Baylor to fire Art Briles / Hire Jim Grobe | Page 7 | Syracusefan.com

Baylor to fire Art Briles / Hire Jim Grobe

The grobe hire is mind boggling. And Ken Starr was the chancellor? Good god
 
It always ends badly for the loons willing to do something totally different. It's their normal successors that can take the innovation and have long term success with it. I had fun yelling for LEACH for years and I still don't think Briles is that crazy but Babers had a much more conventional background before seeing the light.
 
13384925_900402103419199_1442920808_n.jpg
 
orangehomer said:
wait do you understand what has happened here at all? Baylor hired a neutral party to investigate these claims, a neutral party that has been criticized in the past for taking it too easy on the school. based on the results of this independent, neutral, third-party investigation, the powers-that-be at Baylor said "holy . . . . " and fired the coach. think about it dude. the details will come out soon enough but of course their is proof they wouldn't fire their Lord and Savior if this was anywhere near disputable. it's completely different than the fine case where SU hired a neutral party to investigate the case, where it was determined that the allegations were BS. and they were. this is totally different, Baylor is going to be paying out millions in settlements and we are just scratching the surface of the title 9 implications.
Expand...

I understand that a report came out and Baylor fired Briles, but that isn't evidence that he knew or did something himself that was inappropriate. What I was hoping to hear and haven't heard yet from you or anyone else is what Briles personally knew or did that was inappropriate or actionable. I get the argument that the "captain of the ship"/head of the program is responsible for all that goes on within it, but I was hoping to hear what Briles himself knew or did.
 
dinosaurbbq said:
I understand that a report came out and Baylor fired Briles, but that isn't evidence that he knew or did something himself that was inappropriate. What I was hoping to hear and haven't heard yet from you or anyone else is what Briles personally knew or did that was inappropriate or actionable. I get the argument that the "captain of the ship"/head of the program is responsible for all that goes on within it, but I was hoping to hear what Briles himself knew or did.
Expand...
Did you read anything at all about this? I'm thinking you didn't.

Baylor fires coach Art Briles amid rape scandal

Silence at Baylor - Texas Monthly

OTL: More police cases for Baylor football

Lawyer: Briles reneged on rape-victim apology
 
OrangeFoo said:
A lot of folks are saying Briles or one of his coaches reached out to victims on their own and "encouraged" them to not go to the police. If this is true, that alone is grounds for firing. Additionally Briles lied when he said he didn't know about Ukwachu's problems at Boise... Peterson said he told him Ukwachu was still a threat and not ready to resume playing.

There is enough smoke in the public domain that I'm sure the report has much more damning evidence... Otherwise Baylor would never have fired him.
Expand...

If Briles talked to victims at all or knew of it being done and did nothing in response, that would be grounds for firing. I haven't seen or heard anything yet that indicates that is the case.

Briles did not lie about Ukwuachu -- First off, Peterson did not say he told Briles Ukwuachu was a threat and not ready to resume playing. Second, Peterson's statement on the subject is vague and unclear. Third, even if he did, Briles denies that and it would be one coach's word against another. Fourth, BSU submitted a form to BU stating Ukwuachu was not suspended for disciplinary reasons and was eligible to play at BSU if he returned there and did not transfer, which makes it pretty darn unlikely for Peterson to have told Briles Ukwuachu was a threat to women. Fifth, Ukwuachu never played for BU anyway. See link: Exactly what Chris Petersen told Art Briles about Sam Ukwuachu is critical


Finally, where there is smoke there is fire is fatally flawed reasoning that reaches conclusions without evidence. That is not a proper basis for taking any action, otherwise, we would not have criminal trials, we would simply convict all those charged with crimes.
 
retro44 said:
I really don't know how much more you want...

“In certain instances, including reports of a s e xual assault by multiple football players, athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report s e xual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics,”the findings of fact released by the university said. “In those instances, football coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or parent of a complainant and did not report the misconduct.”
Baylor fires coach Art Briles amid rape scandal
http://www.baylor.edu/rtsv/doc.php/266596.pdf
Expand...

There is nothing in the quote you provided indicating Briles did or knew anything. Absolutely nothing.
 
retro44 said:
good hire,but a defensive minded coach. Wonder what their fan base thinks about this?

Briles really screwed over those fans in a big way.
Expand...
?????? What did Briles do? Literally, what did he do or what did he know of the issue?
 
dinosaurbbq said:
There is nothing in the quote you provided indicating Briles did or knew anything. Absolutely nothing.
Expand...
"...athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report s e xual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics". Right. Athletics and football personnel all chose collectively not to tell the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH about these numerous incidents. None of them.
Baylor hired a law firm to review its past treatment of sexual assault claims. They probably forgot to tell Briles. He's a busy man.

At the very best, he is guilty of questionable and dubious behavior by not suspending these animals immediately. At best. Maybe he didn't technically commit a crime - I don't know because I don't know Texas law. But if you really think he didn't know about all these incidents, I don't know what to tell you.
 
orange79 said:
"...athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report s e xual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics". Right. Athletics and football personnel all chose collectively not to tell the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH about these numerous incidents. None of them.
Baylor hired a law firm to review its past treatment of s e xual assault claims. They probably forgot to tell Briles. He's a busy man.

At the very best, he is guilty of questionable and dubious behavior by not suspending these animals immediately. At best. Maybe he didn't technically commit a crime - I don't know because I don't know Texas law. But if you really think he didn't know about all these incidents, I don't know what to tell you.
Expand...

Athletics and Football personnel could literally mean 1 coach. Thus, the "all chose collectively" is not necessarily accurate. "all" athletics and football personnel didn't know. At least one did. If it was one football coach or assistant in some capacity, is it fair to assume Briles knew? No, it isn't.

Baylor hired a law firm to investigate-- Whether they told Briles of that or not is really of no significance anyway, so I don't understand your point as to what significance the hiring of a law firm to investigate has.


If he knew of a sexual assault and didn't report it or if he received a report and contacted the victim to discourage her from filing a report or if he knew of his assistant coaches doing the same and didn't address that, then absolutely, he is a scumbag and needs to be thrown in jail. What you've pointed to doesn't establish any of that.

The closest I've seen yet is your post of an hour ago with four articles I hadn't seen. The last two establish that Briles knew of criminal reports to police of sexual assaults by players and allowed them to continue to play. However, this country's criminal justice system is founded upon the belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If we start taking away things from those accused, but not yet convicted, of crimes, we violate their due process rights. The legal system frowns on that. A player suspended indefinitely because of an allegation that takes 2 years to go to trial and results in an acquittal (not guilty) never gets those 2 years back to play to attempt to build up draft stock to have a financially lucrative career. So most programs suspend or dismiss based on convictions not arrest or charges alone. If a player admits to a violation of the law, which is also a violation of team rules, then the team can and should discipline, but if the player steadfastly denies the charges and behavior leading to them, it is difficult for the school to suspend simply because charges are pending.
 
dinosaurbbq said:
Athletics and Football personnel could literally mean 1 coach. Thus, the "all chose collectively" is not necessarily accurate. "all" athletics and football personnel didn't know. At least one did. If it was one football coach or assistant in some capacity, is it fair to assume Briles knew? No, it isn't.

Baylor hired a law firm to investigate-- Whether they told Briles of that or not is really of no significance anyway, so I don't understand your point as to what significance the hiring of a law firm to investigate has.


If he knew of a s e xual assault and didn't report it or if he received a report and contacted the victim to discourage her from filing a report or if he knew of his assistant coaches doing the same and didn't address that, then absolutely, he is a scumbag and needs to be thrown in jail. What you've pointed to doesn't establish any of that.

The closest I've seen yet is your post of an hour ago with four articles I hadn't seen. The last two establish that Briles knew of criminal reports to police of s e xual assaults by players and allowed them to continue to play. However, this country's criminal justice system is founded upon the belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If we start taking away things from those accused, but not yet convicted, of crimes, we violate their due process rights. The legal system frowns on that. A player suspended indefinitely because of an allegation that takes 2 years to go to trial and results in an acquittal (not guilty) never gets those 2 years back to play to attempt to build up draft stock to have a financially lucrative career. So most programs suspend or dismiss based on convictions not arrest or charges alone. If a player admits to a violation of the law, which is also a violation of team rules, then the team can and should discipline, but if the player steadfastly denies the charges and behavior leading to them, it is difficult for the school to suspend simply because charges are pending.
Expand...
There are times when you have to use common sense - in this case, whether or not you think Briles knew anything. Personally, I think it is next to impossible he did not know anything. Your position seems to be he did not. It makes no sense. I'm done here, Art.
 
dinosaurbbq said:
Athletics and Football personnel could literally mean 1 coach. Thus, the "all chose collectively" is not necessarily accurate. "all" athletics and football personnel didn't know. At least one did. If it was one football coach or assistant in some capacity, is it fair to assume Briles knew? No, it isn't. Baylor hired a law firm to investigate-- Whether they told Briles of that or not is really of no significance anyway, so I don't understand your point as to what significance the hiring of a law firm to investigate has. If he knew of a s e xual assault and didn't report it or if he received a report and contacted the victim to discourage her from filing a report or if he knew of his assistant coaches doing the same and didn't address that, then absolutely, he is a scumbag and needs to be thrown in jail. What you've pointed to doesn't establish any of that. The closest I've seen yet is your post of an hour ago with four articles I hadn't seen. The last two establish that Briles knew of criminal reports to police of s e xual assaults by players and allowed them to continue to play. However, this country's criminal justice system is founded upon the belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If we start taking away things from those accused, but not yet convicted, of crimes, we violate their due process rights. The legal system frowns on that. A player suspended indefinitely because of an allegation that takes 2 years to go to trial and results in an acquittal (not guilty) never gets those 2 years back to play to attempt to build up draft stock to have a financially lucrative career. So most programs suspend or dismiss based on convictions not arrest or charges alone. If a player admits to a violation of the law, which is also a violation of team rules, then the team can and should discipline, but if the player steadfastly denies the charges and behavior leading to them, it is difficult for the school to suspend simply because charges are pending.
Expand...

The usually sit them because the danger to the program and university is too great to not do anything. It also sends a message that you can do these things without repercussions - which may lead to more of the same behavior. It's not a right to play D1 football. If you don't want to sit, don't do stupid illegal things.

This case kind of proves all that.

If I had a daughter and their were no repercussions and he friend got assaulted the next week, I'd be all over the school for not protecting its students better.
 
orange79 said:
There are times when you have to use common sense - in this case, whether or not you think Briles knew anything. Personally, I think it is next to impossible he did not know anything. Your position seems to be he did not. It makes no sense. I'm done here, Art.
Expand...

Art -- I don't have a position that he did or didn't know and I'm not actually even a Briles supporter. I just did not know of anything out there that establishes that he knew or was directly involved in any shady stuff and was genuinely curious if there was something or not. It seemed to be accepted as a foregone conclusion that he did by most in the media, the public and on this board simply because of the fact he was fired and the fact that the investigating law firm vaguely referenced actions by "athletic and football personnel".

There were two real points to the issue in my mind, which we never really got to because we never progressed past whether there was evidence to establish he knew or was directly involved in wrongdoing.

The first is that the school can obviously terminate him just for being the head of a program where this occurred, because he is getting paid for being the head of a program-- but whether he knew or was directly involved with shady stuff is determinative of whether he gets paid upon termination of the contract or not. If he knew or was directly involved, he gets no cash because the termination is "for cause" meaning for engaging in behavior that was criminal or violated NCAA regulations including Title IX. If he did not, he would be paid and the termination would be without cause. They reached a settlement that he found acceptable, so I'm guessing he's getting paid a significant amount.

The second is that I have a problem with coaches being held personally responsible and losing jobs, wins, money, reputation where there is no proof of personal involvement in any wrongdoing (Briles was called a scumbag, an and worse on this board, in the media and in the public and he'll never work again in the field). My angle applies just as much to one Jimmy B who was held personally responsible in losing wins and being suspended from coaching despite proof that he had personally engaged in any wrongdoing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SWC75
    • Like
The Fran Brown Show - before Connecticut
Replies
15
Views
1K
Chip
Chip
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
1
Views
593
Ozone!
Ozone!
kcsu
    • Like
    • Love
my two cents
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
NineOneSeven
NineOneSeven
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
2
Views
2K
Yeti
Yeti
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Friday for Football
Replies
0
Views
569
sutomcat
sutomcat

Forum statistics

Threads
171,894
Messages
4,980,923
Members
6,020
Latest member
OldeOstrom

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
251
Guests online
3,397
Total visitors
3,648
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom