Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Again, details that don't make a difference to people with common sense.

The idea that Briles was some sort of callous monster because he did not report an incident:

1) that the victim did not want reported; not relevant information -

2) that that had been reported to her own coach and to the AD; they should report too

3) when he had not been trained on the policy you cite; he knew enough policy he was hiding other things left and right from Judicial Affairs

4) when JA was sweeping all of these incidents--not just football--under the rug anyway - there has been no evidence of JA affairs sweeping ANYTHING under the rug ! Stop repeating this nonsense.

5) when he favored criminal prosecution of his own players. He suggested the police be called - he also knew the girl did not want to call the police. Favored prosecution is not a good choice of words.

(Number 3 is a little hazy, but Barnes' letter indicates that he had not been trained.)

Nobody in his/her right mind would look at that scenario and see a football coach who was so win at all costs that he would turn his head to sexual assault. Yet, that is exactly how the BOR tried to use the incident.

I don't like the idea that our football players were involved in whatever went on with this VB player and given Tevin Elliott; Sam U. and Chatman/Armistead on top of it, there is plenty of smoke. Briles and staff were clearly not above bending things in players' favor on minor infractions.

So again, I am not saying he should not have been fired. I would love to have a complete, honest report about the issue so I could make up my own mind. Maybe something written by someone other than the BOR itself. But that is never going to happen, becuase the BOR won't let it happen.

I am saying that there is real evidence that the BOR used exaggerated Briles' failings to protect their own hide. That evidence, has not really surfaced yet - if it exist

---

^bold

---

Wrong.

Not going to argue about trees when you refuse to admit there is a forest.

Booray said:

---

I don't like the idea that our football players were involved in whatever went on with this VB player and given Tevin Elliott; Sam U. and Chatman/Armistead on top of it, there is plenty of smoke. Briles and staff were clearly not above bending things in players' favor on minor infractions.

---

Minor infractions?

NoBSU said:

---

I hope these cases go to trial.

---

I'm with you on that. After a trial, there would still be plenty to debate, but it is the closest we will get to a full vetting of the facts and hopefully some closure.

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

I don't like the idea that our football players were involved in whatever went on with this VB player and given Tevin Elliott; Sam U. and Chatman/Armistead on top of it, there is plenty of smoke. Briles and staff were clearly not above bending things in players' favor on minor infractions.

---

Minor infractions?

---

Yes. Things like drinking beer. I am referring to the text messages the BOR dumped on the public through their answer to Shillinglaw's lawsuit in one of the most bizarre attempts to defend an institution's reputation in PR history.

I am willing to bet that 95% of the content of those messages could be duplicated at any P5 school in the country. (The 'bad dudes" text message is inexplicable to me and one of the primary reasons I see a problem beyond the ordinary with CAB-would love to hear his side of that story).

whitetrash said:

---

According to the MSM, sworn testimony under oath has nowhere near the veracity of a one-off anonymous post on BFans.com from an ISP address somewhere in England.

---

Or a Tweet from Donald Trump

Keyser Soze said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

We you perpetuate a false narrative and turn several very big money donors and a good chunk of alumni against the University that sent you packing with a $15 mill parachute ... kinda wishful thinking they are gonna throw you a hand when the press gets rough

---

Well someone actually under oath did say a false narrative was presented.

You certainly wouldn't expect those who created that narrative to defend the coach they most damaged with it.

---

We don't even know if we have an accurate representation of what McCaw said much less if what McCaw said is accurate. It looks like a repetition of same excuses used by a failed staff, none of which had any legs.

In the FofF football makes up 2.5 of 13 pages in a report that clearly states we had a wide institutional failure. Briles himself more or less admitted everything in those pages. So what is not accurate?

Here is the document

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/266596.pdf pages 10 to 13






Not worried about the document again, have read it several times. It is what McCaw is claiming is a false representation of what went on.

I don't pretend to know the entirety what went on behind the scenes, like several on here do. I don't.


But, after seeing the Boards response to what happened as it happened back in 2016, I don't think we have been given an honest or complete evaluation of the entirety of the Institutional problems either.

They continually shoveled on the football program only. When the football program was just one part of the problem.

Let's not cloud this issue either, I'm not in any way saying Briles should be back or deserves to come back, he it appears was a part of the campus wide problem. I just can't understand how the BOR members, several of whom were obviously playing in the dirt, have completely skated any responsibility.

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Again, details that don't make a difference to people with common sense.

The idea that Briles was some sort of callous monster because he did not report an incident:

1) that the victim did not want reported; not relevant information -

2) that that had been reported to her own coach and to the AD; they should report too

3) when he had not been trained on the policy you cite; he knew enough policy he was hiding other things left and right from Judicial Affairs

4) when JA was sweeping all of these incidents--not just football--under the rug anyway - there has been no evidence of JA affairs sweeping ANYTHING under the rug ! Stop repeating this nonsense.

5) when he favored criminal prosecution of his own players. He suggested the police be called - he also knew the girl did not want to call the police. Favored prosecution is not a good choice of words.

(Number 3 is a little hazy, but Barnes' letter indicates that he had not been trained.)

Nobody in his/her right mind would look at that scenario and see a football coach who was so win at all costs that he would turn his head to sexual assault. Yet, that is exactly how the BOR tried to use the incident.

I don't like the idea that our football players were involved in whatever went on with this VB player and given Tevin Elliott; Sam U. and Chatman/Armistead on top of it, there is plenty of smoke. Briles and staff were clearly not above bending things in players' favor on minor infractions.

So again, I am not saying he should not have been fired. I would love to have a complete, honest report about the issue so I could make up my own mind. Maybe something written by someone other than the BOR itself. But that is never going to happen, becuase the BOR won't let it happen.

I am saying that there is real evidence that the BOR used exaggerated Briles' failings to protect their own hide. That evidence, has not really surfaced yet - if it exist

---

^bold

---

Wrong.

Not going to argue about trees when you refuse to admit there is a forest.

---

You have numerous facts blatantly wrong .... and all you have to say is I can't see the forest

Man up ! Point out where I am not correct if you can

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

We you perpetuate a false narrative and turn several very big money donors and a good chunk of alumni against the University that sent you packing with a $15 mill parachute ... kinda wishful thinking they are gonna throw you a hand when the press gets rough

---

Well someone actually under oath did say a false narrative was presented.

You certainly wouldn't expect those who created that narrative to defend the coach they most damaged with it.

---

We don't even know if we have an accurate representation of what McCaw said much less if what McCaw said is accurate. It looks like a repetition of same excuses used by a failed staff, none of which had any legs.

In the FofF football makes up 2.5 of 13 pages in a report that clearly states we had a wide institutional failure. Briles himself more or less admitted everything in those pages. So what is not accurate?

Here is the document

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/266596.pdf pages 10 to 13






Not worried about the document again, have read it several times. It is what McCaw is claiming is a false representation of what went on.

I don't pretend to know the entirety what went on behind the scenes, like several on here do. I don't.


But, after seeing the Boards response to what happened as it happened back in 2016, I don't think we have been given an honest or complete evaluation of the entirety of the Institutional problems either.

They continually shoveled on the football program only. When the football program was just on part of the problem.

---

---

That is a little revisionist

The were quiet as church mice for five months until they had enough.

What happened in that 5 months:

Cannon said Briles was a scapegoat.
Briles stated he had no idea why he was fired.
Major donors demanded Briles be reinstated.
BLR was started with a well financed negative campaign against the BOR paid for by the same pissed major donors.
Briles shows up at Rice game.
Briles does ESPN interview and owns nothing
The Bring Briles Back movement is in full force
#CAB T shirts are sold in the parking lot home games
Assistant coaches tweet - a good deal of which is inaccurate rumor
Patty Crawford leaves and starts seeding her own lawsuit with 60 minuets - she said a great deal, some correct but much the University has strongly denied.

All this occurred before the regents replied.

When they spoke, it was specifically to address the above - not to discuss the whole. No one was questioning that the University failed which they had told them in the first 4/5ths of the FofF.

People demanded more facts. Once they got them the complained that all they talked about was football.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Again, details that don't make a difference to people with common sense.

The idea that Briles was some sort of callous monster because he did not report an incident:

1) that the victim did not want reported; not relevant information -

2) that that had been reported to her own coach and to the AD; they should report too

3) when he had not been trained on the policy you cite; he knew enough policy he was hiding other things left and right from Judicial Affairs

4) when JA was sweeping all of these incidents--not just football--under the rug anyway - there has been no evidence of JA affairs sweeping ANYTHING under the rug ! Stop repeating this nonsense.

5) when he favored criminal prosecution of his own players. He suggested the police be called - he also knew the girl did not want to call the police. Favored prosecution is not a good choice of words.

(Number 3 is a little hazy, but Barnes' letter indicates that he had not been trained.)

Nobody in his/her right mind would look at that scenario and see a football coach who was so win at all costs that he would turn his head to sexual assault. Yet, that is exactly how the BOR tried to use the incident.

I don't like the idea that our football players were involved in whatever went on with this VB player and given Tevin Elliott; Sam U. and Chatman/Armistead on top of it, there is plenty of smoke. Briles and staff were clearly not above bending things in players' favor on minor infractions.

So again, I am not saying he should not have been fired. I would love to have a complete, honest report about the issue so I could make up my own mind. Maybe something written by someone other than the BOR itself. But that is never going to happen, becuase the BOR won't let it happen.

I am saying that there is real evidence that the BOR used exaggerated Briles' failings to protect their own hide. That evidence, has not really surfaced yet - if it exist

---

^bold

---

Wrong.

Not going to argue about trees when you refuse to admit there is a forest.

---

You have numerous facts blatantly wrong .... and all you have to say is I can't see the forest

Man up ! Point out where I am not correct if you can

---

You want to argue about specific facts as the only means to ignore a mountain of common sense. You want to force me to talk about Briles when the subject is the BOR. I'll play if you will. My man up responses are below.

Can you man up enough to explain why a governing body that allowed this (the sexual assault scandal however you define it) to happen could not bring itself to discipline the campus executive (Ramsower) most directly responsible from preventing it from happening?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
On how Baylor handled sexual assault allegations. via the 60 minutes story:

Ramsower said the Baylor campus police department he oversees had a history of burying sexual assault complaints that came to them.

On the idea that the protocol was an actual policy Baylor expected people to follow, via Jim Barnes:

Barnes cites a lack of training, and writes that there was "no Title IX office" established.

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article213993464.html#storylink=cpy

On prosecution being a good choice of words via Coach barnes and the Mac Engel story;

He also said he immediately met with Briles, who "responded with concern for my player and said she should prosecute."

On exaggerating Briles' failings to protect BOR hide, via you;

The regents that were attorneys were the primary authors.

On the whole idea that Christian compassion for the victim of a sexual assault might lead one to consider whether the victim wanted to be **** shamed and forced to relive the trauma, via you

Irrelevant.

Also, it is not fully true we don't have an accurate representation of what McCaw said.

We didn't have an accurate representation also of what Briles said when they decided to take pieces of text messages, the pieces that of course made him look bad.

Liberty University Athletics Director Ian McCaw in a deposition said Baylor University undertook "an elaborate plan that essentially scapegoated black football players and the football program for being responsible for what was a decades-long, university wide sexual assault scandal," according to a motion filed Wednesday in Waco's U.S. District Court.

The bolded is a direct quote. You can't get much more accurate than that. Sure, it may have been picked out of a long winded statement. The same could be said of the snippets that were picked out of Briles texts.



"Much of the testimony of Mr. McCaw that is selectively quoted in the motion is based on speculation, hearsay and even media reports," the university added.

Wow, suddenly they are concern with selective quotation and pulling out snippets of an overall statement. When they did the same thing continually.

My common sense, which I have a lot of, smells a rat when it comes to the presentation we have been given by the University.

So your response is to ignore most of the points I made and raise different ones for me to reply to.

Not a good look there.

You do know BUPD and JA are not one and the same?

For the sake of argument let's assume

"an elaborate plan that essentially scapegoated black football players and the football program for being responsible for what was a decades-long, university wide sexual assault scandal,"

this is exactly what McCaw said. What is there to validate the accuracy of the statement? Similar statements have been made by dozens of people ever since Briles was fired.

Even in a sworn deposition, stating "they were out to get me" is not proof anyone was out to get him.

Keyser Soze said:

---

So your response is to ignore most of the points I made and raise different ones for me to reply to.

Not a good look there.

You do know BUPD and JA are not one and the same?

---

Why did Regan Ramsower escape the BOR's wrath?

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So your response is to ignore most of the points I made and raise different ones for me to reply to.

Not a good look there.

You do know BUPD and JA are not one and the same?

---

Why did Regan Ramsower escape the BOR's wrath?

---

He was doing their bidding.... You don't cut off your own hand.

I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So your response is to ignore most of the points I made and raise different ones for me to reply to.

Not a good look there.

You do know BUPD and JA are not one and the same?

---

Why did Regan Ramsower escape the BOR's wrath?

---

He was doing their bidding.... You don't cut off your own hand.

---

Didn't your mom ever tell you, "Get out there and give the dog a bath. You're already dirty anyway."?

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So your response is to ignore most of the points I made and raise different ones for me to reply to.

Not a good look there.

You do know BUPD and JA are not one and the same?

---

Why did Regan Ramsower escape the BOR's wrath?

---

He knew where the bodies were buried. They were flat scared of the man.

RR never took notes, didn't made phone calls, didn't text or email and he only had face to face meetings with no one else present. He covered his tracks and covered his ass.

He would have been great in the CIA.

Tiny Elvis said:

---

I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.

---

He was an outsider with no real ties to Baylor. He knew a family fight when he saw it and he didn't want any part of this thing. Top 5 answers are on the Board.....so to speak.

Tiny Elvis said:

---

I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.

---

I think there is a racist component of every board of regents at every single school in the south and probably every school period. It is a generational thing. Racism will never be fully extinguished but it will hopefully decrease as these men start dying off or becoming too old to serve their schools.

Wasn't Texas being criticized for some of the overt racism that some of their big money guys were making towards Charlie Strong?

Tiny Elvis said:

---

I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.

---

He was named President of a different University a few months prior. That is the reason he gave. It is very logical and there has been nothing else on this.

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 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.

---

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.

---

The BOR sat by quietly while the media rushed to judgment that Briles covered up rape. They encouraged that narrative and did nothing to defend him publicly because I'm sure they were relieved he was taking the heat and not them. The school's general counsel very privately wrote a letter exonerating Briles of covering up rape, but they never had the intestinal fortitude simply to say what he did and did not do.

---

The BOR didn't have an obligation to defend him, and, because there is virtually no (enforceable) way for someone to contractually agree to publicly defend someone else whenever a third party criticizes them, there is no way for Briles to have gotten the university to agree to doing that in his settlement even if the university wanted to do so.

The Findings of Fact made it very clear that there was a university wide issue, and the letter wasn't an exoneration letter - it literally said that he did not do 3 specific things. In contrast, an exoneration letter would say that, to their knowledge, he had done nothing illegal/against university policy/unethical/etc.

---

Not suggesting that Baylor had a legal obligation to defend CAB - just a moral obligation. The media was promoting a narrative that CAB was guilty of the specific things the letter exonerated him for. As a Christian university, why couldn't Baylor have publicly announced what they privately wrote in the letter and help put some of the media speculation to rest? answer: because it was all too convenient that Briles was taking the heat and not them.

Since some board members went out of their way to bring heat on CAB, I still wonder why Baylor's general counsel wrote the letter. I wonder if it was demanded by the Briles team as a condition for dropping his lawsuit or not bringing a new one.

---

Let's circle back to the letter. The letter said that:
1. he did not have personal contact with anyone who directly reported being sexual assaulted to him,
2. that he did not directly discourage the victim of sexual assault from reporting the assault to police or university officials, and
3. that he did not play a player that had been found to be responsible for sexual assault.

For practical purposes, if someone says Briles was involved with discouraging and/or instructed others to discourage victims of sexual assault from reporting the assault to police or university officials, that would not conflict with the letter. In the alternative, if someone says that Briles contacted victims of sexual assault that had reported the assault elsewhere, that would also not be in conflict with the letter. If one combines those concepts, one could say that Briles contacted victims of sexual assault in order gain access to information that he would not otherwise have access to, and he utilized that information to not only maintain his own internal disciplinary system in the football program, but also to advise assistant coaches and/or other third parties to contact those victims in an effort to convince them to either not report or drop claims of sexual assault. That's not to say that that is true, but it is to say that none of that would conflict with the letter, and that's why the language of the letter is so important and why "exoneration" is not good word to describe it.

Chuckroast said:

---

Thanks - trying to be polite. Don't want to resort to the hyperbole of Thee and BSU

---

That is the problem with Baylor fans. They are too polite. Let that left nad drop, take a deep breath and live!

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tiny Elvis said:

---

I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.

---

He was named President of a different University a few months prior. That is the reason he gave. It is very logical and there has been nothing else on this.

---

It's remarkable he has never said anything about it and resigned because he had to resign with the new job.
Maybe he'll tell the world he was embarrassed to be associated with those mostly white football coaches.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

We you perpetuate a false narrative and turn several very big money donors and a good chunk of alumni against the University that sent you packing with a $15 mill parachute ... kinda wishful thinking they are gonna throw you a hand when the press gets rough

---

Well someone actually under oath did say a false narrative was presented.

You certainly wouldn't expect those who created that narrative to defend the coach they most damaged with it.

---

We don't even know if we have an accurate representation of what McCaw said much less if what McCaw said is accurate. It looks like a repetition of same excuses used by a failed staff, none of which had any legs.

In the FofF football makes up 2.5 of 13 pages in a report that clearly states we had a wide institutional failure. Briles himself more or less admitted everything in those pages. So what is not accurate?

Here is the document

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/266596.pdf pages 10 to 13






Not worried about the document again, have read it several times. It is what McCaw is claiming is a false representation of what went on.

I don't pretend to know the entirety what went on behind the scenes, like several on here do. I don't.


But, after seeing the Boards response to what happened as it happened back in 2016, I don't think we have been given an honest or complete evaluation of the entirety of the Institutional problems either.

They continually shoveled on the football program only. When the football program was just on part of the problem.

---

---

That is a little revisionist

The were quiet as church mice for five months until they had enough.

What happened in that 5 months:

Cannon said Briles was a scapegoat.
Briles stated he had no idea why he was fired.
Major donors demanded Briles be reinstated.
BLR was started with a well financed negative campaign against the BOR paid for by the same pissed major donors.
Briles shows up at Rice game.
Briles does ESPN interview and owns nothing
The Bring Briles Back movement is in full force
#CAB T shirts are sold in the parking lot home games
Assistant coaches tweet - a good deal of which is inaccurate rumor
Patty Crawford leaves and starts seeding her own lawsuit with 60 minuets - she said a great deal, some correct but much the University has strongly denied.

All this occurred before the regents replied.

When they spoke, it was specifically to address the above - not to discuss the whole. No one was questioning that the University failed which they had told them in the first 4/5ths of the FofF.

People demanded more facts. Once they got them the complained that all they talked about was football.

---

Smh, showed up at Rice and the locker room deal.
The incident pissed off the world outside of Baylor.
ESPN started their OTL push since they needed to sell to the public and their investors that college football wouldn't embarrass them and advertisers would not have any scandal blow on their product.
ESPN owns college football.
It was ballsy but stupid to the point they were going to not get out alive career wise setting the fire at Baylor. ESPN shot back before they escaped.
Paybacks are hell. Like Aerosmith sang years ago, "Don't get mad, get even." Don't mess with Mickey Mouse.

I suggest those who disagree to enjoy NAIA football for the next decade. The World Wide Leader in Sports owns NCAA football.

Thee University said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Thanks - trying to be polite. Don't want to resort to the hyperbole of Thee and BSU

---

That is the problem with Baylor fans. They are too polite. Let that left nad drop, take a deep breath and live!

---

Hey Doak, you know the Longhorn Cafe guys don't you?

xiledinok said:

---

ESPN started their OTL push since they needed to sell to the public and their investors that college football wouldn't embarrass them and advertisers would not have any scandal blow on their product.
ESPN owns college football.

---

Makes a nice conspiracy theory, but that's not what happened.

ESPN's Outside the Lines has always enjoyed a great deal of autonomy to pursue real journalism, even if the story does not serve the bottom-line interests of ESPN and its parent in promoting sports entertainment. This is not the kind of story OTL has to coordinate with corporate to make sure it doesn't hurt their interests in selling college football. I give ESPN credit for this, and over the years OTL has produced some very hard-hitting pieces.

The real problem here was that OTL, which normally does solid reporting, botched the story from the get-go. In the first seconds of that very first OTL piece, behind the beauty shot of McLane Stadium at night, they let the mother of one of the victims establish their theme in a voiceover, when she said that Baylor sold out its values and allowed women to become victimized for the sake of being great in football.

I want to be clear about how they missed the real story.

Yes, Baylor did have a disturbing number of football players accused or convicted of sexual assault.
Yes, there were legitimate questions about why this was so and how the cases were handled internally.

But...

ESPN's OTL piece and the network's subsequent reporting from Waco never really established some kind of coverup by the football staff and athletic department.
And, even more, ESPN failed to understand how the football assaults connected to the way Baylor handled (or not) all accusations of sexual assault. Thus, while the football scandal was symptomatic of an institutional problem, ESPN gave everyone the impression that football was the entire problem.

Defenders of ESPN might argue that their mission was only to look at the dimension of the problem that involved athletics. And yet because they only looked at athletics, they failed to understand the larger problem involving Baylor, Title IX, and sex among students.

The BoR was not responsible for ESPN taking this wrong direction, but they were delighted to encourage it once they saw where ESPN was headed.

bubbadog said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

ESPN started their OTL push since they needed to sell to the public and their investors that college football wouldn't embarrass them and advertisers would not have any scandal blow on their product.
ESPN owns college football.

---

Makes a nice conspiracy theory, but that's not what happened.

ESPN's Outside the Lines has always enjoyed a great deal of autonomy to pursue real journalism, even if the story does not serve the bottom-line interests of ESPN and its parent in promoting sports entertainment. This is not the kind of story OTL has to coordinate with corporate to make sure it doesn't hurt their interests in selling college football. I give ESPN credit for this, and over the years OTL has produced some very hard-hitting pieces.

The real problem here was that OTL, which normally does solid reporting, botched the story from the get-go. In the first seconds of that very first OTL piece, behind the beauty shot of McLane Stadium at night, they let the mother of one of the victims establish their theme in a voiceover, when she said that Baylor sold out its values and allowed women to become victimized for the sake of being great in football.

I want to be clear about how they missed the real story.

Yes, Baylor did have a disturbing number of football players accused or convicted of sexual assault.
Yes, there were legitimate questions about why this was so and how the cases were handled internally.

But...

ESPN's OTL piece and the network's subsequent reporting from Waco never really established some kind of coverup by the football staff and athletic department.
And, even more, ESPN failed to understand how the football assaults connected to the way Baylor handled (or not) all accusations of sexual assault. Thus, while the football scandal was symptomatic of an institutional problem, ESPN gave everyone the impression that football was the entire problem.

Defenders of ESPN might argue that their mission was only to look at the dimension of the problem that involved athletics. And yet because they only looked at athletics, they failed to understand the larger problem involving Baylor, Title IX, and sex among students.

The BoR was not responsible for ESPN taking this wrong direction, but they were delighted to encourage it once they saw where ESPN was headed.

---

When did ESPN become a network dedicated to looking at other parts of the school concerning these issues? They covered the portion of the school that had the largest number of incidents and it involved athletics and sports.
ESPN stands for Entertainment Sports Programming Network. Nothing entertaining or sports related to cover how many male theater majors grabbed each others' tails without consent.
ESPN wasn't focused on the regents. Bubby Gravehauler types aren't tuning into hear Patty Crawford (no one outside the bubble tuned into Showtime to listen to her or others and Showtime thought enough of the story to put it opposite of the World Series with the Chicago Cubs in it). This 'Merica, ain't many watching RR and her talk.
ESPN chose Briles and his program to report. They must have had good ratings because they focused on it for months. They are a business and they are making money for Mickey Mouse.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.

What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.

Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.

This is from Baylor.edu

While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.

xiledinok said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

ESPN started their OTL push since they needed to sell to the public and their investors that college football wouldn't embarrass them and advertisers would not have any scandal blow on their product.
ESPN owns college football.

---

Makes a nice conspiracy theory, but that's not what happened.

ESPN's Outside the Lines has always enjoyed a great deal of autonomy to pursue real journalism, even if the story does not serve the bottom-line interests of ESPN and its parent in promoting sports entertainment. This is not the kind of story OTL has to coordinate with corporate to make sure it doesn't hurt their interests in selling college football. I give ESPN credit for this, and over the years OTL has produced some very hard-hitting pieces.

The real problem here was that OTL, which normally does solid reporting, botched the story from the get-go. In the first seconds of that very first OTL piece, behind the beauty shot of McLane Stadium at night, they let the mother of one of the victims establish their theme in a voiceover, when she said that Baylor sold out its values and allowed women to become victimized for the sake of being great in football.

I want to be clear about how they missed the real story.

Yes, Baylor did have a disturbing number of football players accused or convicted of sexual assault.
Yes, there were legitimate questions about why this was so and how the cases were handled internally.

But...

ESPN's OTL piece and the network's subsequent reporting from Waco never really established some kind of coverup by the football staff and athletic department.
And, even more, ESPN failed to understand how the football assaults connected to the way Baylor handled (or not) all accusations of sexual assault. Thus, while the football scandal was symptomatic of an institutional problem, ESPN gave everyone the impression that football was the entire problem.

Defenders of ESPN might argue that their mission was only to look at the dimension of the problem that involved athletics. And yet because they only looked at athletics, they failed to understand the larger problem involving Baylor, Title IX, and sex among students.

The BoR was not responsible for ESPN taking this wrong direction, but they were delighted to encourage it once they saw where ESPN was headed.

---

When did ESPN become a network dedicated to looking at other parts of the school concerning these issues? They covered the portion of the school that had the largest number of incidents and it involved athletics and sports.
ESPN stands for Entertainment Sports Programming Network. Nothing entertaining or sports related to cover how many male theater majors grabbed each others' tails without consent.
ESPN wasn't focused on the regents. Bubby Gravehauler types aren't tuning into hear Patty Crawford (no one outside the bubble tuned into Showtime to listen to her or others and Showtime thought enough of the story to put it opposite of the World Series with the Chicago Cubs in it). This 'Merica, ain't many watching RR and her talk.
ESPN chose Briles and his program to report. They must have had good ratings because they focused on it for months. They are a business and they are making money for Mickey Mouse.

---

Yeah, that's the apologia for ESPN. But if you're going to report the sports story accurately, you're obliged by your duty to good journalism to understand and report the larger story, because otherwise you will create a misimpression among your audience -- which is what ESPN did.

Audiences got the impression that Baylor was more like Florida State or Ohio State -- schools where football runs the university and misbehavior is ignored for the sake of football. Such a pat explanation doesn't really account for much more than a small part of the story at Baylor. The bigger issue was that Baylor is a school that did not want to comply with Title IX, didn't make much effort to do so, and, most of all, did not want to take sexual assault allegations seriously because its leaders didn't want to acknowledge even the possibility that Baylor students would commit such assaults. Any reporting on the sports scandal that does not help its audiences understand the context in which these assaults occurred isn't fulfilling its journalistic obligation to getting the story right.

Art and McCaw deserved some of the blame. The institution deserved just as much, for its attitude toward student sex rather than its attitude toward football. ESPN's audiences got a misleading impression, and that set the tone for all the reporting that followed.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.

What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.

Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.

This is from Baylor.edu

While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.

---

In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said

"The parents met with judicial affairs"

This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.

Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this

"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."


Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.


The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.

What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.

Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.

This is from Baylor.edu

While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.

---

In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said

"The parents met with judicial affairs"

This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.

Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this

"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."


Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.


The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?

---

Wrong. The sensational part is that the victim does not believe Briles handled it incorrectly-he did what she wanted him to do. That may have broken "protocol" but it certainly not the work of a rape-enabler.

Hey X you say the football program had the greatest number of incidents. That ain't right man. BU's title 9lDy said that there were 300 incidents and football had a small number, ive read 10%; that's a long way from "the greatest number"

Your true agenda glows brighter every day

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.

What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.

Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.

This is from Baylor.edu

While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.

---

In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said

"The parents met with judicial affairs"

This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.

Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this

"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."


Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.


The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?

---

Wrong. The sensational part is that the victim does not believe Briles handled it incorrectly-he did what she wanted him to do. That may have broken "protocol" but it certainly not the work of a rape-enabler.

---

Why would something we knew more than 18 month ago be sensation?

There is zero new about that.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.

What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.

Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.

This is from Baylor.edu

While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.

---

In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said

"The parents met with judicial affairs"

This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.

Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this

"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."


Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.


The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?

---

Wrong. The sensational part is that the victim does not believe Briles handled it incorrectly-he did what she wanted him to do. That may have broken "protocol" but it certainly not the work of a rape-enabler.

---

Why would something we knew more than 18 month ago be sensation?

There is zero new about that.

---

Because the BOR successfully buried the truth about the incident in a pile of BS.

Review: Harper told the DMN that CAB knew about 1 of the 4 gang rape allegations, implying CAB knew about it and did nothing. Tweet storm, blow-out loss CAB shirts ensued. BOR reinforces their narrative in the Shillinglaw "answer." The combined result of all this convinces the world that CAB is the worst person in America.

When people look at again and understand that CAB's reaction to the 1 gang rape allegation he knew about (per Harper and later the Baylor legal letter) was perfectly understandable, it is a little sensational.

Keyser Soze said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?

---

You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:

1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and

2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.

Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.

Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.

---

The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.

What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.

Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.

This is from Baylor.edu

While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.

---

In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said

"The parents met with judicial affairs"

This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.

Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this

"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."


Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.


The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?

---

I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.