(07-08-2017 02:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I still say boot Baylor out of the Big 12, and add Houston. Sadly, it seems the Religious schools have the most scandals. SMU. Miami, Florida, BYU, Baylor and so forth. I thought those schools would have moral issues to keep by keeping these types of players out of their schools?

It seems that way? Let's see some data to back up that claim. FYI: Miami was secular. Sandusky at Penn State was secular. Carroll at USC was secular. Switzer at Oklahoma was secular. Barnett at Colorado was secular.

And if you're referencing the Madi Barney case, that had nothing to do with the athletic program. The accused rapist isn't even a BYU student, let alone a football player. BYU had nothing to gain by protecting the accused. The problem was that the bureaucrats who administer the HC were being too overzealous, which led to a change in policy.

There was an issue where several football players were accused of rape in 2004. They were never found guilty in court. They were still kicked off the team for breaking the Honor Code. And the coach was fired.

I won't comment on SMU & Baylor. But the more obvious common denominator is SWC affiliation.

(07-07-2017 09:19 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  It doesn't have to be the same board. Boards have a tendency to perpetuate themselves. In other words, new board members are chosen because they think like the current members. So, although the faces are different, underneath, the nature of the group remains remarkably similar.

Still a massive stretch.

(07-08-2017 03:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  PSU and Baylor are two programs he defends

"PSU" and "Baylor" are just stitching on a jersey.

What actually matters are the actions of individuals. And I've said many, many times that it is correct that Sandusky is in prison, and that if JoePa would've faced a jury and been convicted, then it would've been correct that he would also be in prison. Same goes for Briles, McCaw, Starr, and anyone else at Baylor who might've committed criminal actions.

Perhaps you should be less ignorant when accusing other posters!

(07-08-2017 04:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 09:19 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  It doesn't have to be the same board. Boards have a tendency to perpetuate themselves. In other words, new board members are chosen because they think like the current members. So, although the faces are different, underneath, the nature of the group remains remarkably similar.

Still a massive stretch.

(07-08-2017 03:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  PSU and Baylor are two programs he defends

"PSU" and "Baylor" are just stitching on a jersey.

What actually matters are the actions of individuals. And I've said many, many times that it is correct that Sandusky is in prison, and that if JoePa would've faced a jury and been convicted, then it would've been correct that he would also be in prison. Same goes for Briles, McCaw, Starr, and anyone else at Baylor who might've committed criminal actions.

Perhaps you should be less ignorant when accusing other posters!

The whole school and the Waco Police Department along with some of the McLennan County DAs were in on it. It is more than stitching on a jersey. It was a concerted effort to hide everything in order to win football games. It is as bad as you can imagine.

People can be put in jail and buildings can be bulldozed to ground level

(02-03-2017 09:49 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Any doubt about Baylor and Briles being guilty now?

Nope. Guilty as sin!!!

(02-03-2017 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 09:20 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  If these lawsuits settle for what I think they will, Baylor is in much more trouble financially - Title 9 is in play here so while NCAA may not do anything, DOE and DOJ could.

I'd call that wishful thinking for somebody that would love to see Baylor burn to the ground.

In reality, that's just silly.

This whole thing is going to be a stain on Baylor's reputation for some time but in the end will be little more than that.

Uhh, no. I have to take up for Carolina Stang on this somewhat. Open bribery to get people to overlook crimes??? That's not right, and the DOJ has every right to investigate and hand out punitive damages for those incidents. (on a side note, I'd be willing to forgive Jerry Falwell Jr. if he admits he made a mistake, and fires Ian McCaw because of McCaw's part in this scandal. ) Furthermore, the DOE has to ensure that institutions receiving federal funds are treating the students well and that they are meeting all of the necessary benchmarks for their education, or the DOE is being derelict in its duty. (I could argue that it's already being that way, but that's a topic for the spin room). While the DOE may not be able to fine Baylor University for its actions (because it is a private university), they can choose to withhold federal funding from Baylor x-number of years because of its actions, and I can definitely see the DOE doing that. I can this being something even President Trump himself would demand, if he knew the full scope of the scandal, and President Trump is the DOE's ultimate boss. (extreme example here, but you get the point. It's more likely that Texas congressional representatives & senators would get wind of this, and would demand action).

(07-08-2017 05:10 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The whole school and the Waco Police Department along with some of the McLennan County DAs were in on it.

The head of chemistry dept was in on it? The person who answers the phone at the front desk of the WPD office was in on it?

What B.S. Easy to sling around accusations at everyone and their mother, with zero proof, from your armchair.

(07-08-2017 05:10 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  It was a concerted effort to hide everything in order to win football games.

Every single individual who committed criminal actions, should be tried in a court of law and convicted. I've always said as much, both in PSU case and in Baylor case.

Baylor ordered to release "original" sexual assault reports since 2003


http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts_and_...246e3.html

If there were no criminal charges files, they may not have the original documentation anymore ... 2003 is already 14 years ago.

I'm not sure I feel about that.

A person who had an allegation made against them should not be put in a position to face their name being released.

At the same time, I see why they should be discoverable.

If whatever the school's process was at that time (hearing by a special board, whatever) found the evidence did not support the allegation against the student, I would be in favor of stripping away their name from the documents.

(07-27-2017 06:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If whatever the school's process was at that time (hearing by a special board, whatever) found the evidence did not support the allegation against the student, I would be in favor of stripping away their name from the documents.

The Judge didn't make that distinction.

The push to crush Baylor in all of this is likely to victimize some people who were falsely accused yet again. That's a shame.