Thee,

Talking about your poor ancestors and how you could only attend Baylor due to your football scholarship deflects from what you said in the post to which I replied. You consistently use homophobic terms (limp wrist, etc.) and your use of reference to students at Paul Quinn and TSTI is......well, you know what it is. Your attempt to cover your bad choices by saying I have no sense of humor is sad.

I grew up in a 1200 square foot frame home with no air conditioning. My dad was a house painter and when I filed his tax return in 1971 after he died when I was a senior at Baylor, his gross income for 1970 was $5,000. I paid my way through Baylor by working two jobs during school, two jobs in the summer and taking out loans. My parents did not pay $1 of my education, all the way through law school at Baylor. I bought my own car, my own clothes and paid off my student loan.

Your saying you couldn't attend Baylor without a football scholarship is not true. All it would have taken is hard work. So no, you don't make me cry at all. In a contest of who was "poorer" I think I'd win...but that doesn't give me the right to demean African Americans and poor people.

The smart ass comment about my "wives" was childish and bush league. I've supported 5 children, three of whom graduated from Baylor. I drew my first paycheck when I was 13, and at 68, I'm still working to help an autistic grandson attend Texas Tech.

It's a (relatively) free country. You have the right to say anything you want, subject to the monitors of this forum. But when you constantly talk about how bad Briles was, how many mistakes he made and how wonderful things (and players) were at other times, it ignores reality.

Yes, I would like for Baylor to be "the standard" in all things. Yes, I would rather have a high quality program full of wonderful, upstanding young men than one that recruits thugs. But let's be honest. Every program recruits thugs. They do it now. They did it in 1950. They did it in 1967. They did it in your day. Alumni, donors, regents.....they want one thing. To win....and hide the bad stuff.

Keyser Soze said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

I've carefully looked/read/listened for one peep from an administrator or BOR member defending the athletes. Maybe you can find one

---

What is absurd is thinking the people who informed you of many horrible acts are worse than the people who allegedly committed those horrible acts.

---

This is a very poor argument, Keyser, and you know it. This is a classic moral equivocation, And a bad one at that. You can judge any crime not solely by the crime itself but by the impact it has on the circumstances and the people affected. It isn't a crime to yell Fire, but it's a different matter to yell Fire in a crowded movie theater.

This is all about accountability. If we don't have that, why have a board at all?

The board wasn't doing its job, Plain and simple. As a result, the environment existed that allowed Thse events to occur and for innocent people to be harmed and affected.. The board compounded it by taking no responsibility for monitoring the performance of compliance procedures or for personnel.

The Baylor masses aren't buying the story that board members had no responsibility for these matters.

And we have yet to see so much as ONE board member step forward and acknowledge the participation of board members in these events or fall on the sword for their failure to respond appropriately to what happened.

I'd love to at least hear a board member say, "well, I'm innocent because at least you didn't rape anyone."

And I'm pretty sure very few people would be swayed by that suggestion.

As far as I know, not a single regent or administrator, other than Kim Mulkey and, to a degree, Jim Grobe, defended the innocent players.

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

You are the self righteous one buddy. You are the one that likes to cast stones. Judgment stones and insult stones. I read your nonsense posts over and over. You love to dish it out but can't take it.

---

Looks like that testosterone level is peaking. Ready to profess your manhood/ machismo again??

I could care less about desperate insults from keyboard Jockeys. It's a sure fire sign when I'm correct.

As for self righteous. Heck no..not me. I'm an admitted sinner to the core. You DONT want to know what i did this weekend. I Count on forgiveness daily. But I'm not hypocrital about it. Therein lies my beef with the BOR...and their apologists.

---

You crack me up man. You certainly think a lot of yourself and you certainly like to deflect on to others. From what I have seen in your posts you are the one that has plenty of insults & draw all kinds of conclusions although you levy that accusation at other. Perhaps you don't realize but you are the keyboard jockey by your own definition. Your posts are hypocritical in what you say to posters yet you then flip and preach. But you don't see yourself as self righteous or hypocritical bc you're aself admitted sinner?! Get outta here.

Perhaps I should just tell you that you didn't mean anything to me. Haha.

---

That's a lot of words..but no update on that Low T score peak?. Impress us. All sissies are anxiously waiting.

Why do you BoR apologists have such a hard time figuring me out? So much drama. I'm the easiest guy here to figure out.

-all failed
-all weren't held accountable
-this is hypocrisy. arguing otherwise makes you a hypocrite.
-it created a toxic environment
-Baylor would have been better served with a new BoR untouched by this scandal.
-arguing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

See. It's very simple. Maybe it's becssue at its core, that logic is infallible and all the spin in the world from you and Keyser won't change that. Your just mad becasue it exposes you.

---

Now I'm obsessed with you and trying to figure you out? You are as narsatistic as they come bud.

At the core of this is 2x Big12 Champ coach getting fired. You were fine with BOR up to that point. You liked when they gave staff raises. Arguing otherwise is dishonest.

Perhaps you are just unhappy with the way the world turns or the reality of life. Maybe you are just mad because you are not a BoR member.

---

See what I mean. You couldn't challenge a SINGLE point I made. Because at its core, it is 100% factual, and no amount of spin can get around that.

You simply redirect to a false narrative that fits your agenda. Let's recap: Your claiming We were all happy with the BoR when they were handing out checks to one of Baylors most winning football staffs, in order to keep them in place? Before any of us knew about the scandal...YES!!! 95% of us were typical alumni. Trusted All was well and blindly supported our school from afar. Sounds like NoBS was on their trail early, I give him credit, and I'd like to know more. Most of us didn't know the emperor had no cloths.

Now..the scandal hits. ALL the skeletons in everyone's closests come out, including theirs...on a university wide basis. They are now a case study on "how not to handle a scandal". .

Yep. Genius. Your 100% right. It was right then i decided we could do better as a university.

---

But that's not what ya'll claim now. Appreciate your honestly but gotta get your collective story synchronized bc now it is "the board has been doing this or that for years." Oh really? To what degree? Not anything to be that mad about. Not until Briles was fired.

So I actually agree with some of your points but you act like such a jack wagon and are so self absorbed it's difficult to have rational conversation with you. At end of day BoR made mistakes but let's stay on point and be honest. Honest in terms of it is about a fired football coach nothing before. And on point in terms of talking about the scandal bc all those old board politics aren't what this is really about.

I guess if you sucked your way into a Baylor regent spot, you wouldn't risk your political capital defending someone who's efforts aren't good enough for your Facebook selfie.

GruntTuff said:

---

Your reply asked me to answer your questions that basically focused on whether it would have helped the good football players if Briles had run a tighter ship and both removed questionable character players more timely and not recruited transfers who had been kicked off previous teams.

Sure, that would have been nice. If Briles had failed to recruit several players, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this. I'm sure Briles would make different decisions if he had the chance for a do-over. I'm sure the Vanderbilt coach wishes he had not recruited the player convicted of rape. I'm sure all college coaches wish they had not recruited certain questionable character players. All D-I coaches do it. Even those at the very top who have the luxury of picking and choosing recruits do it. Many of them are quite open and honest about their policies, opting to take guys who come from bad backgrounds in the belief they can help them grow and mature.

---

Help them grow and mature? Kids today, now more than ever, are brought onto campus for 1 single, solitary reason------help coaches win football games. Nothing else really matters to the vast majority of coaches.

Grow and mature? Only in the sense that they get into the program and train. Lift weights and grow muscles and speed. Mature in football knowledge and more quickly recognizing what the opposing team is trying to do.

Bad backgrounds pose a horrendous risk. Obviously some coaches know how to handle these risks. Others fail miserably.

If my tenure and livelihood depended on 18-22 year olds and I knew that the University that was paying my salary was the largest Baptist University in the world, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I would do everything in my power to minimize risks and "bad backgrounds".

It is really very simple.

GruntTuff said:

---

Keyser,

Your answer to my question about whether any member of the BOR came to the defense of innocent Baylor football players was to suggest I research the issue, and that perhaps one or more did after the WSJ article. In other words, your answer was "no". If you've found where they did, I'd like to see it. It's important. As I recall, the WSJ article was 6 months or more after the Briles firing, so your thought that perhaps they did was, even if correct, very tardy.

You seem to be quite versed in the minutia of this entire matter, and I doubt you would not know if they had done so. I've followed this fairly closely from afar and have seen no indication they came to the innocent players defense.

Your reply asked me to answer your questions that basically focused on whether it would have helped the good football players if Briles had run a tighter ship and both removed questionable character players more timely and not recruited transfers who had been kicked off previous teams.

Sure, that would have been nice. If Briles had failed to recruit several players, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this. I'm sure Briles would make different decisions if he had the chance for a do-over. I'm sure the Vanderbilt coach wishes he had not recruited the player convicted of rape. I'm sure all college coaches wish they had not recruited certain questionable character players. All D-I coaches do it. Even those at the very top who have the luxury of picking and choosing recruits do it. Many of them are quite open and honest about their policies, opting to take guys who come from bad backgrounds in the belief they can help them grow and mature.

But you're changing the subject. My line of questioning was not about Briles actions. It was about the actions of the BOR.

It seems to be a standard response when the motives and actions of the BOR are questioned to point the finger at others.......instead of responding to legitimate questions about their actions.

---

Look at the OP. You changed the topic to begin with.

I consider a great deal of not defending innocent football players faux outrage.

In the WSJ we got "19/17/4 "

what if instead we got "19/17/4 but remember most of the players are good kids"

Would that have changed things? Not likely. We also get such a massive amount of revision history. The angry mob was not asking "what did you do"? "Why was Ken Starr fired?" They were yelling "Why did you scapegoat Art Briles?" The mob just didn't like the answer .... and the mob is gonna ***** and moan no matter what and they are still doing it.

TheDom said:

---

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

You are the self righteous one buddy. You are the one that likes to cast stones. Judgment stones and insult stones. I read your nonsense posts over and over. You love to dish it out but can't take it.

---

Looks like that testosterone level is peaking. Ready to profess your manhood/ machismo again??

I could care less about desperate insults from keyboard Jockeys. It's a sure fire sign when I'm correct.

As for self righteous. Heck no..not me. I'm an admitted sinner to the core. You DONT want to know what i did this weekend. I Count on forgiveness daily. But I'm not hypocrital about it. Therein lies my beef with the BOR...and their apologists.

---

You crack me up man. You certainly think a lot of yourself and you certainly like to deflect on to others. From what I have seen in your posts you are the one that has plenty of insults & draw all kinds of conclusions although you levy that accusation at other. Perhaps you don't realize but you are the keyboard jockey by your own definition. Your posts are hypocritical in what you say to posters yet you then flip and preach. But you don't see yourself as self righteous or hypocritical bc you're aself admitted sinner?! Get outta here.

Perhaps I should just tell you that you didn't mean anything to me. Haha.

---

That's a lot of words..but no update on that Low T score peak?. Impress us. All sissies are anxiously waiting.

Why do you BoR apologists have such a hard time figuring me out? So much drama. I'm the easiest guy here to figure out.

-all failed
-all weren't held accountable
-this is hypocrisy. arguing otherwise makes you a hypocrite.
-it created a toxic environment
-Baylor would have been better served with a new BoR untouched by this scandal.
-arguing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

See. It's very simple. Maybe it's becssue at its core, that logic is infallible and all the spin in the world from you and Keyser won't change that. Your just mad becasue it exposes you.

---

Now I'm obsessed with you and trying to figure you out? You are as narsatistic as they come bud.

At the core of this is 2x Big12 Champ coach getting fired. You were fine with BOR up to that point. You liked when they gave staff raises. Arguing otherwise is dishonest.

Perhaps you are just unhappy with the way the world turns or the reality of life. Maybe you are just mad because you are not a BoR member.

---

See what I mean. You couldn't challenge a SINGLE point I made. Because at its core, it is 100% factual, and no amount of spin can get around that.

You simply redirect to a false narrative that fits your agenda. Let's recap: Your claiming We were all happy with the BoR when they were handing out checks to one of Baylors most winning football staffs, in order to keep them in place? Before any of us knew about the scandal...YES!!! 95% of us were typical alumni. Trusted All was well and blindly supported our school from afar. Sounds like NoBS was on their trail early, I give him credit, and I'd like to know more. Most of us didn't know the emperor had no cloths.

Now..the scandal hits. ALL the skeletons in everyone's closests come out, including theirs...on a university wide basis. They are now a case study on "how not to handle a scandal". .

Yep. Genius. Your 100% right. It was right then i decided we could do better as a university.

---

But that's not what ya'll claim now. Appreciate your honestly but gotta get your collective story synchronized bc now it is "the board has been doing this or that for years." Oh really? To what degree? Not anything to be that mad about. Not until Briles was fired.

So I actually agree with some of your points but you act like such a jack wagon and are so self absorbed it's difficult to have rational conversation with you. At end of day BoR made mistakes but let's stay on point and be honest. Honest in terms of it is about a fired football coach nothing before. And on point in terms of talking about the scandal bc all those old board politics aren't what this is really about.

---

My story has never changed:

1. It's not JUST about fired football coaches. It took the size of this scandal, which included...but was bigger... than just football, for the average fan to understand the level of meddling, personal conflicts of interest, lack of institutional control, and degree to which this BoR was in "way in over their head". It took this scandal to uncover Sins and skeletons out into the light. Sins also completely independent of football and went back WAY before Briles, Star, etc. . So yes...THATS WHEN WE STARTED CARING.

2. So I'll keep reiterating the basic truth/ logic, that apologists just can't spin out of. .

-all failed
-all weren't held accountable
-this is hypocrisy. arguing otherwise makes you a hypocrite.
-it created a toxic environment internally and amongst alum
-no, they get no credit for all the roform they were forced to make regarding their own sins, that was only undercovered due to a scandal and while under a microscope. There's NO way to trust that reform when that microscope is gone and no one else got the same luxury. (Again, hypocritical)
-Baylor would have been better served with a new BoR untouched by this scandal. On trust factor alone.
-arguing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Anyone arguing that this BoR should get a "well done. Keep up the good work/this is the best we can do" is accepting mediocrity AT BEST, and outright negligence and scandal at worst. That's pathetic. I don't run my family or businesses that way. I'm appalled that's others find that acceptable for our university.

Great post up until the very end with "everyone recruits thugs."

Come on man! I don't know you personally but you seem to know what college football is and isn't. I have read your posts and get the feel you have pretty good grasp of college football. So of all people you should know the program CAB was running wasn't the standard "we all get some bad apples here and there." college program. I am disappointed that of all people you tried to play that spin.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

I've carefully looked/read/listened for one peep from an administrator or BOR member defending the athletes. Maybe you can find one

---

What is absurd is thinking the people who informed you of many horrible acts are worse than the people who allegedly committed those horrible acts.

---

This is a very poor argument, Keyser, and you know it. This is a classic moral equivocation, And a bad one at that. You can judge any crime not solely by the crime itself but by the impact it has on the circumstances and the people affected. It isn't a crime to yell Fire, but it's a different matter to yell Fire in a crowded movie theater. I think you are try to extrapolate a specific answer to a specific question and make it a maco level answer - it is not. I don't think telling the masses how bad football was is an equivalency to yelling fire.

This is all about accountability. If we don't have that, why have a board at all?

The board wasn't doing its job, Plain and simple. Don't disagree As a result, the environment existed that allowed Thse events to occur and for innocent people to be harmed and affected.. Agree The board compounded it by taking no responsibility for monitoring the performance of compliance procedures or for personnel. Disagree - they have repeatedly said everyone failed. The FoF pointed fingers at the highest levels . They regents on 60 Minuets Sports clearly said so. The public apology to victims said so.

The Baylor masses aren't buying the story that board members had no responsibility for these matters. An neither does the BOR, literally no one says that.

And we have yet to see so much as ONE board member step forward and acknowledge the participation of board members in these events or fall on the sword for their failure to respond appropriately to what happened. Again, they have said everyone failed.

I'd love to at least hear a board member say, "well, I'm innocent because at least you didn't rape anyone."

And I'm pretty sure very few people would be swayed by that suggestion.

---

I know of no reports that the BOR knew of terrible things and ignored them. Their primary failure, and it is significant, is not knowing sooner that terrible things happened and dozens of Baylor employees failed.

Is that the 2016's BOR's fault? Yes. It is also the 2001's BOR fault, and 1988's BOR fault, and the 1972's BOR fault. The lack of a good system is a cumulative failure that occurred over a very long time. We should also note that the 105 recommendations have implemented a system that will help prevent such failures no matter who sits on the BOR.

So should the 2016 BOR resign in mass? fair enough to debate - personally think most that hold a strong opinion on that just want a pound of flesh.

Well, it's ridiculous to me that people claim all this other stuff prior to the football scandal when it was really about that. And 2., I hear you on your second part, I really do, but we don't live in a fantasy world. We live in cause & effect and decisions & consequences world. I just think so much of what you rant and rave about is unrealistic.

You complain so much about the system of having a BoR but that's the system. I think you should focus on the people sitting on the board. Personally, I wish the board was only 8 members. It would be hyper effective and efficient. Yet over time someone would come along and say it's too much power in too few hands. It's always sometime and someone always thinks they have a better idea.

Keyser Soze said:

---

I know of no reports that the BOR knew of terrible things and ignored them. Their primary failure, and it is significant, is not knowing sooner that terrible things happened and dozens of Baylor employees failed.

---

There may be no reports, but all we have is a FoF written by a regent(s). I am concluding the only way to find out more are the depositions

TheDom said:

---

Well, it's ridiculous to me that people claim all this other stuff prior to the football scandal when it was really about that. And 2., I hear you on your second part, I really do, but we don't live in a fantasy world. We live in cause & effect and decisions & consequences world. I just think so much of what you rant and rave about is unrealistic.

You complain so much about the system of having a BoR but that's the system. I think you should focus on the people sitting on the board. Personally, I wish the board was only 8 members. It would be hyper effective and efficient. Yet over time someone would come along and say it's too much power in too few hands. It's always sometime and someone always thinks they have a better idea.

---

I swim in a cause and effect world daily. Cause and effect on any other BoR..public, private, or educational, would have implemented a careful, committee driven, organized transition of responsibility to another BOR. Baylor has more than enough qualified candidates. That was more than realistic. The only reason that didn't happen is because they answer to no one, (including Alum) and for personal exposure/liability reasons (not university) they needed to control the message, access to information, and use Baylor money for their defense while on the BoR.

What they counted on was waiting it out. And now, you start to hear Keysers fo from NEVER calling for accountability, to simply saying.."well..it's new people now anyway..what are you complaining about?". How nice that must be. Their plan worked. Apologist like Keyser are ok with that. I have a higher standard. That would never fly in the real world. Biggest, most costly scandal in Baylor history. And they get a pass. CRAZY.

GruntTuff said:

---

Thee,

Talking about your poor ancestors and how you could only attend Baylor due to your football scholarship deflects from what you said in the post to which I replied. You consistently use homophobic terms (limp wrist, etc.) and your use of reference to students at Paul Quinn and TSTI is......well, you know what it is. Your attempt to cover your bad choices by saying I have no sense of humor is sad.

I grew up in a 1200 square foot frame home with no air conditioning. My dad was a house painter and when I filed his tax return in 1971 after he died when I was a senior at Baylor, his gross income for 1970 was $5,000. I paid my way through Baylor by working two jobs during school, two jobs in the summer and taking out loans. My parents did not pay $1 of my education, all the way through law school at Baylor. I bought my own car, my own clothes and paid off my student loan.

Your saying you couldn't attend Baylor without a football scholarship is not true. All it would have taken is hard work. So no, you don't make me cry at all. In a contest of who was "poorer" I think I'd win...but that doesn't give me the right to demean African Americans and poor people.

The smart ass comment about my "wives" was childish and bush league. I've supported 5 children, three of whom graduated from Baylor. I drew my first paycheck when I was 13, and at 68, I'm still working to help an autistic grandson attend Texas Tech.

It's a (relatively) free country. You have the right to say anything you want, subject to the monitors of this forum. But when you constantly talk about how bad Briles was, how many mistakes he made and how wonderful things (and players) were at other times, it ignores reality.

Yes, I would like for Baylor to be "the standard" in all things. Yes, I would rather have a high quality program full of wonderful, upstanding young men than one that recruits thugs. But let's be honest. Every program recruits thugs. They do it now. They did it in 1950. They did it in 1967. They did it in your day. Alumni, donors, regents.....they want one thing. To win....and hide the bad stuff.

---

That is one of the best posts/responses I have ever read. I'm not worthy for sure and feel so small and inadequate. My wrist just went limp, my neck shrunk and my chest sunk in a bit. You beat me in the poor department, in the what have you done with your life, working summer jobs, taking out loans, buying my own car. I feel so small right now. For at least 5 minutes.

Let me address a few things for you. You automatically assumed that I was referencing African Americans and poor people??? That seems to be the go to reply now days by many. Play the race card when in doubt. I honestly thought about using Tarleton, Howard Payne, Southwest Texas but chose those two ONLY because they were/are in Waco and we used to make fun of them when I was there. The color of skin NEVER entered my mind.

Let me clear a few more things up for you.

1. I've met a number of gay people that had stiffer wrists and handshakes than you.
2. PQ and TSTI most certainly have a number of grads far more impressive than BU.
3. This bulletin board is for entertainment purposes only. If you take everything posted here literally you are a sad little man who really should not be reading this stuff. I come here to jab and be jabbed. It is fun. My style and thoughts are tough but then that is my environment. I'm not like you. Don't read my posts. I've been enjoying and laughing at these boards since the old AOL boards of the early 90's. I've only been upset a few times and never more than an hour or two.
4. Briles deserves everything I heap on him and more. He, more than anyone at Baylor, brought this cancer down upon us. I refuse to sit idly by and read how he is the victim. You and I (reL Baylor grads) are the victims.
5. We had some "thugs" back in the late 70's and into the early 80's. Grant did not keep them around vonce they got their second chance and blew it.
6. You do NOT have to recruit thugs! To say that everyone does it is a pitiful crutch. However, if you do get one or one slips by and exhibits bad character, you can get rid of them immediately so they do not taint the rest of the group. We ALL got tainted under Briles.

My sense of humor and how I derive entertainment here is obviously difficult for you to stomach. I understand that.

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

I know of no reports that the BOR knew of terrible things and ignored them. Their primary failure, and it is significant, is not knowing sooner that terrible things happened and dozens of Baylor employees failed.

---

There may be no reports, but all we have is a FoF written by a regent(s). I am concluding the only way to find out more are the depositions

---

I don't think the thirst for wanting to know everything will ever be satisfied.

The real question is not who wrote the FofF. The real question is "is it accurate"?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

I know of no reports that the BOR knew of terrible things and ignored them. Their primary failure, and it is significant, is not knowing sooner that terrible things happened and dozens of Baylor employees failed.

---

There may be no reports, but all we have is a FoF written by a regent(s). I am concluding the only way to find out more are the depositions

---

I don't think the thirst for wanting to know everything will ever be satisfied.

The real question is not who wrote the FofF. The real question is "is it accurate"?

---

The fact that you are actually ok with "who wrote the FoF". Says it all. A select few on the BoR wrote their own FoF based on data we never get to see with intentional lack of transparency. Versus a third party
Who had access to all information. Serious question. When does a REAL university deserve something more transparent/ better? We are looking like a joke.

Put this in perspective. Can you imagine the outcry from most of the BoR apologists, If Art controlled his own investigation from start to finish, access to the information, and then wrote his own FoF? See the hypocrisy? You probably don't.

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

Well, it's ridiculous to me that people claim all this other stuff prior to the football scandal when it was really about that. And 2., I hear you on your second part, I really do, but we don't live in a fantasy world. We live in cause & effect and decisions & consequences world. I just think so much of what you rant and rave about is unrealistic.

You complain so much about the system of having a BoR but that's the system. I think you should focus on the people sitting on the board. Personally, I wish the board was only 8 members. It would be hyper effective and efficient. Yet over time someone would come along and say it's too much power in too few hands. It's always sometime and someone always thinks they have a better idea.

---

I swim in a cause and effect world daily. Cause and effect on any other BoR..public, private, or educational, would have implemented a careful, committee driven, organized transition of responsibility to another BOR. Baylor has more than enough qualified candidates. That was more than realistic. The only reason that didn't happen is because they answer to no one, (including Alum) and for personal exposure/liability reasons (not university) they needed to control the message, access to information, and use Baylor money for their defense while on the BoR.

What they counted on was waiting it out. And now, you start to hear Keysers fo from NEVER calling for accountability, to simply saying.."well..it's new people now anyway..what are you complaining about?". How nice that must be. Their plan worked. Apologist like Keyser are ok with that. I have a higher standard. That would never fly in the real world. Biggest, most costly scandal in Baylor history. And they get a pass. CRAZY.

---

Personally, it's not giving a pass for me. And I don't see Keyser saying that either. I want to get this thing right so as a Baylor alumni and school we aren't getting embarrassed every 15 years. However, I think your approach is more as Keyser said, you simply want a pound of flesh and rephrased by saying you have high standards and want accountability.

I think where we differ isn't so much in end goal of what we want in our school but approach and perspective. Personally I don't think every BoR is rotten. You want entire turnover of the BoR. I also think that's not realistic with everything that goes into it. Second, you say all were to blame but only some disciplined is basically reason you so pissed. But really you blame the BoR more than administrators operating the school at the time. Assuming that is correctly your view, we different in our thinking bc I think administrators operating school are more to blame. The BoR did not react to crisis management well but the crisis was brought on by unethical administrators. So they say, well the BoR should have been watching those administrators, and that is where for me the rubber hits the road. I think that piece right there is what is most important moving forward. We need to have capable people at BoR level combined with a strong system that is able to see and know things about our school before it hits ESPN that a President like Starr and AD like Ian are letting a football coach like Briles run a muck. And that Starr isn't implementing required laws and standards. That's what is most important in my opinion.

You are insane Grunt. What a loser.

GruntTuff said:

---

As far as I know, not a single regent or administrator, other than Kim Mulkey and, to a degree, Jim Grobe, defended the innocent players.

---

I'll always give Grobe some props for that. He even called out the uppity ups one time when they attributed a decision to him when it wasn't him.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

I know of no reports that the BOR knew of terrible things and ignored them. Their primary failure, and it is significant, is not knowing sooner that terrible things happened and dozens of Baylor employees failed.

---

There may be no reports, but all we have is a FoF written by a regent(s). I am concluding the only way to find out more are the depositions

---

I don't think the thirst for wanting to know everything will ever be satisfied.

The real question is not who wrote the FofF. The real question is "is it accurate"?



No the real question is who wrote it, because those folks have always been shady, you know if they wrote it, even though it may have mentioned them in fault, it was shaded it in a way to make it a bit better for them.

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

As far as I know, not a single regent or administrator, other than Kim Mulkey and, to a degree, Jim Grobe, defended the innocent players.

---

I'll always give Grobe some props for that. He even called out the uppity ups out one time when they attributed a decision to him when it wasn't him.

---

I feel bad for Grobe. Yes he collected a good check but he was also a lame duck coach in a bad situation. He handled himself with class in 2016. Definitely wish and hope we invite him back every year.

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

TheDom said:

---

Dman said:

---

TheDom said:

---

Well, it's ridiculous to me that people claim all this other stuff prior to the football scandal when it was really about that. And 2., I hear you on your second part, I really do, but we don't live in a fantasy world. We live in cause & effect and decisions & consequences world. I just think so much of what you rant and rave about is unrealistic.

You complain so much about the system of having a BoR but that's the system. I think you should focus on the people sitting on the board. Personally, I wish the board was only 8 members. It would be hyper effective and efficient. Yet over time someone would come along and say it's too much power in too few hands. It's always sometime and someone always thinks they have a better idea.

---

I swim in a cause and effect world daily. Cause and effect on any other BoR..public, private, or educational, would have implemented a careful, committee driven, organized transition of responsibility to another BOR. Baylor has more than enough qualified candidates. That was more than realistic. The only reason that didn't happen is because they answer to no one, (including Alum) and for personal exposure/liability reasons (not university) they needed to control the message, access to information, and use Baylor money for their defense while on the BoR.

What they counted on was waiting it out. And now, you start to hear Keysers fo from NEVER calling for accountability, to simply saying.."well..it's new people now anyway..what are you complaining about?". How nice that must be. Their plan worked. Apologist like Keyser are ok with that. I have a higher standard. That would never fly in the real world. Biggest, most costly scandal in Baylor history. And they get a pass. CRAZY.

---

Personally, it's not giving a pass for me. And I don't see Keyser saying that either. I want to get this thing right so as a Baylor alumni and school we aren't getting embarrassed every 15 years. However, I think your approach is more as Keyser said, you simply want a pound of flesh and rephrased by saying you have high standards and want accountability.

I think where we differ isn't so much in end goal of what we want in our school but approach and perspective. Personally I don't think every BoR is rotten. You want entire turnover of the BoR. I also think that's not realistic with everything that goes into it. Second, you say all were to blame but only some disciplined is basically reason you so pissed. But really you blame the BoR more than administrators operating the school at the time. Assuming that is correctly your view, we different in our thinking bc I think administrators operating school are more to blame. The BoR did not react to crisis management well but the crisis was brought on by unethical administrators. So they say, well the BoR should have been watching those administrators, and that is where for me the rubber hits the road. I think that piece right there is what is most important moving forward. We need to have capable people at BoR level combined with a strong system that is able to see and know things about our school before it hits ESPN that a President like Starr and AD like Ian are letting a football coach like Briles run a muck. And that Starr isn't implementing required laws and standards. That's what is most important in my opinion.

---

Your quotes:
- "Personally, it's not giving a pass for me. And I don't see Keyser saying that either". Yet no apologist ever demands accountability at any level of the BOR. Interesting.

-" I think your approach is more as Keyser said, you simply want a pound of flesh and rephrased by saying you have high standards and want accountability." Convenient accusation against anyone demanding accountability. But my "thoughts" and your "thoughts" are meaningless. The facts are what they are. No amount of spin changes that. In fact, I'll flip the narrative. HELL YEAH I WAMT MY POUND OF FLESH. Against anyone who failed to the degree they did. WHY THE HELL DONT YOU? Why do you accept this level of mediocrity at best?

Your second paragraph is more distract and deflect. But it actually boosters my position. The administrators were all held accountable for their failures. EVERYONE was held accountable for their roles. Except the BoR. And don't minimize their role. They were found to have meddled, conflict of interest on personal levels, lack of institutional control, blatant lack of transparency. There was a whole section on their failures.

It's amazing the degree apologists have to twist and turn. They look like Clinton defining what "is" is to justify their position. If you have to try that hard...you're on the wrong side of common sense and truth.

Yet none can argue. They applied select accountability they conveniently avoided. It created a toxic environment. We had other options. This could have been done so much better.

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

No chance in hell after the Rice game. The decisions made at Rice and the reaction nationally pretty much meant that the plug was getting pulled on them. Not even a ounce of common sense displayed.
It was strictly protecting Baylor brand business and free education and trying to showcase for the NFL weren't on the regent agenda at that time.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

---

Look who was running the school. Garland was faking being in charge about as well as Starr did while RR was in charge. There were bigger problems like trying to find a new school president. I know they only batted .500 at best finding a new president because LL wasn't the first offer.
Like above, there was a point when the decision had to have been made to clean house. A brand protecting decision. Apparently, outsiders didn't care.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

---

Good point. The hostesses. They had to defend themselves on twitter. Nobody defended the accusers either. Ian's Canadian friend that used to post here called them a lot of names in his journey to ZERO.

xiledinok said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

No chance in hell after the Rice game. The decisions made at Rice and the reaction nationally pretty much meant that the plug was getting pulled on them. Not even a ounce of common sense displayed.
It was strictly protecting Baylor brand business and free education and trying to showcase for the NFL weren't on the regent agenda at that time.

---

I think there was no chance after the home game with the CAB shirts and his daughter on social media.

NoBSU said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

No chance in hell after the Rice game. The decisions made at Rice and the reaction nationally pretty much meant that the plug was getting pulled on them. Not even a ounce of common sense displayed.
It was strictly protecting Baylor brand business and free education and trying to showcase for the NFL weren't on the regent agenda at that time.

---

I think there was no chance after the home game with the CAB shirts and his daughter on social media.

---

The infamous tweet went over poorly nationally. It would have been hysterical if it had been another school's staff. They delivered by letting Fat Pat embarrass the hell out of them. Fast Food worker quality protest after that performance. Taco Bell workers would have at least not shown up.

After page 5 or so, the rest of this thread sucks.

#my2cents

Michibear said:

---

After page 5 or so, the rest of this thread sucks.

#my2cents

---

At Anonymous Internet Posters LLC we care about your customer experience. Can one of our aftercare representatives contact you for additional input and resolution?

Thee University said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Your reply asked me to answer your questions that basically focused on whether it would have helped the good football players if Briles had run a tighter ship and both removed questionable character players more timely and not recruited transfers who had been kicked off previous teams.

Sure, that would have been nice. If Briles had failed to recruit several players, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this. I'm sure Briles would make different decisions if he had the chance for a do-over. I'm sure the Vanderbilt coach wishes he had not recruited the player convicted of rape. I'm sure all college coaches wish they had not recruited certain questionable character players. All D-I coaches do it. Even those at the very top who have the luxury of picking and choosing recruits do it. Many of them are quite open and honest about their policies, opting to take guys who come from bad backgrounds in the belief they can help them grow and mature.

---

Help them grow and mature? Kids today, now more than ever, are brought onto campus for 1 single, solitary reason------help coaches win football games. Nothing else really matters to the vast majority of coaches.

Grow and mature? Only in the sense that they get into the program and train. Lift weights and grow muscles and speed. Mature in football knowledge and more quickly recognizing what the opposing team is trying to do.

Bad backgrounds pose a horrendous risk. Obviously some coaches know how to handle these risks. Others fail miserably.

If my tenure and livelihood depended on 18-22 year olds and I knew that the University that was paying my salary was the largest Baptist University in the world, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I would do everything in my power to minimize risks and "bad backgrounds".

It is really very simple.

---

I have no doubt that Coach Rhule will be able to successfully recruit more Christ-like players such as yourself. Baylor is now content to let the UTs, Oklahoma's, and TCUs of the world have all the hood rats.

I worry most about these volleyball and equestrian recruits! These Jezebels are a bad influence and are going to knock our boys off of the path of righteousness!

YoakDaddy said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

---

They do speak up far more since Bunting was hired, but it's still a game of wack a mole you can never win.

The issue with you is if people don't see it just like you see it they are dumb or weak or giving a pass or deflecting or spinning. Simply not true. And you really can't see any other perspective. It's fine your entitled to your opinion but doesn't mean you always right and makes it very difficult to have reasonable conversation with you.

At least you admit you want a pound of flesh. I get it you really angry and if someone isn't as angry as you or see it same way then something wrong with them or they accepting mediocrity.

Perhaps someday you realize their other perspectives in the world that are worthy of recognition and your perspective is not 100% right all the time. Good luck.

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

---

They do speak up far more since Bunting was hired, but it's still a game of wack a mole you can never win.

---

Speaking up is far different than standing up. As for Bunting....that's a whole different issue.