Just because there was no police record of Sam U Baylorapist being violent towards women at Boise doesn't mean anything.

His Boise GF testified that he choked and punched her.

The Boise assistant AD has notes about trying to help the Boise girl move out of Sam U Baylorapist's apartment after the assault.

Petersen says he told Briles everything.

Briles admitted he knew about a "rocky relationship" with the GF after talking to Petersen.

And Florida staffers said Muschamp lost all interest after learning what happened at Boise.

Two plus two does not equal five.

That said, what Briles knew is not nearly as damning as what happened after the Baylor girl was raped.

(09-21-2015 04:12 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Just because there was no police record of Sam U Baylorapist being violent towards women at Boise doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does as it's the only thing Peterson claimed to "apprise him" of. Unless you can find any credible source that documents any clear history of violence towards women or sexual assault it's really the only source of info they would have had other than rumor.

Quote:His Boise GF testified that he choked and punched her.

She also testified she never told anyone before testifying this year which makes it doubtful that it was public knowledge.

Quote:The Boise assistant AD has notes about trying to help the Boise girl move out of Sam U Baylorapist's apartment after the assault.

He mentioned he advised moving out after a night they had a screaming match and he punched a window.

Quote:Petersen says he told Briles everything.

He claims to have "fully apprised" him of what was in the BSU records, which Boise has fully disclosed contained NOTHING regarding sexual assault or violent history towards women. His HS coach reports being told by Peterson the exact same stuff as Briles. Sam U's dad claims to have been in the Boise offices hearing the CP side of the call and claiming it matches Briles account of what CP said.

Quote:Briles admitted he knew about a "rocky relationship" with the GF after talking to Petersen.

Rocky usually doesn't equate to serious violence or rape.

Quote:And Florida staffers said Muschamp lost all interest after learning what happened at Boise.

1- I have my doubts on that report because it was written by Thayer Evans who basically made up his expose on Okie State and nobody else reported that angle.
2- IF UF truly knew enough to stay away they had the benefit of an OC who had been at BSU and may have been more privy to hearsay from friends on staff or potentially a better read on who would vouch/not vouch for his character.

(09-21-2015 04:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  That said, what Briles knew is not nearly as damning as what happened after the Baylor girl was raped.

I truly don't think there is credible evidence he knew of any violent or SA history but BU needed to handle the victim much better than what happened.

Two Baylor representatives perjured themselves at a trial where if Sam U Baylorapist was found innocent, he would be playing this fall on a porous Bear defense.

The first, a football player on medical scholarship, lied and said he was at the apartment on the night of the rape and did not hear screams (the victim testified she screamed). On cross exam, it turned out that the player was on his cell phone across town during the rape.

Who asked him to lie? Probably Sam U Baylorapist, but the question needs to be answered.

The second Baylor rep to lie was Bethany McCraw, who bungled the internal investigation so badly that the judge excluded her findings. She testified that the victim had engaged in oral sex that night with the rapist before the rape. On cross, it turns out her interview notes said that Sam U Baylorapist wanted oral sex, but the victim declined.

The lawyer who elicited the perjury, Jonathan Sibley, is a Baylor booster. He attended Baylor undergrad and Baylor law. His father David was one of the key political figures who helped Baylor get into the Big 12 in 1994.

Never mind how badly the victim was treated, it stinks to high heaven how far Baylor and its lawyer booster went to try and preserve the eligibility of a rapist.

(09-21-2015 04:40 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Two Baylor representatives perjured themselves at a trial where if Sam U Baylorapist was found innocent, he would be playing this fall on a porous Bear defense.

The first, a football player on medical scholarship, lied and said he was at the apartment on the night of the rape and did not hear screams (the victim testified she screamed). On cross exam, it turned out that the player was on his cell phone across town during the rape.

Who asked him to lie? Probably Sam U Baylorapist, but the question needs to be answered.

The second Baylor rep to lie was Bethany McCraw, who bungled the internal investigation so badly that the judge excluded her findings. She testified that the victim had engaged in oral sex that night with the rapist before the rape. On cross, it turns out her interview notes said that Sam U Baylorapist wanted oral sex, but the victim declined.

The lawyer who elicited the perjury, Jonathan Sibley, is a Baylor booster. He attended Baylor undergrad and Baylor law. His father David was one of the key political figures who helped Baylor get into the Big 12 in 1994.

Never mind how badly the victim was treated, it stinks to high heaven how far Baylor and its lawyer booster went to try and preserve the eligibility of a rapist.

Insinuating that the admin was acting purely to preserve eligibility isn't supported by the facts.

The roommate clearly lied in the internal investigation and was caught in a lie. That's his own doing. His testimony (false testimony) and BU not having access to his phone or the rape kit were key in the internal investigation. Between testimony and the inadmissable polygraph they were left with he said/she said and a 60 day civil rights window to conclude matters.

McCraw comes off as incompetent and unable to keep facts straight.

Neither comes off as any part of an admin movement to suppress the victim in order to get a DE eligible in my opinion. Nor do I think the lawyer was attempting to obstruct justice by encouraging or pushing for false testimony. A lawyer with any sense isn't going to risk being disbarred over a football player, much less some guy who never played a down for the school.

(09-21-2015 03:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Isn't Rutgers being the next Baylor? Or have we forgotten about the Dave Bliss years already?

(09-20-2015 10:23 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Baylor is light years ahead of Rutgers athletically. Kids growing up in Texas want to wear the gold. Playing for Rutgers is not cool no matter where you are from.

Eh. Baylor has been great the last five years. Prior to 2010, Baylor had no winning seasons since 1995, and had not finished the year ranked since 1986. Last year was their first top ten finish since 1951. And let's not even talk about basketball. This is not to take away from what Baylor has done recently, but if you look at both school from 1960 to 2010 (50 years), they are about identical. Baylor is 175-218-6, and Rutgers is 187-204-5 (Baylor has more bowls, but likely do to conference affiliation). Both have been decidedly "bleh" in basketball, with Baylro having 2 total NCAA appearances (no wins) in the same timeframe, and Rutgers having six appearances. Rutgers had a Championship game appearance during that time, Baylor had one just outside the timeframe in 1948.


Again this is not to take away from Baylor in any way, but in terms of the programs themselves, since all of the success is recent in both sports, is it the school or the coaches (the success has each come under one coach per school)? Remember when the PAC 16 idea first came up, Baylor was going to be on the outside looking in, in part because no one wanted their athletics' programs.

Today there is a difference. Not so much 5 years ago. The gap will continue to widen. Rutgers is one of those underachieving state flagships. Here we are comparing a State flagship to a bible school. Baylor did more in 2012 than Rutgers has in a decade.

The PAC not wanting Baylor has more to do with other reasons than athletics.

(09-21-2015 09:09 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-20-2015 02:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 08:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  These things happen when you value athletic talent above everything else. In the chase for the talented, a lot of things get overlooked until it's way too late.

In some cases, there's no choice but to take that gamble. You can't compete against Texas (regularly) and OU with a roster of Academic All-Americans. Just like the Patriots' experiment with Randy Moss, the moment they become a cancer, you cut 'em loose. Before Moss became a cancer, the Patriots were even more of a power than usual, which is saying something.

Yes. It worked out for New England - for a while. But the inevitable conclusion eventually came around, and it was something that was anticipated.

The Pats went for a perceived, and rightly so, talented player, who was more of a jerk than anything else. This is why his career ended early. It's why he started at Notre Dame, before falling to FSU, before falling to Marshall, before starting his NFL career. To gain an advantage in a GAME, we value morons and idiots, as long as they're very talented. We gain the advantage in the GAME. But we've lost something in life for that choice, making a compromise - decency and honor replaced by talent. And each time we make that choice, we diminish ourselves, our values, and our honor.

These coaches (and execs in the pros) are paid to do a job, which is to win. It's not fair but they have pressure by alums who wish to win at all costs and don't care how dirty the team is, just that they win. Some are able to get by doing things the right way more or less, like Bob Knight, but some have no choice, especially at places that inherently are at a disadvantage like Baylor and TCU.

Even Harvard hired a legit national basketball coach and is somehow winning at a semi-high level. When Princeton won at a high level decades back, they for the most part had legit scholars (which isn't to say Harvard doesn't now days). If Harvard is as tough as we are to believe, there's no way they should win as much as they have lately, at least year in and year out.

On a side note, I saw Sam Ukwauchu, the alleged Baylor rapist, while he was in high school. I was witness to one of the greatest plays/catches made at any level of football, which helped propel his high school (Pearland, south of Houston) to a state title.

My how times have changed.

It is not just Baylor now. Two TCU players got arrested.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/sports/TCU-Fo...48171.html


NCAA and these colleges and universities need to start cleaning up by booting these type of players. I bet there are some on Ohio State. There was signs that Aaron Hernandez was trouble playing for Urban in Florida.

These players have been around before and they'll be around in the future. As a matter of fact, a model citizen, Academic All-American could snap and commit a violent crime and we'd be looking at him the same way we look at these other players. Just the nature of the beast, there should be little tolerance but you can't stop people from being people, only sanction them after the fact.

It's the information age, guys. NOTHING remains hidden any longer. There's always somebody somewhere watching, and all of 'em have video cameras in their phones.

Hocking College at the JUCO level added the kid as the QB that was in the news lately when he and his buddies video taped a drunk girl, and raping her. They were stupid, and adding someone like that to the team is bad. Hocking just added the team for this year.

(09-21-2015 09:54 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Today there is a difference. Not so much 5 years ago. The gap will continue to widen. Rutgers is one of those underachieving state flagships. Here we are comparing a State flagship to a bible school. Baylor did more in 2012 than Rutgers has in a decade.

I don't really disagree, but you said it as though it has been this way forever. Five years is too short a term to permanently label a program in a new category

(09-21-2015 09:54 PM)Okielite Wrote:  The PAC not wanting Baylor has more to do with other reasons than athletics.

But it had a lot to do with it. Some people assume that because the PAC has an issue with BYU, they have an issue with religiously affiliated schools. That is not the case. They have an issue with BU specifically, and the church who runs their school. Had Baylor's athletics been in 2010 what they are today, it would have overcome a lot of the true issues they had. Not erased for sure, but helped overcome.

Let's put it this way, if Notre Dame called up the PAC 12 and asked to join, they'd be in tomorrow. It's not being a religiously affiliated school itself that made them sour on them.