witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

I'm not defending or whitewashing Art but that's a pretty low standard for assessing the man's character and actions. It is no trade secret that horn, sooner, frog and aggy wanted Art gone for competition reasons. There has been some strong suggestion that Art's firing came out of the Big 12 office, fueled by Boren, sooner and horn, with the Big Boys swapping a firing of Art for a school dismissal from the league. We'll never know the facts behind this but other schools' opinions of Briles are to be disregarded from the get-go. The opinions of the coaching profession are another thing altogether and are largely ignored. Those with whom I have spoken have an entirely different take on this deal.

In short, Art is gone and the firing can be justified solely on the grounds of Baylor's personnel management guidelines and the Regents' wishes. That is all that is needed. The question of whether he was the recipient of the bulk of the attention for this disaster is not open for debate: he was. The reason for this seems obvious: successful big-time football wedded to the press which is often intentionally biased coupled with culture's sensitivity/awareness of sexual assault/rape. Perfect storm.

The role the Regents played in all this is what is being fought over or should be fought over: total failure to respond well to claims of sexual assault and rape on the part of the university ultimately falls on the Regents who are charged with setting policy. (I don't know how safety for women can be insured beyond prevention counseling in situations where women's decisions led to such activity of which we are now aware.) I do know that the law has to be adhered to until the law is changed: it doesn't matter if a top-flite lawyer thinks it "unconstitutional". It is the law until the court says it isn't. Starr, The Regents, the COO and Baylor's legal counsel ALL know this, which begs the question(s) of why they led us to this place.

The signal question demanding answers is why the Regents "didn't come clean" to begin with but allowed the bulk of the vitriol to flow down onto Art Briles, destroying his reputation beyond his culpability and wrecking his career. Using one man for an air raid shelter to shield themselves from the incoming rounds seems fearful at best and shirking responsibility at worst. "Protecting the university" is really weak sauce to serve with this **** sandwich they cooked up. When drawing conclusions about Briles and his termination, we'd best recall that there is a lot of conflicting information (depending on the source) and that the opinions of competing schools is completely unreliable.

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

TheDom said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

I'm not defending or whitewashing Art but that's a pretty low standard for assessing the man's character and actions. It is no trade secret that horn, sooner, frog and aggy wanted Art gone for competition reasons. There has been some strong suggestion that Art's firing came out of the Big 12 office, fueled by Boren, sooner and horn, with the Big Boys swapping a firing of Art for a school dismissal from the league. We'll never know the facts behind this but other schools' opinions of Briles are to be disregarded from the get-go. The opinions of the coaching profession are another thing altogether and are largely ignored. Those with whom I have spoken have an entirely different take on this deal.

In short, Art is gone and the firing can be justified solely on the grounds of Baylor's personnel management guidelines and the Regents' wishes. That is all that is needed. The question of whether he was the recipient of the bulk of the attention for this disaster is not open for debate: he was. The reason for this seems obvious: successful big-time football wedded to the press which is often intentionally biased coupled with culture's sensitivity/awareness of sexual assault/rape. Perfect storm.

The role the Regents played in all this is what is being fought over or should be fought over: total failure to respond well to claims of sexual assault and rape on the part of the university ultimately falls on the Regents who are charged with setting policy. (I don't know how safety for women can be insured beyond prevention counseling in situations where women's decisions led to such activity of which we are now aware.) I do know that the law has to be adhered to until the law is changed: it doesn't matter if a top-flite lawyer thinks it "unconstitutional". It is the law until the court says it isn't. Starr, The Regents, the COO and Baylor's legal counsel ALL know this, which begs the question(s) of why they led us to this place.

The signal question demanding answers is why the Regents "didn't come clean" to begin with but allowed the bulk of the vitriol to flow down onto Art Briles, destroying his reputation beyond his culpability and wrecking his career. Using one man for an air raid shelter to shield themselves from the incoming rounds seems fearful at best and shirking responsibility at worst. "Protecting the university" is really weak sauce to serve with this **** sandwich they cooked up. When drawing conclusions about Briles and his termination, we'd best recall that there is a lot of conflicting information (depending on the source) and that the opinions of competing schools is completely unreliable.

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

---

The,

Or should we just call you Dom, Dommy?

Who, in your opinion, are the three people you refer to?

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Eball said:

---

So...do you just pretty much dislike everyone and everything?

---

I am very direct with people who are dismissive.

I have a long list of posters that I like. Most don't post on these threads.

---

that stings a bit

---

LOL. Most. That means many don't but a few do. You and BaylorOkie are good dudes. Have been on Baylorfans since what, 2003? Forest is a good guy but I disagree with him a lot on this topic. When I think of FB I think of his old avatar of his little boy who is probably driving now. Keyser have been around for a very long time. It gets old watching those with agendas label longtime posters as school mouthpieces just because they have a different take on things.

TheDom said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

I'm not defending or whitewashing Art but that's a pretty low standard for assessing the man's character and actions. It is no trade secret that horn, sooner, frog and aggy wanted Art gone for competition reasons. There has been some strong suggestion that Art's firing came out of the Big 12 office, fueled by Boren, sooner and horn, with the Big Boys swapping a firing of Art for a school dismissal from the league. We'll never know the facts behind this but other schools' opinions of Briles are to be disregarded from the get-go. The opinions of the coaching profession are another thing altogether and are largely ignored. Those with whom I have spoken have an entirely different take on this deal.

In short, Art is gone and the firing can be justified solely on the grounds of Baylor's personnel management guidelines and the Regents' wishes. That is all that is needed. The question of whether he was the recipient of the bulk of the attention for this disaster is not open for debate: he was. The reason for this seems obvious: successful big-time football wedded to the press which is often intentionally biased coupled with culture's sensitivity/awareness of sexual assault/rape. Perfect storm.

The role the Regents played in all this is what is being fought over or should be fought over: total failure to respond well to claims of sexual assault and rape on the part of the university ultimately falls on the Regents who are charged with setting policy. (I don't know how safety for women can be insured beyond prevention counseling in situations where women's decisions led to such activity of which we are now aware.) I do know that the law has to be adhered to until the law is changed: it doesn't matter if a top-flite lawyer thinks it "unconstitutional". It is the law until the court says it isn't. Starr, The Regents, the COO and Baylor's legal counsel ALL know this, which begs the question(s) of why they led us to this place.

The signal question demanding answers is why the Regents "didn't come clean" to begin with but allowed the bulk of the vitriol to flow down onto Art Briles, destroying his reputation beyond his culpability and wrecking his career. Using one man for an air raid shelter to shield themselves from the incoming rounds seems fearful at best and shirking responsibility at worst. "Protecting the university" is really weak sauce to serve with this **** sandwich they cooked up. When drawing conclusions about Briles and his termination, we'd best recall that there is a lot of conflicting information (depending on the source) and that the opinions of competing schools is completely unreliable.

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

---

There's no Briles worship stated or implied in my comments so you are good there.
There is also no blind loyalty on my part in regards to any of the leadership at BU, so have a Shiner on me and chill a bit. As I have said all along, everyone was culpable so the firings seem appropriate.
Hope your Board meetings become less problematic this year.

witchmo said:

---

TheDom said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

I'm not defending or whitewashing Art but that's a pretty low standard for assessing the man's character and actions. It is no trade secret that horn, sooner, frog and aggy wanted Art gone for competition reasons. There has been some strong suggestion that Art's firing came out of the Big 12 office, fueled by Boren, sooner and horn, with the Big Boys swapping a firing of Art for a school dismissal from the league. We'll never know the facts behind this but other schools' opinions of Briles are to be disregarded from the get-go. The opinions of the coaching profession are another thing altogether and are largely ignored. Those with whom I have spoken have an entirely different take on this deal.

In short, Art is gone and the firing can be justified solely on the grounds of Baylor's personnel management guidelines and the Regents' wishes. That is all that is needed. The question of whether he was the recipient of the bulk of the attention for this disaster is not open for debate: he was. The reason for this seems obvious: successful big-time football wedded to the press which is often intentionally biased coupled with culture's sensitivity/awareness of sexual assault/rape. Perfect storm.

The role the Regents played in all this is what is being fought over or should be fought over: total failure to respond well to claims of sexual assault and rape on the part of the university ultimately falls on the Regents who are charged with setting policy. (I don't know how safety for women can be insured beyond prevention counseling in situations where women's decisions led to such activity of which we are now aware.) I do know that the law has to be adhered to until the law is changed: it doesn't matter if a top-flite lawyer thinks it "unconstitutional". It is the law until the court says it isn't. Starr, The Regents, the COO and Baylor's legal counsel ALL know this, which begs the question(s) of why they led us to this place.

The signal question demanding answers is why the Regents "didn't come clean" to begin with but allowed the bulk of the vitriol to flow down onto Art Briles, destroying his reputation beyond his culpability and wrecking his career. Using one man for an air raid shelter to shield themselves from the incoming rounds seems fearful at best and shirking responsibility at worst. "Protecting the university" is really weak sauce to serve with this **** sandwich they cooked up. When drawing conclusions about Briles and his termination, we'd best recall that there is a lot of conflicting information (depending on the source) and that the opinions of competing schools is completely unreliable.

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

---

There's no Briles worship stated or implied in my comments so you are good there.
There is also no blind loyalty on my part in regards to any of the leadership at BU, so have a Shiner on me and chill a bit. As I have said all along, everyone was culpable so the firings seem appropriate.
Hope your Board meetings become less problematic this year.

---

It's their only jutification for carving out the acceptance of failure from the BoR. Make it about "Briles". They all failed. They weren't all held accountable. There's no spin around that.

TheDom said:

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

---

Hmmmm.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Reporter said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Cue Richard the Dildo Salesman in 3..2..1

---

First I will most certainly not tell you I love you. Second, you have shown an Abnormal fascination with sex toys!!!

---

Don't leave out the male enhancement pills.

Just sayin.

---

Lets not forget that Dick's company also sells anal beads too.

Eball said:

---

I may need to cut and post some of your stuff on the premium board. Good post

---

Watch out doing that....the sunshine pumpers heads will explode. Those people tolerate no dissent.

blackie said:

---

The latest action of the BOR is telling as to where ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies. All the while the school in general was being daily front page headlines we heard not a peep of rebuttal fom the BOR that the school was not a "hunting ground for sexual predators"....that our students were just as good as you'll find anywhere else. That the school was just as safe, probably safer, than most any other large University.

No, what we heard were crickets while any exaggerated accusation was made my the media without a thread of context or rebuttal or facts from the school. Everyone was getting thrown under the bus by those whose ultimate responsibility it was to make sure we were doing things right. Deflecting everything to the football program depite the fact that this, just as it is everywhere else, is a societal problem wih the problem not being limited to any area was a convenience to sweep under the rug actions that had been going on for decades.

Anything was fair as long as it didn't direct any responsibility toward the good ole boys club who were too busy crying out to God.......because the charade of being stalwarts of fiduciary duty versus the real agenda of power and control was being threatened as never before. That's what all the crying was about......that and the fact that some probably were in fear of actual prosecution for what they did or did not do.

So silence......but now something is leveled in public directly at them....we get almost immediate rebuttal. Thanks a lot jerks for it being ok for letting the rest of us and the school to be thrown under the bus, as long as you keep yourselves protected.

And for the Truetts on the board. I'm still waiting for this to blow over as you told us it would by your buddies taking the silent approach. This problem is showing up across the nation as most of us knew. But Baylor is the only one who took the inane approach to blow up the school to save the reputations of its privileged few sitting around the board table.

Had this not gotten the attention of the media, nothing would have changed...and that lies at the feet of the pitiful thing we call the BOR. But once it was exposed, the only criteria was to save only the individuals that really mattered....themselves. And that is becoming more obvious every day.

Do I think Baylor is worse in the SA situation than our peers. No I don't. I also don't think we are any better. We have human students. What we don't have is adult leadership that puts the welfare of its students and programs before their own personal welfare and agndas. And isn't that what a governing body is suppose to be about?

How can you do things to protect the "brand", which are completely contrary to the brand and then throw up the Christian banner? Over the years we have put up public dislays of some real incompetence, specially in the field of athletics. But this board mentality over decades make Kevin Steele and Harry Miller like teams look like world beaters. I'm not sure you could muster up a handful of integriy amoungst the lot of them.

I'm still looking for their apology to all of us for their complete failure. None of us should ever have had the concern that our school wasn't being run as it should. That should have been a given. Guess we were the stupid clucks they take us for.

---

And. . .the delusions continue.

The only place this is a roiling controversy is here.

As for me, I never said it would blow over. The stink will continue for a long, long time.

Dman said:

---

witchmo said:

---

TheDom said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

I'm not defending or whitewashing Art but that's a pretty low standard for assessing the man's character and actions. It is no trade secret that horn, sooner, frog and aggy wanted Art gone for competition reasons. There has been some strong suggestion that Art's firing came out of the Big 12 office, fueled by Boren, sooner and horn, with the Big Boys swapping a firing of Art for a school dismissal from the league. We'll never know the facts behind this but other schools' opinions of Briles are to be disregarded from the get-go. The opinions of the coaching profession are another thing altogether and are largely ignored. Those with whom I have spoken have an entirely different take on this deal.

In short, Art is gone and the firing can be justified solely on the grounds of Baylor's personnel management guidelines and the Regents' wishes. That is all that is needed. The question of whether he was the recipient of the bulk of the attention for this disaster is not open for debate: he was. The reason for this seems obvious: successful big-time football wedded to the press which is often intentionally biased coupled with culture's sensitivity/awareness of sexual assault/rape. Perfect storm.

The role the Regents played in all this is what is being fought over or should be fought over: total failure to respond well to claims of sexual assault and rape on the part of the university ultimately falls on the Regents who are charged with setting policy. (I don't know how safety for women can be insured beyond prevention counseling in situations where women's decisions led to such activity of which we are now aware.) I do know that the law has to be adhered to until the law is changed: it doesn't matter if a top-flite lawyer thinks it "unconstitutional". It is the law until the court says it isn't. Starr, The Regents, the COO and Baylor's legal counsel ALL know this, which begs the question(s) of why they led us to this place.

The signal question demanding answers is why the Regents "didn't come clean" to begin with but allowed the bulk of the vitriol to flow down onto Art Briles, destroying his reputation beyond his culpability and wrecking his career. Using one man for an air raid shelter to shield themselves from the incoming rounds seems fearful at best and shirking responsibility at worst. "Protecting the university" is really weak sauce to serve with this **** sandwich they cooked up. When drawing conclusions about Briles and his termination, we'd best recall that there is a lot of conflicting information (depending on the source) and that the opinions of competing schools is completely unreliable.

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

---

There's no Briles worship stated or implied in my comments so you are good there.
There is also no blind loyalty on my part in regards to any of the leadership at BU, so have a Shiner on me and chill a bit. As I have said all along, everyone was culpable so the firings seem appropriate.
Hope your Board meetings become less problematic this year.

---

It's their only jutification for carving out the acceptance of failure from the BoR. Make it about "Briles". They all failed. They weren't all held accountable. There's no spin around that.

---

Why is there this madness that the BOR made it all about Briles?

They didn't. This is an incontrovertible fact. The PH FOF was pointed about university-wide failures.

You guys just keep talking in circles, making up your own facts and conspiracy theories.

George Truett said:

---

Dman said:

---

witchmo said:

---

TheDom said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

I'm not defending or whitewashing Art but that's a pretty low standard for assessing the man's character and actions. It is no trade secret that horn, sooner, frog and aggy wanted Art gone for competition reasons. There has been some strong suggestion that Art's firing came out of the Big 12 office, fueled by Boren, sooner and horn, with the Big Boys swapping a firing of Art for a school dismissal from the league. We'll never know the facts behind this but other schools' opinions of Briles are to be disregarded from the get-go. The opinions of the coaching profession are another thing altogether and are largely ignored. Those with whom I have spoken have an entirely different take on this deal.

In short, Art is gone and the firing can be justified solely on the grounds of Baylor's personnel management guidelines and the Regents' wishes. That is all that is needed. The question of whether he was the recipient of the bulk of the attention for this disaster is not open for debate: he was. The reason for this seems obvious: successful big-time football wedded to the press which is often intentionally biased coupled with culture's sensitivity/awareness of sexual assault/rape. Perfect storm.

The role the Regents played in all this is what is being fought over or should be fought over: total failure to respond well to claims of sexual assault and rape on the part of the university ultimately falls on the Regents who are charged with setting policy. (I don't know how safety for women can be insured beyond prevention counseling in situations where women's decisions led to such activity of which we are now aware.) I do know that the law has to be adhered to until the law is changed: it doesn't matter if a top-flite lawyer thinks it "unconstitutional". It is the law until the court says it isn't. Starr, The Regents, the COO and Baylor's legal counsel ALL know this, which begs the question(s) of why they led us to this place.

The signal question demanding answers is why the Regents "didn't come clean" to begin with but allowed the bulk of the vitriol to flow down onto Art Briles, destroying his reputation beyond his culpability and wrecking his career. Using one man for an air raid shelter to shield themselves from the incoming rounds seems fearful at best and shirking responsibility at worst. "Protecting the university" is really weak sauce to serve with this **** sandwich they cooked up. When drawing conclusions about Briles and his termination, we'd best recall that there is a lot of conflicting information (depending on the source) and that the opinions of competing schools is completely unreliable.

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

---

There's no Briles worship stated or implied in my comments so you are good there.
There is also no blind loyalty on my part in regards to any of the leadership at BU, so have a Shiner on me and chill a bit. As I have said all along, everyone was culpable so the firings seem appropriate.
Hope your Board meetings become less problematic this year.

---

It's their only jutification for carving out the acceptance of failure from the BoR. Make it about "Briles". They all failed. They weren't all held accountable. There's no spin around that.

---

Why is there this madness that the BOR made it all about Briles?

They didn't. This is an incontrovertible fact. The PH FOF was pointed about university-wide failures.

You guys just keep talking in circles, making up your own facts and conspiracy theories.

---

You can say that all you want, but Briles was the only one publicly dismissed from the university. Admitting university-wide failures while firing no one other than Briles is hardly a mea culpa. They knew that firing Briles would get the most attention, and they were right.

What if they had said Briles made some mistakes, but we're keeping him, and together we will change the culture of the program. Would that have been acceptable? If not, why not? I'm just curious what you base your opinion on that Briles had to go but that no one else did.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Dman said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Dman said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Dman said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Dman said:

---

And for the record. The only ones being up Briles are the BoR apologists. It's their instant defense and distract technique:

-another deposition under oath about the BoR: "All you care about is BRILES"

-pages of findings of fault from their own PH report regarding the BoR: "all you care about is Briles"

-Conflicts of Interest: "all you care about is Briles"

-Meddling: "all you care about is Briles"

-institutional Lack of oversight and control: "all you care about is Briles"

-tarts: "all you care about is Briles"

-FoF was finally disclosed to have been selectively written..by the BoR.: "all you care about is Briles"

It's old. He's gone. That worked for a while, but at this point, it's just a tired and obvious attempt to re-direct.

---

What was your Baylorfans username when the BOR was rolling the BAA, B Association, and others?

---

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to connect, but I have never posted a single sentence on anything regarding that conflict. I never dug deep enough into both sides, their positions, and the power struggle to voice an opinion.

---

I posted to the scandal paying freshman to retake SATs. There have been plenty of problems with regent meddling, lack of oversight, petty and mean actions, attacking individuals, conflicts of interst, and controlled, deceptive communications. Where were you/eball/57/etc? Where? You didn't have a side in that? The regents were one side of it.

Now you are finally fed up with the regents! What did it take to finally reach that point? They fired Briles! They may have killed football or maybe not

They cost Baylor's insurance company a lot of money?

They didn't respond to campus SA? Where were you when Ian's buddy was telling us their were ZERO rapes?

---

Ahh. Your trying to imply this just about football and Briles? Or are you just hurt I didn't follow your posts sooner? Which? Let's get past your ego and address the fact that I've stated Briles made mistakes.(Covering up rape wasn't one of them..that's a crime and would involve handcuffs). I just didn't know enough about all the other aspects you mentioned to weigh in when it was relevant. It was a muddled discussion of one side versus the other. You get a GOLD star. All better?

I've even openly supported Rhule and want him to succeed.

My beef with the BoR is well documented, for reasons solely based on their own actions, ineptitude, hypocrisy, and the simple fact that as a university, WE CAN DO BETTER and should except better.

---

Then take your weak BS over to the Chit Chat board. You Briles Baffoons are all the same. If you want to continue stroking each other in a Penland Circle Jerk take these somewhere other than the football board.

Who is responsible for keeping this a football board?

---

Such a typical THEE post. Well articulated with phrases like "circle jerk".

Again, as predicted...they resort to "BRILES". They are all one trick ponies. Ignoring the fact that nothing I'm saying is about Briles. Not arguing for his return. Nothing..

As for keeping the discussion going on the football board. Your comrade in arms, Baghdad Bob/Keyser has done that better than anyone..Page after page. 28 and counting.

---

Who are we to disagree with Thee who apparently has all the inside scoop? We shouldn't expect Ken Starr to have had access to as good of information as Thee and some of our other posters do, so we can dismiss him for saying that Briles was unjustly fired:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/09/24/ken-starr-baylor-art-briles-grave-injustice/91030942/

By the way, Starr actually said that Briles was "calumnied." I had to look that one up. Learn something new every day.

The smugness of some of our posters is laughable.

---

I had forgotten that Starr's defense of Briles was so strongly worded. So we've got Starr, McCaw (under oath), and Barnes (under oath) characterizing Briles on the one hand. On the other hand, we've got a semi-anonymous findings of fact (not under oath) and a gratuitous lawsuit pleading (not under oath) telling another story.

This is going to be an interesting trial if we get it. Briles isn't on trial, so to speak. But the competing narratives about what went on at Baylor and how the BoR handled things will be quite interesting. Personally, I hope we get to see it. It will not give Baylor Nation closure, but it will help.

---

Here's another quote attributable to Starr in September 2016:


"There's this meta-narrative out there, and you're echoing it because it's your job. And then there's reality," Starr told Texas Tribune chief executive Evan Smith in an interview at the Texas Tribune Festival. "I have great confidence to this day in Coach Briles. If there was a question of integrity, you fire the person for cause. Art Briles was not fired for cause."

Exactly. And here is where the rubber hits the road. Oh the spin!! The conspiracy theorist believe "we" make it all about Briles when really it is ALL about Briles for them. If he didn't win 2 Big 12 Championships this would be water under the bridage.

Thank you Chuckroast for at least being honest in your post and not double talking like most of these other guys.

It is all about Briles for ya'll bc you think he was done dirty after winning lots of football games. Fair enough but at least just say it. At least Chuckroast says it and doesn't try to sound fancy like all the others. So here is my thing, name names. Who on the BOR should be called out? All these know it alls. All these people who have never sat on a board themselves. Name names. Quit saying "the man".

Guarantee no one can or will name names. Just like all the big cats, the 2 very important people who "wanted answers" stopped asking. Those 2 people have their name on stadium and field. So name names...

YoakDaddy said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Reporter said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Cue Richard the Dildo Salesman in 3..2..1

---

First I will most certainly not tell you I love you. Second, you have shown an Abnormal fascination with sex toys!!!

---

Don't leave out the male enhancement pills.

Just sayin.

---

Lets not forget that Dick's company also sells anal beads too.

---

I would like to suggest that a very large number of you Briles Boys have some of those beads stuck for several years now!

TheDom said:

---

Exactly. And here is where the rubber hits the road. Oh the spin!! The conspiracy theorist believe "we" make it all about Briles when really it is ALL about Briles for them. If he didn't win 2 Big 12 Championships this would be water under the bridage.

Thank you Chuckroast for at least being honest in your post and not double talking like most of these other guys.

It is all about Briles for ya'll bc you think he was done dirty after winning lots of football games. Fair enough but at least just say it. At least Chuckroast says it and doesn't try to sound fancy like all the others. So here is my thing, name names. Who on the BOR should be called out? All these know it alls. All these people who have never sat on a board themselves. Name names. Quit saying "the man".

Guarantee no one can or will name names. Just like all the big cats, the 2 very important people who "wanted answers" stopped asking. Those 2 people have their name on stadium and field. So name names...

---

Correction: we won one and allowed TCU to tie us for another.

If we had not won one and tied for another we would have probably given up football.

TheDom said:

---

Exactly. And here is where the rubber hits the road. Oh the spin!! The conspiracy theorist believe "we" make it all about Briles when really it is ALL about Briles for them. If he didn't win 2 Big 12 Championships this would be water under the bridage.

Thank you Chuckroast for at least being honest in your post and not double talking like most of these other guys.

It is all about Briles for ya'll bc you think he was done dirty after winning lots of football games. Fair enough but at least just say it. At least Chuckroast says it and doesn't try to sound fancy like all the others. So here is my thing, name names. Who on the BOR should be called out? All these know it alls. All these people who have never sat on a board themselves. Name names. Quit saying "the man".

Guarantee no one can or will name names. Just like all the big cats, the 2 very important people who "wanted answers" stopped asking. Those 2 people have their name on stadium and field. So name names...

---

It is not about Briles for me, but it is all about Briles for you because Briles! Briles! Briles! lets you ignore, ignore, ignore the entire history of leadership failure on the part of the university. You want people to "name names" of individuals who should be called out on the BOR, and there may well be individuals worth calling out. Actual Findings of Fact might have named some of those names. There are, after all, BOR names underlying the leadership failures in the Findings of Fact since their failure is featured in the document. There are also names underlying the other various leadership failures over the years. However, when your system is broken, the individuals in it aren't of particular importance. You aren't going to fix the system just by calling out names, you need structural reforms.

So far as people not caring, if Briles hadn't won two Big 12 Championships, the media wouldn't have cared much about the "scandal" at all. If the media hadn't cared about it, the university would have continued on its merry way without caring about it, just like it had over the decades.

TheDom said:

---

Exactly. And here is where the rubber hits the road. Oh the spin!! The conspiracy theorist believe "we" make it all about Briles when really it is ALL about Briles for them. If he didn't win 2 Big 12 Championships this would be water under the bridage.

Thank you Chuckroast for at least being honest in your post and not double talking like most of these other guys.

It is all about Briles for ya'll bc you think he was done dirty after winning lots of football games. Fair enough but at least just say it. At least Chuckroast says it and doesn't try to sound fancy like all the others. So here is my thing, name names. Who on the BOR should be called out? All these know it alls. All these people who have never sat on a board themselves. Name names. Quit saying "the man".

Guarantee no one can or will name names. Just like all the big cats, the 2 very important people who "wanted answers" stopped asking. Those 2 people have their name on stadium and field. So name names...

---

There's no need to name names especially when 2 who lead this debacle have already slithered off quietly. ALL of them should resign for collectively being too stupid for even 1 of them out of 33? to ask a single question about T9 and compliance systems for at least 5 years then for an absolute dismal failure to publicly engage alumni and stakeholders as to why 10/13 pages addressed their failures. We could find better leadership picking 30 names out of the Waco phone book. Keep up with Briles, Briles, Briles tho. I guess that's the talking point now that depo information is starting to come out. You'll need to do better should this case make it to trial.

eball and Chuckroast, well said +1 and co-sign.

The BOR changes.

2016 showed the stones to clean things up.

2014 is when the first T9 Coordinator, Patty Crawford - things actually started in the right direction then

2012 is where you need to go. That is when we found out about Tevin Elliott, a serial rapist. That was the real wake up call people slept through.

So how much overlap is there from 2012 to today? Darry & Buddy are long gone. Willis left the same time as Starr and Briles. Who are you really after?

Personally most of the things the majority want to hang them for are on Starr and those who implement policy, not those that make policy. That aside, your noose should not be for any regent that came on since 2015 when PH was hired.

Keyser Soze said:

---

The BOR changes.

2016 showed the stones to clean things up.

2014 is when the first T9 Coordinator, Patty Crawford - things actually started in the right direction then

2012 is where you need to go. That is when we found out about Tevin Elliott, a serial rapist. That was the real wake up call people slept through.

So how much overlap is there from 2012 to today? Darry & Buddy are long gone. Willis left the same time as Starr and Briles. Who are you really after?

Personally most of the things the majority want to hang them for are on Starr and those who implement policy, not those that make policy. That aside, your noose should not be for any regent that came on since 2015 when PH was hired.

---

If memory serves, Willis was supposed to finish up as chairman in May 2016 but got that unprecedented 4th term.

Keyser Soze said:

---

The BOR changes.

2016 showed the stones to clean things up.

2014 is when the first T9 Coordinator, Patty Crawford - things actually started in the right direction then

2012 is where you need to go. That is when we found out about Tevin Elliott, a serial rapist. That was the real wake up call people slept through.

So how much overlap is there from 2012 to today? Darry & Buddy are long gone. Willis left the same time as Starr and Briles. Who are you really after?

Personally most of the things the majority want to hang them for are on Starr and those who implement policy, not those that make policy. That aside, your noose should not be for any regent that came on since 2015 when PH was hired.

---

Many people are more than willing to say that football at Baylor had a "culture problem." Fewer are willing to say that the institution has a culture problem as a whole. It did and does. Failure to handle sexual assault appropriately predates Tevin Elliott by many years, and even predates Starr by many years. There were many, many "wake up calls" that fell on deaf ears or worse. The culture issues are broader than just handling sexual assault.

Those who make policy are responsible for the oversight and governance of said policy.

I have not read anything about how these recommendations (that the former interim President called "mandates") have or will be implemented - as in some specfics.

Resolve current governance issues at the Executive Council and board levels.

Empower board committees to take active role in education, oversight, and enforcement of governance issues and fiduciary responsibilities:

• Provide Association of Governing Boards training for Board of Regents

• Evaluate and make recommendations regarding board size and composition
• Review considerations and standards for new board membership, including actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and implement due diligence standards in the selection of board members
• Educate and train board members to remain within appropriate reporting protocols and lines of communication when addressing members of the administration and the Athletics Department (consistent with employment contracts)

I don't know why it's so hard. Football and university both had a culture problem.

Sampi82 said:

---

Those who make policy are responsible for the oversight and governance of said policy.

I have not read anything about how these recommendations (that the former interim President called "mandates") have or will be implemented - as in some specfics.

Resolve current governance issues at the Executive Council and board levels.

Empower board committees to take active role in education, oversight, and enforcement of governance issues and fiduciary responsibilities:

• Provide Association of Governing Boards training for Board of Regents

• Evaluate and make recommendations regarding board size and composition
• Review considerations and standards for new board membership, including actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and implement due diligence standards in the selection of board members
• Educate and train board members to remain within appropriate reporting protocols and lines of communication when addressing members of the administration and the Athletics Department (consistent with employment contracts)

---

Why in the world would this be necessary? There was nothing in the FoF that showed any specific failures of reporting protocols by the regents with members of the Athletics Department or actual conflicts of interest was there? I thought PH was providing guidance on the writing of the FoF?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

The BOR changes.

2016 showed the stones to clean things up.

2014 is when the first T9 Coordinator, Patty Crawford - things actually started in the right direction then

2012 is where you need to go. That is when we found out about Tevin Elliott, a serial rapist. That was the real wake up call people slept through.

So how much overlap is there from 2012 to today? Darry & Buddy are long gone. Willis left the same time as Starr and Briles. Who are you really after?

Personally most of the things the majority want to hang them for are on Starr and those who implement policy, not those that make policy. That aside, your noose should not be for any regent that came on since 2015 when PH was hired.

---

Many people are more than willing to say that football at Baylor had a "culture problem." Fewer are willing to say that the institution has a culture problem as a whole. It did and does. Failure to handle sexual assault appropriately predates Tevin Elliott by many years, and even predates Starr by many years. There were many, many "wake up calls" that fell on deaf ears or worse. The culture issues are broader than just handling sexual assault.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

The BOR changes.

2016 showed the stones to clean things up.

2014 is when the first T9 Coordinator, Patty Crawford - things actually started in the right direction then

2012 is where you need to go. That is when we found out about Tevin Elliott, a serial rapist. That was the real wake up call people slept through.

So how much overlap is there from 2012 to today? Darry & Buddy are long gone. Willis left the same time as Starr and Briles. Who are you really after?

Personally most of the things the majority want to hang them for are on Starr and those who implement policy, not those that make policy. That aside, your noose should not be for any regent that came on since 2015 when PH was hired.

---

Many people are more than willing to say that football at Baylor had a "culture problem." Fewer are willing to say that the institution has a culture problem as a whole. It did and does. Failure to handle sexual assault appropriately predates Tevin Elliott by many years, and even predates Starr by many years. There were many, many "wake up calls" that fell on deaf ears or worse. The culture issues are broader than just handling sexual assault.

---

BEAR 45 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

The BOR changes.

2016 showed the stones to clean things up.

2014 is when the first T9 Coordinator, Patty Crawford - things actually started in the right direction then

2012 is where you need to go. That is when we found out about Tevin Elliott, a serial rapist. That was the real wake up call people slept through.

So how much overlap is there from 2012 to today? Darry & Buddy are long gone. Willis left the same time as Starr and Briles. Who are you really after?

Personally most of the things the majority want to hang them for are on Starr and those who implement policy, not those that make policy. That aside, your noose should not be for any regent that came on since 2015 when PH was hired.

---

Many people are more than willing to say that football at Baylor had a "culture problem." Fewer are willing to say that the institution has a culture problem as a whole. It did and does. Failure to handle sexual assault appropriately predates Tevin Elliott by many years, and even predates Starr by many years. There were many, many "wake up calls" that fell on deaf ears or worse. The culture issues are broader than just handling sexual assault.

---

---

Thank you ! It only took a 1,000 posts to boil the whole problem down to a few coherent sentences.

Malbec said:

---

Sampi82 said:

---

Those who make policy are responsible for the oversight and governance of said policy.

I have not read anything about how these recommendations (that the former interim President called "mandates") have or will be implemented - as in some specfics.

Resolve current governance issues at the Executive Council and board levels.

Empower board committees to take active role in education, oversight, and enforcement of governance issues and fiduciary responsibilities:

• Provide Association of Governing Boards training for Board of Regents

• Evaluate and make recommendations regarding board size and composition
• Review considerations and standards for new board membership, including actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and implement due diligence standards in the selection of board members
• Educate and train board members to remain within appropriate reporting protocols and lines of communication when addressing members of the administration and the Athletics Department (consistent with employment contracts)

---

Why in the world would this be necessary? There was nothing in the FoF that showed any specific failures of reporting protocols by the regents with members of the Athletics Department or actual conflicts of interest was there? I thought PH was providing guidance on the writing of the FoF?

---

That is included in PH's 105 recommendations that Baylor's interim President said were "mandates". Since the BoR wrote the FoF and likely the 105 "mandates" as well, there must have been some specific failures along those lines that were not published or they would not have been included. Someone needs to ask one of the BoR mouth pieces why in the world would this be necessary and when/how are those mandates being implemented.

Sampi82 said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Sampi82 said:

---

Those who make policy are responsible for the oversight and governance of said policy.

I have not read anything about how these recommendations (that the former interim President called "mandates") have or will be implemented - as in some specfics.

Resolve current governance issues at the Executive Council and board levels.

Empower board committees to take active role in education, oversight, and enforcement of governance issues and fiduciary responsibilities:

• Provide Association of Governing Boards training for Board of Regents

• Evaluate and make recommendations regarding board size and composition
• Review considerations and standards for new board membership, including actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and implement due diligence standards in the selection of board members
• Educate and train board members to remain within appropriate reporting protocols and lines of communication when addressing members of the administration and the Athletics Department (consistent with employment contracts)

---

Why in the world would this be necessary? There was nothing in the FoF that showed any specific failures of reporting protocols by the regents with members of the Athletics Department or actual conflicts of interest was there? I thought PH was providing guidance on the writing of the FoF?

---

That is included in PH's 105 recommendations that Baylor's interim President said were "mandates". Since the BoR wrote the FoF and likely the 105 "mandates" as well, there must have been some specific failures along those lines that were not published or they would not have been included. Someone needs to ask one of the BoR mouth pieces why in the world would this be necessary and when/how are those mandates being implemented.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So how much overlap is there from 2012 to today? Darry & Buddy are long gone. Willis left the same time as Starr and Briles. Who are you really after?

Personally most of the things the majority want to hang them for are on Starr and those who implement policy, not those that make policy. That aside, your noose should not be for any regent that came on since 2015 when PH was hired.

---

I'd like to know what happened. Not the BOR generated FoF version. I'd like to see the whole report and have a chance to reach my on conclusions.

I really hope Starr, Briles, Willis et al are deposed. Apparently, that is our only chance at the truth.

George Truett said:

---

Dman said:

---

witchmo said:

---

TheDom said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You clearly live inside a bubble - go to Texas Ags - Shaggy anywhere outside and See what they think to get some perspective - they think the absolute worst possible of Briles. Briles is a scapegoat is an absurdly small number of the whole.

---

I'm not defending or whitewashing Art but that's a pretty low standard for assessing the man's character and actions. It is no trade secret that horn, sooner, frog and aggy wanted Art gone for competition reasons. There has been some strong suggestion that Art's firing came out of the Big 12 office, fueled by Boren, sooner and horn, with the Big Boys swapping a firing of Art for a school dismissal from the league. We'll never know the facts behind this but other schools' opinions of Briles are to be disregarded from the get-go. The opinions of the coaching profession are another thing altogether and are largely ignored. Those with whom I have spoken have an entirely different take on this deal.

In short, Art is gone and the firing can be justified solely on the grounds of Baylor's personnel management guidelines and the Regents' wishes. That is all that is needed. The question of whether he was the recipient of the bulk of the attention for this disaster is not open for debate: he was. The reason for this seems obvious: successful big-time football wedded to the press which is often intentionally biased coupled with culture's sensitivity/awareness of sexual assault/rape. Perfect storm.

The role the Regents played in all this is what is being fought over or should be fought over: total failure to respond well to claims of sexual assault and rape on the part of the university ultimately falls on the Regents who are charged with setting policy. (I don't know how safety for women can be insured beyond prevention counseling in situations where women's decisions led to such activity of which we are now aware.) I do know that the law has to be adhered to until the law is changed: it doesn't matter if a top-flite lawyer thinks it "unconstitutional". It is the law until the court says it isn't. Starr, The Regents, the COO and Baylor's legal counsel ALL know this, which begs the question(s) of why they led us to this place.

The signal question demanding answers is why the Regents "didn't come clean" to begin with but allowed the bulk of the vitriol to flow down onto Art Briles, destroying his reputation beyond his culpability and wrecking his career. Using one man for an air raid shelter to shield themselves from the incoming rounds seems fearful at best and shirking responsibility at worst. "Protecting the university" is really weak sauce to serve with this **** sandwich they cooked up. When drawing conclusions about Briles and his termination, we'd best recall that there is a lot of conflicting information (depending on the source) and that the opinions of competing schools is completely unreliable.

---

I see post like this and I guess I start to see how the human mind can begin to justify and believe nearly anything. Three people, very powerful and well paid people, are in charge of running a school and hard proof is found of overstepping & abusing their power, creating their own system to side step laws and rules and some claim some bigger plan that called for their demise. Also goes to show that blind loyalty exists within the human physique.

The Briles is a God worship is not healthy.

---

There's no Briles worship stated or implied in my comments so you are good there.
There is also no blind loyalty on my part in regards to any of the leadership at BU, so have a Shiner on me and chill a bit. As I have said all along, everyone was culpable so the firings seem appropriate.
Hope your Board meetings become less problematic this year.

---

It's their only jutification for carving out the acceptance of failure from the BoR. Make it about "Briles". They all failed. They weren't all held accountable. There's no spin around that.

---

Why is there this madness that the BOR made it all about Briles?

They didn't. This is an incontrovertible fact. The PH FOF was pointed about university-wide failures.

You guys just keep talking in circles, making up your own facts and conspiracy theories.

---

1. That's not what I'm saying at all..but . I'll reserve final opinion on that as more information is leaked from their control. It's all Coming out eventually

2. What I'm saying is the few remaining BoR shills such as yourself ALWAYS resort to invalidating any criticism and justifying hypocrisy of this BoR by saying said person is hung up in Briles or "they fixed it". Literally. That's all you, THEE, and Keyser have as comebacks. Anytime negative evidence towards the BOR, Actions of their own doing that had NOTHING TO DO WITH BRILES, comes out (more concrete than what you use to hold against others) , you knee jerk and shout "Briles" when he's not even the topic or justify them staying because "it's fixed now".

The BoR failed us on MANY LEVELS that had nothing to do with Briles. When caught in being unable to explain away the hypocrisy of accountability of the meddling, conflicts of interest, institutional lack of control, financial mismanagement...you simply say "it's fixed" or yell "Briles". There's NEVER the subject of accountability for their actions. These actions aren't even in doubt. Just ignored. You don't get to call for complete accountability from everyone else when you helped create the **** storm, and then tell us it smells great now.

George Truett said:

---

blackie said:

---

The latest action of the BOR is telling as to where ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies. All the while the school in general was being daily front page headlines we heard not a peep of rebuttal fom the BOR that the school was not a "hunting ground for sexual predators"....that our students were just as good as you'll find anywhere else. That the school was just as safe, probably safer, than most any other large University.

No, what we heard were crickets while any exaggerated accusation was made my the media without a thread of context or rebuttal or facts from the school. Everyone was getting thrown under the bus by those whose ultimate responsibility it was to make sure we were doing things right. Deflecting everything to the football program depite the fact that this, just as it is everywhere else, is a societal problem wih the problem not being limited to any area was a convenience to sweep under the rug actions that had been going on for decades.

Anything was fair as long as it didn't direct any responsibility toward the good ole boys club who were too busy crying out to God.......because the charade of being stalwarts of fiduciary duty versus the real agenda of power and control was being threatened as never before. That's what all the crying was about......that and the fact that some probably were in fear of actual prosecution for what they did or did not do.

So silence......but now something is leveled in public directly at them....we get almost immediate rebuttal. Thanks a lot jerks for it being ok for letting the rest of us and the school to be thrown under the bus, as long as you keep yourselves protected.

And for the Truetts on the board. I'm still waiting for this to blow over as you told us it would by your buddies taking the silent approach. This problem is showing up across the nation as most of us knew. But Baylor is the only one who took the inane approach to blow up the school to save the reputations of its privileged few sitting around the board table.

Had this not gotten the attention of the media, nothing would have changed...and that lies at the feet of the pitiful thing we call the BOR. But once it was exposed, the only criteria was to save only the individuals that really mattered....themselves. And that is becoming more obvious every day.

Do I think Baylor is worse in the SA situation than our peers. No I don't. I also don't think we are any better. We have human students. What we don't have is adult leadership that puts the welfare of its students and programs before their own personal welfare and agndas. And isn't that what a governing body is suppose to be about?

How can you do things to protect the "brand", which are completely contrary to the brand and then throw up the Christian banner? Over the years we have put up public dislays of some real incompetence, specially in the field of athletics. But this board mentality over decades make Kevin Steele and Harry Miller like teams look like world beaters. I'm not sure you could muster up a handful of integriy amoungst the lot of them.

I'm still looking for their apology to all of us for their complete failure. None of us should ever have had the concern that our school wasn't being run as it should. That should have been a given. Guess we were the stupid clucks they take us for.

---

And. . .the delusions continue.

The only place this is a roiling controversy is here.

As for me, I never said it would blow over. The stink will continue for a long, long time.

---

What you also never did is call for complete and total accountability from any and all who were involved. Just a few per your own agenda. You also never stood up and said this university can do better and should expect better from the BoR position after they were found guilty of drastic need for reform .

It's a roiling controversy throughout the Baylor nation not just here.

Russell Gym said:

---

I don't know why it's so hard. Football and university both had a culture problem.

---

For those seeking unity, this is very concise.

Thee,

Quote:

---

Then take your weak BS over to the Chit Chat board. You Briles Baffoons are all the same. If you want to continue stroking each other in a Penland Circle Jerk take these somewhere other than the football board.

Who is responsible for keeping this a football board?

---