RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

There are many reasons they fired Briles

Deceiving your employer gets you fired anywhere - how screwed up other employees may be is not really a valid excuse

---

Lying gets you fired.

I thought by now Betsy Devos was going to be the hero, according to the robe touchers. It was unlikely she was going to do anything for Baylor or it's football roster the way it was composed. She doesn't care about black athletes or their coaches. So sad fools believed she would do anything.

---

It is not the government's job to fix Baylor's problems. It is Baylor's job to fix Baylor's problems..
Good luck with that.

---

Booray said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

An investigation was started by Judicial Affairs in November of 2011.

Now we can likely all agree JA lacked swiftness of their investigation - but handing things over to JA is exactly what should be done. You can not say nothing was done. Just factually incorrect.

---

If that is what happened, it is enough to make me vomit. My school sucks.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

NoBSU is puzzling. He is a Regent critic but doesn't seem to want anyone else to be.

But NoBSU they are damaging the entire university. Not just football. Football is just a sign of what they are doing to everything else.

---

Sure they are. You didn't give a flip before they fired Briles. At least give me one honest answer to the post in this whole topic. Had they left Briles in his position would you still be worried about the BOR mismanagement?

---

I know it was PartyBear's question but I will answer. Yes. The reputation of our school and our football program have been destroyed. The reputation of our school is much more important than our football team. We need leaders willing to stand up for and defend our school.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Let me know how many are ready for a plank on the Alico.

I'll paint regents faces on the sidewalk below you so you can scream in and have some final satisfaction.

---

You ready for Saluki Sacrifice 2.0? If the crowd last weekend is any indicator, it is coming soon!

---

Michibear said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Michibear said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

CTbruin said:

---

What Eball said

---

Those meanies hurt your football.

---

Actually, they hurt my university by trying to hide an administration-wide problem and deflecting attention towards only one part of they problem. They exacerbated the problem by instituting changes that went far beyond what was required in an attempt to win PR points and oust a president liked by students, faculty, and alumni even if he wasn't the greatest day to day manager of the school. Finely, they continue to hurt my university by not being truly transparent at the beginning so they two years later, we're still dealing with allegations and innuendo as new facts trickle out. Meanies? No. But they are either incompetent, willfully deceptive, or both, it seems.

---

Blah, blah, blah... What does Starr being liked by students have anything to do with his employment review of Title IX and managing his departments on campus?

So they answer questions with the 17/19/4 or whatever and that is dumping it all on football? Did you read the FOF? Plenty was laid at the feet of administration and board. I guess this comes down to there use of gang-rape term. It probably would have been a better football PR term to say gang-bang of women with an undetermined level of intoxication.

---

Blah, blah, blah. There was no Title IX in regard to SA until the Obama admin's "Dear Colleague" letter in 2011, and university's had no idea what to do with it then. Let's face it, they still don't, as seen by the proposed reversal of many of those policies. It's a badly misguided bit of guidance that does more harm than good. And technically, Title IX fell under the purview of RR, not directly under Starr.

And yes, the report to the WSJ was dumping it all on football. And the FOF was written by the BoR to steer the conversation in the direction the leader of the BoR wanted it to go. All that was laid at the feet of the admin and board were generalities in the FOF; the specifics reported by the Board were directed at football.

And I'm not apologist for bad behavior. Heads should roll, and students should be protected. But if the BoR would have come clean at the start -- completely and totally -- we wouldn't be arguing on a football forum today. And that's on the BoR.

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Let me know how many are ready for a plank on the Alico.

I'll paint regents faces on the sidewalk below you so you can scream in and have some final satisfaction.

---

You ready for Saluki Sacrifice 2.0? If the crowd last weekend is any indicator, it is coming soon!

---

I remember that game, Chilton was in a playoff game right after that game at Baylor stadium, and yes there were more people at the Chilton HS game than at the Saluki game.

I'm sure the "official" records won't show that, but the fans in the stands did. It was very strange indeed.

---

NoBSU said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

My view is you accept allies regardless of what path they took to get to the point of having common views and interests with you.

---

To be your ally, I have to act like Briles is a saint and did nothing wrong. Can't do that.

I have told you for months that I would not have fired him but I would have more closely managed him outside of McCaw, RR, and Starr. I would have left him in place not just because I could walk up to the coffee pot at work knowing I had nothing to fear from an aggie, horn, or frog. I would have kept Briles not because I thought that Big 12 football championships made my degree from Baylor extra special. You keep Briles because he put buts in the seats and winning football increases enrollment. It is an economic decision. You hold your nose. You train all the university staff to report all Title IX, Clery, and VAWA instances to the appropriate office. And you pay off the massive debt that these bozos have run up since they backed Sloan and his vision.

I admit why I keep Briles. Itis about the revenue. I don't have to make up conspiracy theories and act like he is innocent of all wrongs. I guess if he is innocent then he lied to ESPN in his rehab interview. So you have to admit that one little discretion.

---

PartyBear said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

My view is you accept allies regardless of what path they took to get to the point of having common views and interests with you.

---

To be your ally, I have to act like Briles is a saint and did nothing wrong. Can't do that.

I have told you for months that I would not have fired him but I would have more closely managed him outside of McCaw, RR, and Starr. I would have left him in place not just because I could walk up to the coffee pot at work knowing I had nothing to fear from an aggie, horn, or frog. I would have kept Briles not because I thought that Big 12 football championships made my degree from Baylor extra special. You keep Briles because he put buts in the seats and winning football increases enrollment. It is an economic decision. You hold your nose. You train all the university staff to report all Title IX, Clery, and VAWA instances to the appropriate office. And you pay off the massive debt that these bozos have run up since they backed Sloan and his vision.

I admit why I keep Briles. Itis about the revenue. I don't have to make up conspiracy theories and act like he is innocent of all wrongs. I guess if he is innocent then he lied to ESPN in his rehab interview. So you have to admit that one little discretion.

---

I thought everyone who thought firing Briles was a mistake thought this way. Your views are not as unique as you think.

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Eball said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Eball said:

---

This is testimony from a Regent...someone still on the BOR who was there at the time...I do not see how anyone can not be deeply concerned with how all this went down.

The bottom line is the BOR had a choice when it came to CAB and they could have kept him.

Transparency was and is needed to get past this when will the BOR get that?

---

Duh, of course they had a choice. They chose not to do so. That is your key point of contention, correct?

---

It always has been since day one....I do not have a problem with the termination of CAB it was within the BOR's discretion and there was a buy out available. The problem is they allowed folks to believe they had no choice so as to avoid criticism not only of their failures but to oust the most successful football coach we ever had. Even to this day with all the stuff out there some still believe CAB did horrible things and there was no choice but to terminate him, that is clearly not true. As a football fan I believe I have every right to be angry over what the consequences of the BOR's action were to the football program. As an alumni I think I have every right to be concerned over what the BOR's actions have done to the overall reputation of my University!

---

There was enough out there already that is enough to terminate him. He had two players convicted of sexual assault. He asked Ken Starr to intervene on Elliot's cheating. Starr did. Then two Baylor coeds were raped. The threshold was met. Other things were going on and have been documented. It is reasonable to reach the conclusion that Starr and McCaw were not the people to do the managing. The baffling part is that it is not reasonable to believe that Ramsower was capable of running the ship correctly. Quietly yes. Correctly no.

I suspect that there will never be enough "evidence" to convince you and Mr. Stewart that Briles could be fired. Go back in that Time Machine and change the vote to Briles stays - do you still even care what was happening on campus and in the boardroom? Those meanies hurt your football.

---

Point of order......those 2 co-eds were sexually assaulted not because Starr intervened and TE, thus, remained on campus. It was because RR, Doak, and others in administration didn't tell Briles and football program that he was under investigation by WPD. There's emails to this fact out there now. Once football became aware, he was kicked off. But for RR, Doak, and others not taking early action and even later informing the football program, those SAs wouldn't have happened because TE wouldn't have been around.

---

Busy morning. Let's wade in.

RR and Doak don't get passes from me. But that does not wave a magic wand and forget that he cheated. JA was not ruling in a manner that kept him playing football. Starr intervened. For some reason you think it is okay to criticize RR and Doak and hindsight but not Starr. I think they are all problematic. I have always posted that way - How do you leave RR employed? I use the same brush with all of them.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bunation said:

---

Thee University said:

---

At this point why does it matter? At this point who cares?

None of this would have happened had Ian been a leader (real AD), Art a disciplinarian who truly understood how the Baylor game is played in the public eye and behind closed doors and had Ken been doing his job instead of on extended vacation in Waco.

At this point in the continuing saga the University and her reputation will sink even lower in the sewer, the football program will become more and more of a hit target and less and less of a factor nationally and you guys will continue to huddle up in fetal positions crying on each other's shoulders or crotches about how much of a saint Art and his inbred staff were.

I'm still taking reservations for the mass jump off the Alico Building.

---

Wow. Incredulous.

...still jealous of Briles and the way his successes erased your name from Baylor fans' memories??!

Move on, Little Man.

---

Ole Thee may be a lot of things, but he is certainly no Little Man. Last time I saw him, he was still a pretty big ole boy!!!

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

They do need to cut the board down to 12. Cut out anyone who has never made at least $100M in their lifetime and force all existing BOI member to resign. Start with a completely clean slate.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

They do need to cut the board down to 12. Cut out anyone who has never made at least $100M in their lifetime and force all existing BOI member to resign. Start with a completely clean slate.

---

It took Baylor long enough to get some women and minorities on the board. This kinda sounds like an Old, Balding, White Man's Club.

A little simple vetting might be nice.

---

Amarillobear said:

---

This story is unfolding and is aligning with the book "The Scapegoat" by Lane Alpert. The regents cast a straw vote and Art Briles was originally allowed to stay. The BOR went to Bob Bowlsby and told him what they had decided and he said "No, you must terminate him!" The BOR then went back and terminated him but paid him his contract value to close the door on possible litigation from him with NDA.

Paula Lavigne and Mark Schlarabach wrote the hit piece book and lied repeatedly about what had happened by using BOR folks as their "anonymous sources" and making the stories of the victims even more salacious. The book might have sold only 200 copies but the ESPN, Texas Monthly and newspaper accounts combined to make the story blaming everything on the football program a story that our haters really wanted to believe. These news stories laid down the perfect air cover the conference office and our conference schools wanted to use against us in hopes of protecting the 2 big state schools from losses to us in the near future. The conference continues to withhold 25% of our revenues to keep us "on the leash" and to keep the story in the press.

It is interesting how Mac Engel is beginning to see the truth and he is now changing his tune. It would appear that Sharon Grigsby is changing her tune also. Others are beginning to come around but people like Brenda Tracy, Paula Lavigne and a whole host of haters want to hang on to the original false narrative. They do that because it is a money maker for their businesses or for their own narratives that they are somehow superior to us. At some point, even this malicious haters will have to come to grips with the truth and either apologize or quietly move on in a different direction. I certainly want the truth to come out so that we can heal and move on.

There are victims, both male and female, in this unfolding story. We were originally told the book "The Scapegoat" was a book of fiction but I am beginning to believe it is a true representation of what happened. There are eerie parallels between the book and the story that is beginning to materialize.

---

bunation said:

---

Amarillobear said:

---

This story is unfolding and is aligning with the book "The Scapegoat" by Lane Alpert. The regents cast a straw vote and Art Briles was originally allowed to stay. The BOR went to Bob Bowlsby and told him what they had decided and he said "No, you must terminate him!" The BOR then went back and terminated him but paid him his contract value to close the door on possible litigation from him with NDA.

Paula Lavigne and Mark Schlarabach wrote the hit piece book and lied repeatedly about what had happened by using BOR folks as their "anonymous sources" and making the stories of the victims even more salacious. The book might have sold only 200 copies but the ESPN, Texas Monthly and newspaper accounts combined to make the story blaming everything on the football program a story that our haters really wanted to believe. These news stories laid down the perfect air cover the conference office and our conference schools wanted to use against us in hopes of protecting the 2 big state schools from losses to us in the near future. The conference continues to withhold 25% of our revenues to keep us "on the leash" and to keep the story in the press.

It is interesting how Mac Engel is beginning to see the truth and he is now changing his tune. It would appear that Sharon Grigsby is changing her tune also. Others are beginning to come around but people like Brenda Tracy, Paula Lavigne and a whole host of haters want to hang on to the original false narrative. They do that because it is a money maker for their businesses or for their own narratives that they are somehow superior to us. At some point, even this malicious haters will have to come to grips with the truth and either apologize or quietly move on in a different direction. I certainly want the truth to come out so that we can heal and move on.

There are victims, both male and female, in this unfolding story. We were originally told the book "The Scapegoat" was a book of fiction but I am beginning to believe it is a true representation of what happened. There are eerie parallels between the book and the story that is beginning to materialize.

---

Excellent. It's important to note that there have been, and always will be, "victims." On college campuses, in the workplace. Everywhere. It's how you handle it. And, even the victims have a responsibility to do their part to bring justice & change. (And, it destroys a "victim's" credibility to only come forward months and years later to sue for money, as if money is somehow something they have a right to gain for being assaulted........)

---

Osodecentx said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Blah, blah, blah...

---

This is the BOR best argument

---

CTbruin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"the regents cast a straw vote and Art Briles was originally allowed to stay."

Except that the Regents have told us for two years that the vote to fire briles was "overwhelming"

This is the biggest problem.

We can't trust the Regents at all......they will lie over the smallest stupidest stuff.

I mean who ****ing cares what the exact numerical vote was.....but just tell us the Truth......instead of us having to wait two years to find out there were actually two votes and he won on the first one.

Why do they and their supporters on here lie about this SMALL ticky tack stuff?

Makes you wonder what BIG stuff they are lying about.

---

I have talked to numerous regents "in the room" and according to everybody I talked to it was not "overwhelming".

---

Stranger said:

---

CTbruin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"the regents cast a straw vote and Art Briles was originally allowed to stay."

Except that the Regents have told us for two years that the vote to fire briles was "overwhelming"

This is the biggest problem.

We can't trust the Regents at all......they will lie over the smallest stupidest stuff.

I mean who ****ing cares what the exact numerical vote was.....but just tell us the Truth......instead of us having to wait two years to find out there were actually two votes and he won on the first one.

Why do they and their supporters on here lie about this SMALL ticky tack stuff?

Makes you wonder what BIG stuff they are lying about.

---

I have talked to numerous regents "in the room" and according to everybody I talked to it was not "overwhelming".

---

I concur.

---