http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...stigation/

Surprised they took so long.

Somewhere an SEC school is going hhhmmm?

In those instances, football
coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or a parent of a complainant and did not
report the misconduct. As a result, no action was taken to support complainants, fairly and
impartially evaluate the conduct under Title IX, address identified cultural concerns within the
football program, or protect campus safety once aware of a potential pattern of sexual violence
by multiple football players.

http://www.baylor.edu/rtsv/doc.php/266596.pdf

(05-26-2016 12:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Somewhere an SEC school is going hhhmmm?

and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

(05-26-2016 12:22 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Somewhere an SEC school is going hhhmmm?

and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Things are going to get very interesting in Waco...this sort of thing is on par with Penn State, and maybe worse depending on who you talk to. Knowingly suppressing felony sex-related offenses in the current climate of America, I could see Baylor getting the SMU-style Death Penalty. Doing this after what happened at Penn State is going to piss people off even more than it already would have.

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:22 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Somewhere an SEC school is going hhhmmm?

and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

(05-26-2016 01:11 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Things are going to get very interesting in Waco...this sort of thing is on par with Penn State, and maybe worse depending on who you talk to. Knowingly suppressing felony sex-related offenses in the current climate of America, I could see Baylor getting the SMU-style Death Penalty. Doing this after what happened at Penn State is going to piss people off even more than it already would have.

Opens up a spot for Houston.

(05-26-2016 01:42 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:11 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Things are going to get very interesting in Waco...this sort of thing is on par with Penn State, and maybe worse depending on who you talk to. Knowingly suppressing felony sex-related offenses in the current climate of America, I could see Baylor getting the SMU-style Death Penalty. Doing this after what happened at Penn State is going to piss people off even more than it already would have.

Opens up a spot for Houston.

Nah, they aren't going to give Baylor the Death Penalty. They'll fine them, limit schollys, take away their wins the past few years, and they'll have to sit out a couple bowls but that is about it. Meanwhile they'll put some DIII school in Texas on the Death Penalty for buying a recruit a cheeseburger on a visit.

Given what some sports law guys have said, the thinking is the NCAA is going to be very careful about getting involved in this type of situation again.

(05-26-2016 02:20 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  Given what some sports law guys have said, the thinking is the NCAA is going to be very careful about getting involved in this type of situation again.

I hope they get everything they deserve. They sold their soul (at a christen U no less) for some 10 win seasons. Pathetic grown men will look the other way. If it were Starr's or Briles daughter, heaven and earth would have been moved.

I wonder if this helps, or hurts UC's chances. Baylor is a proponent of expansion. Starr is/was a respected prez with some juice.

Will the B12 expand to bring some good news into the news cycle, or will this be a distraction that kicks the can down the road again?

(05-26-2016 01:38 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:22 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Somewhere an SEC school is going hhhmmm?

and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

I believe people were not comparing the two cases but instead insinuating that Kentucky or Tennessee would be willing to look the other way and hire Mr. Briles to improve their football won-loss percentage.

I've questioned what has been going on down there for a few years. I'm not surprised by any of this. Something always seemed shady in that AD. About 5 years ago the football program rose from the ashes over night, same with the men's basketball with Scott Drew and women's basketball with Brittany Griner and her baggage.

(05-26-2016 03:10 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:38 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:22 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Somewhere an SEC school is going hhhmmm?

and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

I believe people were not comparing the two cases but instead insinuating that Kentucky or Tennessee would be willing to look the other way and hire Mr. Briles to improve their football won-loss percentage.

Screw it. Depending on how unsavory the actual facts end up, I might look the other way and back up the brinks truck for him.

(05-26-2016 03:10 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:38 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:22 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Somewhere an SEC school is going hhhmmm?

and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

I believe people were not comparing the two cases but instead insinuating that Kentucky or Tennessee would be willing to look the other way and hire Mr. Briles to improve their football won-loss percentage.

Exactly. Marcus deserves a

(05-26-2016 04:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:10 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:38 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:22 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

I believe people were not comparing the two cases but instead insinuating that Kentucky or Tennessee would be willing to look the other way and hire Mr. Briles to improve their football won-loss percentage.

Screw it. Depending on how unsavory the actual facts end up, I might look the other way and back up the brinks truck for him.

Probably feel different about it if you had a daughter.

(05-26-2016 05:40 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 04:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:10 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:38 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

I believe people were not comparing the two cases but instead insinuating that Kentucky or Tennessee would be willing to look the other way and hire Mr. Briles to improve their football won-loss percentage.

Screw it. Depending on how unsavory the actual facts end up, I might look the other way and back up the brinks truck for him.

Probably feel different about it if you had a daughter.

If half this stuff is true, I'd rather shut down the program than have Briles as our coach.

(05-26-2016 04:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:10 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:38 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:22 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  and that school would be 90 miles south of us.

No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

I believe people were not comparing the two cases but instead insinuating that Kentucky or Tennessee would be willing to look the other way and hire Mr. Briles to improve their football won-loss percentage.

Screw it. Depending on how unsavory the actual facts end up, I might look the other way and back up the brinks truck for him.

Damn, probably gonna try and play it off like a joke, but i cant say im surprised.

Winning a game isnt worth turning a blind eye to rape or any kind of sexual assault..

I'd take a thousand years of Tubs over a similar 8 year run that Baylor had under Briles if this was the cost.

(05-26-2016 05:40 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 04:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:10 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:38 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:58 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  No...it's the one in Knoxville.

Huh? Based on what? Have any of you guys actually followed the two lawsuits and off-field incidents at all?

One is a lawsuit against University process vs literally ignoring sexual assault claims and then lying and working with police to cover up.

There is absolutely zero comparison between the two cases when it comes to the head football coach and their roles. There is a big difference between a HC trying to actively cover up incidents that occur and the other who has done none of that and immediately suspended any player that has ever been accused of any issues. The players at Tennessee accused under Butch's watch never returned to the football field. They were indefinitely suspended and their eligibility ran out. There is nothing in it accusing him of trying to cover up or dissuade the accusers from coming forward, which is completely different from the Baylor case. Briles knowingly brought in transfer players who had sexually assaulted women at their previous school and those players assaulted women on the Baylor campus. Briles and Baylor allowed players to continue as part of the team when accusations were raised. Essentially, he ignored it completely. The lawsuit against Tennessee is almost exclusively directed at the way the University has it's board of jurisdiction set up. The plaintiff's (rich spoon fed white girls) and their lawyers are basically arguing the black football players accused should not be given their due process rights or have any rights to counsel.

It's crazy how people blindly try to compare the two cases when in reality there is almost zero in common between the two. Todd Cunningham once again proves he has zero clue what he is talking about. The lawsuit against Tennessee is far more similar to the title IX lawsuits Indiana, Cal, Kansas and others are facing.

I believe people were not comparing the two cases but instead insinuating that Kentucky or Tennessee would be willing to look the other way and hire Mr. Briles to improve their football won-loss percentage.

Screw it. Depending on how unsavory the actual facts end up, I might look the other way and back up the brinks truck for him.

Probably feel different about it if you had a daughter.

Might. Might feel different if I even knew the facts. Which I don't think anyone does yet...I don't pay attention to stories like this on the front end...facts often come out differently after the initial circus dies down.