of coaches coming down hard on trouble-makers when the public has no idea. My world isn't revisionist but reality.

---

The PH FoF was a document written by Baylor . . . take it for what that's worth.

Your argument has to have the assumption that our coaches either learned of or knew of "off the record" character flaws of recruits that our admissions office didn't know about. Where is your evidence of that?

When it comes to the no more than 30 kids that we admit each year to school to play football, there is no reason that the admissions department can't dig as deep as it needs to on those kids. There is a conflict of interest simply to let in who the coach wants - that is a copout.

I have no doubt that coaches take certain disciplinary measures into their own hands, but I haven't seen with any real transparency what Briles did that justifies him being the fall guy for what happened. The stuff referred to in the text messages is small in comparison to what the BOR has tried to pin on Briles.

---

What exactly did the BOR try to pin on Briles?

The President was removed, however, he was not fired because he was also a tenured professor at the time of his removal. Nevertheless, he resigned on his own accord.