(05-26-2016 06:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Well, considering Baylor had a record of 11-86 in the B12 before they hired him, you can be damn sure they didn't boot Briles for talking with his mouth full or using the wrong fork at dinner. Canning him and Starr was based on an independent investigation initiated by the school and I'm sure their board of regents did not take the decision lightly.

(05-26-2016 07:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Well, considering Baylor had a record of 11-86 in the B12 before they hired him, you can be damn sure they didn't boot Briles for talking with his mouth full or using the wrong fork at dinner. Canning him and Starr was based on an independent investigation initiated by the school and I'm sure their board of regents did not take the decision lightly.

While not making any judgment on this case, that could have been done for a number of reasons. The main one being pinning everything on him and generating favorable public relations. Look at how well Baylor has been talked about today and how they're a model for every other school.

It's not like college coaches haven't been sacrificed in the past in an effort to protect the institution, even those that are highly successful. Mike Pressler of Duke Lacrosse immediately comes to mind.

But remember - according to the B12 and the media, UC isn't good enough for the B12 or the P5.

(05-26-2016 07:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 06:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Well, considering Baylor had a record of 11-86 in the B12 before they hired him, you can be damn sure they didn't boot Briles for talking with his mouth full or using the wrong fork at dinner. Canning him and Starr was based on an independent investigation initiated by the school and I'm sure their board of regents did not take the decision lightly.

Maybe. But you are taking that on faith until the kitchen light is turned on to show the extent of the cockroaches or lack thereof.

We went through an ouster of Huggs and it took 6 months for a lot of pertinent facts to surface that showed personality conflicts, et al. Not defending anyone at Baylor but this is how these things roll for a bit. I'll watch until the finale of the symphony's so released. Same with Tennessee.

If he is guilty of a crime, prosecute.

We have a coach who was sued for massive financial fraud as an alleged confidence man in an investment scheme whose wife was apparently responsible for the death of someone in an auto accident that was allegedly looked upon in another direction by the authorities in the college town in which he worked. Glass houses and all that.

(05-26-2016 09:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 06:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

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

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

Well, considering Baylor had a record of 11-86 in the B12 before they hired him, you can be damn sure they didn't boot Briles for talking with his mouth full or using the wrong fork at dinner. Canning him and Starr was based on an independent investigation initiated by the school and I'm sure their board of regents did not take the decision lightly.

Maybe. But you are taking that on faith until the kitchen light is turned on to show the extent of the cockroaches or lack thereof.

We went through an ouster of Huggs and it took 6 months for a lot of pertinent facts to surface that showed personality conflicts, et al. Not defending anyone at Baylor but this is how these things roll for a bit. I'll watch until the finale of the symphony's so released. Same with Tennessee.

If he is guilty of a crime, prosecute.

We have a coach who was sued for massive financial fraud as an alleged confidence man in an investment scheme whose wife was apparently responsible for the death of someone in an auto accident that was allegedly looked upon in another direction by the authorities in the college town in which he worked. Glass houses and all that.

Just out of curiosity, how did those incidents end up?

(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.

They never should have gotten involved with Penn State. They should have done nothing more than released a statement saying, "We are deeply troubled by the recent issues related to Jerry Sandusky and other members of the Penn State administration and athletic department. We feel deeply for the victims of these crimes and those close to the victims. Our mission at the NCAA is promote fairplay between our member institutions. We feel this is a legal issue and should be handled by law enforcement officials. We will be taking no action in this matter."

But shouldn't there be some way for schools to be penalized if they in fact do cover up these types of crimes so that they can keep their football program playing and the money rolling in?

In my opinion if a school administration or athletic department knowingly looks the other way or tries to cover up serious crimes for the sake of a sport they should not be allowed to continue playing that sport.

(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.

Todd Cunningham certainly was. He called the situations similar. They are not at all similar.

Maybe Kentucky would take him but I seriously doubt Briles will be coaching anywhere in college for a long time. He'll likely get a lengthy show cause over this.

(05-26-2016 07:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 06:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Well, considering Baylor had a record of 11-86 in the B12 before they hired him, you can be damn sure they didn't boot Briles for talking with his mouth full or using the wrong fork at dinner. Canning him and Starr was based on an independent investigation initiated by the school and I'm sure their board of regents did not take the decision lightly.

Well, I think they had to do it for PR. People wanted his head for this and Baylor had to show it's being taken seriously. I wouldn't necessarily take that as meaning there are smoking guns (although their might be).

(05-26-2016 08:27 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Well, considering Baylor had a record of 11-86 in the B12 before they hired him, you can be damn sure they didn't boot Briles for talking with his mouth full or using the wrong fork at dinner. Canning him and Starr was based on an independent investigation initiated by the school and I'm sure their board of regents did not take the decision lightly.

While not making any judgment on this case, that could have been done for a number of reasons. The main one being pinning everything on him and generating favorable public relations. Look at how well Baylor has been talked about today and how they're a model for every other school.

It's not like college coaches haven't been sacrificed in the past in an effort to protect the institution, even those that are highly successful. Mike Pressler of Duke Lacrosse immediately comes to mind.

x2

(05-27-2016 05:54 AM)Marcus 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.

Todd Cunningham certainly was. He called the situations similar. They are not at all similar.

Maybe Kentucky would take him but I seriously doubt Briles will be coaching anywhere in college for a long time. He'll likely get a lengthy show cause over this.

superflybcat= todd c???

(05-26-2016 10:39 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 06:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

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

Well, considering Baylor had a record of 11-86 in the B12 before they hired him, you can be damn sure they didn't boot Briles for talking with his mouth full or using the wrong fork at dinner. Canning him and Starr was based on an independent investigation initiated by the school and I'm sure their board of regents did not take the decision lightly.

Maybe. But you are taking that on faith until the kitchen light is turned on to show the extent of the cockroaches or lack thereof.

We went through an ouster of Huggs and it took 6 months for a lot of pertinent facts to surface that showed personality conflicts, et al. Not defending anyone at Baylor but this is how these things roll for a bit. I'll watch until the finale of the symphony's so released. Same with Tennessee.

If he is guilty of a crime, prosecute.

We have a coach who was sued for massive financial fraud as an alleged confidence man in an investment scheme whose wife was apparently responsible for the death of someone in an auto accident that was allegedly looked upon in another direction by the authorities in the college town in which he worked. Glass houses and all that.

Just out of curiosity, how did those incidents end up?

Tubby settled the lawsuit. Someone paid up large.

Not sure if there was ever a lawsuit for the accident. I'd assume it was handled by insurance and there was a quiet settlement there as well. If I recall she ran a stoplight and t-boned an elderly couple in their 80's and killed the husband.

It was an interesting case that apparently did not get the attention of the police that some thought it should have.

http://www.dailytoreador.com/news/lubboc...f6878.html

Not to take this OT but Freeze definitely might be an SEC coach that is done for.

8 level 1 violations!? Most coaches get fired and get a show cause for half that amount of level 1 violations.

11 of the 13 total violations under his watch and none of this involves Tunsil which is still being looked into.

Ugly!

(05-26-2016 11:03 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(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.

They never should have gotten involved with Penn State. They should have done nothing more than released a statement saying, "We are deeply troubled by the recent issues related to Jerry Sandusky and other members of the Penn State administration and athletic department. We feel deeply for the victims of these crimes and those close to the victims. Our mission at the NCAA is promote fairplay between our member institutions. We feel this is a legal issue and should be handled by law enforcement officials. We will be taking no action in this matter."

Maybe the NCAA should not have involved themselves. However, Penn St's fball program should have been shut down. Building the program, while covering up a child molester. I have a feeling what happened at Penn St, Baylor and other schools takes place at most programs. Welcome to America, where fball on Saturdays outweighs molesting children and sexually assaulting women.

I still have no idea about why the NCAA gets involved in this crud.

Just like the rest of the world, if a crime was committed, prosecute everyone involved. Instead of being fired, if Briles did something that is chargeable under the code, fry his ass. If not, then this is really just public relations silliness. And yes, covering up a crime or hindering an investigation is a criminal offense under some terminology in every state.

Baylor's existence as a Power Five school should be up for review

Quote:Baylor's existence as a Power Five school should be up for review
Fallout for Baylor football -- and the entire athletic program -- should be staggering, but it won't be swift
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
Thursday, May 26, 2016 • 4 min read

Baylor's lone salvation today may be the straightforward media rights contracts the Big 12 has with ESPN and Fox.
Those deals pay the current roster of Big 12 schools $24 million per year through 2024. That's about the best news Baylor could have today: A shamed university is assured of playing major college football for only the term of that deal -- eight more years.
After that?
Let's put it this way: If conference realignment was in play at the moment, Baylor would be a fine candidate for Conference USA.
And that's nothing against CUSA, but Baylor is radioactive at the moment, a pariah's pariah. What conference -- what self-respecting president or board of regents -- would want a university whose desperation to stay relevant has bordered on despicable.
Twice.
Please remember the Dave Bliss scandal. Please remember that Baylor hired a public relations firm to makes its case as a big-time school in the last round of conference realignment. University officials were handing out their cell phone numbers to reporters, trying to tell their story.

None of those phones were being answered on Thursday.
It's hard to talk about salvation today. Just like at Penn State, the first thoughts in this heinous episode should be with the victims.
According to the Finding of Facts presented by the Baylor Board of Regents from Pepper Hamilton report, football personnel willfully chose not to report sexual assaults of "multiple football players" after learning of the incidents.
University administrators "directly discouraged" complainants from reporting assaults according to Pepper Hamilton.
Need a shower yet?
If this was an open market in realignment, Baylor would be a hitchhiker with its thumb out on the side of the road. It wouldn't come close to being picked up by a major conference. The school is neither a sizable brand nor in a sizable market.
Nor does it seem to have a sizable heart.
No one can predict what the landscape will be like in eight years, but I can guess one conference that might not want Baylor. A private school that was able to hide behind its lack of transparency has been an embarrassing detriment.
Baylor did the right thing Thursday by firing Art Briles. Reasonable people can argue if reassigning president Ken Starr and putting athletic director Ian McCaw on probation is enough.
Otherwise, Baylor's reputation and continued existence as a Power Five school is up for review. The Big 12 will not and cannot do anything at the moment. Its bylaws don't cover such scenarios. Imagine that.
But the market can speak. Common human decency can speak. Baylor's had its chance to prove it is big time, not just on the field but off it, too. It succeeded mightily in that first charge. Will the ways in which it reached that level be forgotten in eight years?
Forget the current strife. One source told CBS Sports that NCAA enforcement has spent more time on the Baylor campus than any other Big 12 school.
"Really, I don't hear about anybody else [in the Big 12]," the source said.
Briles' departure will no doubt mean a dip in football fortunes. To that point, if Baylor doesn't do it, the NCAA should: Allow current players to transfer without penalty. None of this is the fault of the vast majority of players that have come through the program or are on the team now.
To its credit, the Baylor administration acknowledged the results of Pepper Hamilton's findings and acted by firing a coach who was largely responsible for consecutive Big 12 titles, a Heisman Trophy winner and a new state-of-the-art stadium.
But it's worth reviewing why Baylor is playing big-time sports to begin with. As in all things Texas, politics were involved. When the Big 12 was being formed around 1994, it helped that Baylor alum Ann Richards was the state's governor when the Southwest Conference was breaking up.
Baylor was basically nothing in football when it was thrown that lifeline by the Big 12. It continued to be nothing until Briles arrived in 2008. But at what cost?
Those TV contracts saved Baylor in 2010 and 2011 when Fox and ESPN agreed that a 10-team league including the Bears was worth saving. It's hard to believe that would be the same case today.
In fact, Big 12 expansion to places like Cincinnati and UConn suddenly looks a lot more appealing. Their morals have to be a notch or two above Baylor's, at least.
As for the ongoing problem of violence against women, this is not just a Baylor thing; it's everywhere. When are we going to not totally subject ourselves to a football coach's cult of personality? The most powerful of those are allowed to act with impunity.
Eighteen wheelers emblazoned with the school's logo in front of a recruit's house. Satellite camps in Australia. While none of that compares to ignoring sexual assault claims, it does remind of the unadulterated power we've given some of these guys.
Briles will find work again because Bobby Petrino found work again and because Jim Tressel found work again. Incredibly, Ohio State's former coach is the Youngstown State president while serving a five-year show cause order for lying to the NCAA.
Yeah, about that shower.
We have been painfully reminded again that a woman who attends college is more likely to be a sexual assault victim than one who does not. We know that one in five women entering college will be subject to some kind of sexual assault. We also know that only one in eight reports it.
So of course those cries for help from alleged victims had to be taken seriously at Baylor. ESPN's Outside the Lines chronicled that some victims didn't speak out simply because they already knew Baylor would not do anything about it.
The facts released Thursday confirmed their fears. The precious jewel that is big-time football is more important than common, human decency.

Baylor athletics and administration turned its back on the students. USATSI

LOL!

Baylor's "existence" as a "Power 5" school is NOT up for "evaluation."

For that matter, the media has largely created this "Power 5" mania and all the hype around recruits. So, Dennis Dodd's sanctimonious blather rings somewhat hollow.

Why didn't Briles just keep the boys happy with hookers and strippers like Louiswille did?

Why wasn't Dodd calling for Penn St's P5 status to be evaluated? Heck, UNC had wide spread academic fraud. UofL's been running an on campus brothel.

The media is a fickle mistress. Baylor is receiving the SMU treatment. Other schools are as immoral and slimy as Baylor, however those schools must be given a pass. SMU is considered the model of athletics gone awry, however the rest of the SWC was conducting the same exact behavior. Schools such as Baylor might be grandfathered into "the cartel," however the power brokers will be happy to make an example of them.