Per twitter, it looks like Briles might be let go today. I sincerely hope Baylor doesn't come try and poach Monty. It would be a logical step in my mind though.
Art Briles
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Was thinking the same thing. However, Monty was a piece in the bldg of that culture and by not denouncing it, could be considered to be tacitly complicit. Baylor may be wanting to avoid all of that right now.
Inevitable. It wouldn't surprise me if McCaw is next. Baylor needs a clean start and someone who will set the tone regarding culture and atmosphere surrounding the programs while respecting the mission of the university and making the athletic department A PIECE of the bigger Baylor picture
I don't know. I would want to be very careful with that.
Agreed. I had 2 questions when I heard Baylor was getting rid of Briles...1) Would they target Monty to replace him, and 2) If Monty stays, would he be able to lure Briles as a consultant for a year or two. I don't think either will happen...I think Baylor is going to go clean cut and remove any and all connections to the Art Briles era including assistants, S&C coaches, and support staff. And I don't think Briles gets any look from any universities for any position for 2-3 years because of this. Do I think Baylor has 100 sexual predators on the team? No. Actually, there are probably a large majority of good people in and around the program which is forever going to be tainted by the 3-4 bad eggs who don't understand the meaning of the word "NO".
I think Monty would be open to taking a player or two in transfer. And I bet most of them would be able to successfully petition to play immediately as they deem the culture and atmosphere around the football program at Baylor poison (similar to the Penn State situations). Heck, I would love if Kaz came back as a S&C consultant. A team that was probably going to be a top 3 pick in the Big XII next year and challenge for a title might be struggling to finish about Texas Tech now.
His name has not been mentioned so far. However, without seeing the report it's hard to say.
Several schools would never have fired him. I applaud Baylor for doing the right thing. And no, since Monty was around a lot of this, they don't want any of him either. Would look bad to keep an insider. I wonder though if some of the better Baylor assistants that will lose their job too might land at TU at some point.
What are they actually causing Briles of doing wrong?
Seems like entitled athletes sexually assaulted people and were convicted. It appears the school didn't take it seriously and the assailants didn't get their come uppance until the Court said so. But if the school is telling Briles that they are cleared to play for now, is Briles to assume they are guilty and that the school is wrong and suspend anyone accused of sexual assault?
We assumed Swilling was guilty and destroyed his career, and it turns out he didn't do anything wrong. He was absolutely screwed by an accusation that didn't stick. Guilty until proven innocent... we screwed him and, I believe, paid out in a lawsuit because of it.
This isn't advocating special privileges or ignoring sexual assault... and if Briles ignored painful evidence and/or advocated for special treatment, screw him. But no one has explained what he did other than being at the top when several players did criminal acts.
Seems like entitled athletes sexually assaulted people and were convicted. It appears the school didn't take it seriously and the assailants didn't get their come uppance until the Court said so. But if the school is telling Briles that they are cleared to play for now, is Briles to assume they are guilty and that the school is wrong and suspend anyone accused of sexual assault?
We assumed Swilling was guilty and destroyed his career, and it turns out he didn't do anything wrong. He was absolutely screwed by an accusation that didn't stick. Guilty until proven innocent... we screwed him and, I believe, paid out in a lawsuit because of it.
This isn't advocating special privileges or ignoring sexual assault... and if Briles ignored painful evidence and/or advocated for special treatment, screw him. But no one has explained what he did other than being at the top when several players did criminal acts.
Last edited:
Please be quiet unless you know what steps a University is supposed to take when any allegation of sexual assault/sexual misconduct is made. I have said it many times and I will say it again...a University's responsibility to its students and investigating these claims is wholly independent of any criminal investigation/trial. When an allegation is made, a university MUST investigate it fully to determine if an act violated another student's rights. They also must determine if the student's continued presence on campus or participation in a campus sponsored activity would create an environment hostile to the victim that would prevent them from pursuing their education. Often times this leads universities to suspend a student from all campus activities until a determination can be made. The reason TU is not fighting the same battle Baylor is right now is because TU followed its own procedures and steps for investigating the claim (independently of any police investigation) to ensure the rights of both the victim and the alleged attacker were being upheld. Its also the reason why the Title IX lawsuit the young lady filed against the university was summarily dismissed.
On to Baylor...read the report. There was a concerning claim that the first individuals the victims reported the assaults to (or were directed to once they notified someone of the assaults) was a member of the football staff. I guarantee if you go to Baylor's website you can find the judicial process in writing...and I can pretty much assure you that no one in the athletic dept. is mentioned in terms of being a designated hearing officer. As a residence hall director, I would meet with students who violated policy issues, and submit a report that went to the Dean of Judicial Affairs who would subsequently schedule a hearing/meeting with the student. In the event of a more serious allegation such as sexual assault, I would take notes on the discussion and request the student make a statement of allegation which was then forwarded to the judicial affairs office which would schedule a hearing. At a hearing regarding sexual assault, the hearing officer would instruct the alleged attacker that they are to have no contact with the alleged victim, there was to be no retaliation towards the victim either initiated by themselves or their friends and then they would likely be instructed to avoid certain places like shared classes, the library, etc. where casual encounters could possibly occur. The hearing officer would then try to compile as many witness statements, perhaps request any police reports that had been made, etc. before making a determination.
Do I think Briles was the coach who decided not to forward the info on? Probably not. But he had to know these allegations were made and he still chose not to take APPROPRIATE action. Appropriate action would have been reporting the allegations to the judicial affairs office. Had he taken that 1 simple step, he is probably clear right now. Universities cannot wait for the outcomes of criminal investigations or trials to determine their course of action, because that delay in and of itself is contrary to what Title IX regulations say. TU acted appropriately in the Swilling case and while it sucks for him that he missed the last half of his senior season, TU was covering its bases and doing its due diligence. If you want to trash Florida State and Baylor for the crap and hell they put the victims through by not doing their due diligence and allowing Jameis Winston and Shawn Oakman to continue playing and be on TV every second, fine. FSU I believe settled their Title IX lawsuit because they were going to end up on the short end of about $10-20M. Baylor is looking at $30-40M in damages when you start combining the number of alleged victims they failed to protect and the report essentially says Baylor screwed up in its Title IX obligations.
1) I have conducted student hearings and am pretty well versed in the judicial hearings and findings processes at a few different universities (including Baylor and TU) AND 2) I have been in the room when a Title IX hearing was going on as a victim support advocate so I speak from knowledge of the processes and their designs.
While most would not consider this an NCAA matter, other than the length of time that the situation at Baylor was permitted to persist, how is this any different than what happened at Penn State? Should the NCAA ban Baylor from bowl games for 2 years and take away 10 scholarships each of the next 3 years?
Bla, I feel like that puts an unnecessary burden on an 'attacker' who under the system now in place is considered guilty until proven innocent. What if the accusations against a student happen to be false?
You just banned him or her from the library, the gym, any classes they may have near a certain student, etc... If they were proven innocent, then the 'attacker' should have a nice lawsuit on their hands. Honestly, I'm in favor of letting the police (specifically detectives) do their job. There's no one at a good deal of universities who is legitimately skilled in the right way to carry out a criminal investigation.
If the 'victim' would like to keep the alleged perpetrator away, they should receive help getting a restraining order from the justice system when they file charges.
You just banned him or her from the library, the gym, any classes they may have near a certain student, etc... If they were proven innocent, then the 'attacker' should have a nice lawsuit on their hands. Honestly, I'm in favor of letting the police (specifically detectives) do their job. There's no one at a good deal of universities who is legitimately skilled in the right way to carry out a criminal investigation.
If the 'victim' would like to keep the alleged perpetrator away, they should receive help getting a restraining order from the justice system when they file charges.
Thank you for your incite, but your kind of proving my point.
What Tulsa did was assume Swilling was guilty and levy a punishment, and then go back and do an investigation. He was eventually cleared, but he had already been punished (banned from the team, prevented from free movement on campus, etc.).
The case is well summarized in the Order throwing the accusers claims against TU out of Court. It found that the University acted appropriately in taking the accusations seriously and conducting an investigation and hearing. I don't think Danny Manning was any part of that beyond his testimony, just as Briles was no part.
Http://www.assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2804226/Tulsa-Order.pdf
You are holding that out as the proper course of action, and the part about taking it seriously and investigating while protecting the victim is very admirable. But... it doesn't sit right with me to punish the accused before you even investigate. That's assuming guilt based on an accusation.
Universities have an obligation to take these allegations seriously above and beyond a criminal investigation. The accused has a constitutional right of being presumed innocent until granted due process. Balancing those two things is a great difficulty, but we consistently want to favor destroying the accused (see, e.g., Swilling, Duke Lacrosse, the Virginia frat...). The victim has rights, so does accused. And the accused wins in a tie (burden is on the accuser).
You acknowledge that Briles wasn't supposed to head the investigative body. His charge was to accept their findings. Are you advocating that a football coach is obligated to destroy anyone accused of sexual assault until proven innocent?
I ask again, what did Art Briles do? I'm not arguing he has clean hands, I don't know. But thus far no one has really said what it is that he did wrong other than be the head coach of horrible and criminal people.
What Tulsa did was assume Swilling was guilty and levy a punishment, and then go back and do an investigation. He was eventually cleared, but he had already been punished (banned from the team, prevented from free movement on campus, etc.).
The case is well summarized in the Order throwing the accusers claims against TU out of Court. It found that the University acted appropriately in taking the accusations seriously and conducting an investigation and hearing. I don't think Danny Manning was any part of that beyond his testimony, just as Briles was no part.
Http://www.assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2804226/Tulsa-Order.pdf
You are holding that out as the proper course of action, and the part about taking it seriously and investigating while protecting the victim is very admirable. But... it doesn't sit right with me to punish the accused before you even investigate. That's assuming guilt based on an accusation.
Universities have an obligation to take these allegations seriously above and beyond a criminal investigation. The accused has a constitutional right of being presumed innocent until granted due process. Balancing those two things is a great difficulty, but we consistently want to favor destroying the accused (see, e.g., Swilling, Duke Lacrosse, the Virginia frat...). The victim has rights, so does accused. And the accused wins in a tie (burden is on the accuser).
You acknowledge that Briles wasn't supposed to head the investigative body. His charge was to accept their findings. Are you advocating that a football coach is obligated to destroy anyone accused of sexual assault until proven innocent?
I ask again, what did Art Briles do? I'm not arguing he has clean hands, I don't know. But thus far no one has really said what it is that he did wrong other than be the head coach of horrible and criminal people.
Last edited:
I'm not sure we need to worry about Montgomery wanting any part of that mess. Todd Graham probably even hasn't always wanted to live in Waco, right CI?
I think the risks of an accused being truly guilty are too great for a university and an athletics program to not proceed under that assumption by removing the accused from the field or court. The alternative is worse, IMO. This isn't a court of law.
I think the risks of an accused being truly guilty are too great for a university and an athletics program to not proceed under that assumption by removing the accused from the field or court. The alternative is worse, IMO. This isn't a court of law.
Hmmmm... Baylor's basketball program goes crazy after modest success... The football program goes crazy after modest success... I'm detecting a pattern.
It's pretty obvious that they don't belong in the big 12.... This wouldn't even draw a headline in Norman.
It's pretty obvious that they don't belong in the big 12.... This wouldn't even draw a headline in Norman.
This surprises me based on your political leanings.
Is keeping Winston and Oakman on the field worth keeping Birt on the court? I think not.
Criminal proceedings are a different discussion.
Admittedly. I'm all over the place hahaha
I just don't trust school administrators at all. Especially not to determine guilt and innocence as well as punishment. I've seen them screw that up so many times I've lost count.
Again, you are using terms like guilty or innocent when the process in universities is separate from the legal process. TU did what it needed to do to protect the rights of the reporting student. And I am not sure that the suspension for Swilling was a part of the university process as much as it was an after effect put into place by Manning and Gragg. In today's over-litigious society, universities will always err on the side of caution in these cases. TUs case also came on the heels of the FSU case with Winston so you better believe they were going to be on the conservative side of that issue.
On Briles, he was fired for essentially the same thing Jum Tressel was fired for. By not saying anything to his AD or Baylor's judicial affairs ornTitle IX coordinator, he was basically covering this up. As a student affairs administrator, reading where Baylor had gone wrong involved a ton of red flags. Every university in this country and especially FBS schools will now embark on a comprehensive review of their disciplinary and Title IX processes. Never should a football coach be asked to do that process or be in that situation just like I should never be in the film room breaking down game film and implementing a game plan.
The processes are not hidden either. Every university website I hit today has their student disciplinary process/hearing process and title IX grievances procedures easily accessible.
On Briles, he was fired for essentially the same thing Jum Tressel was fired for. By not saying anything to his AD or Baylor's judicial affairs ornTitle IX coordinator, he was basically covering this up. As a student affairs administrator, reading where Baylor had gone wrong involved a ton of red flags. Every university in this country and especially FBS schools will now embark on a comprehensive review of their disciplinary and Title IX processes. Never should a football coach be asked to do that process or be in that situation just like I should never be in the film room breaking down game film and implementing a game plan.
The processes are not hidden either. Every university website I hit today has their student disciplinary process/hearing process and title IX grievances procedures easily accessible.
I don't disagree with that. And to be fair, I'm probably a little bleeding heart on this for a conservative.
But I truthfully believe there are more unreported assault cases than there are false accusations. It's difficult to fix that in the criminal justice system. But I believe there's still some hope in amateur athletics.
Take all the free crab legs you want but for god's sake let's do everything we can to reverse this pattern of abuse.
I'm not certain that constitutional right applies to a private universities internal investigation.
I also struggle with the balance of presuming innocence and protecting the alleged victim in these cases where both share so many common areas. That's very hard to hard to balance.
I agree with Junkie that unreported cases likely outnumber false reports by a wide margin and to default to protecting the alleged victim is probably the appropriate course of action during the investigation but, I think you also must allow the accused a way to continue with their education during the investigation.
The legal system is independent. Universities only need to follow their document d and written due process procedures. Now those due process procedures have to have some substance, but courts have given universities a lot of leeway in how they run their institutions. Schools get away with a lot more in their policies because of the "educational process".
Why would Herman pass up South Carolina and take a probable disaster in Baylor? If Herman leaves, it will be for a much bigger job than Baylor. Baylor would be a bad step for a climb up the career ladder.
Houston AAC/Baylor Big 12 It's a step up as long as there are no conference changes in between. You guys already think you're in the Big 12 I guess...
Baylor has a lot left over if they can stop the bleeding on 2017's class.
Baylor has a lot left over if they can stop the bleeding on 2017's class.
Trying to understand your counterpoint. I said he turned down USCe and you said Big 12 is higher than AAC. Isn't the SEC higher than the AAC too? Isn't the SEC higher than the Big 12?
At least with USCe, Herman knew what he might be walking into. With Baylor, is he walking into NCAA violations, loss of scholarships, post season bans, tougher administration standards on athletes? Who knows? USCe was a lot better situation than Baylor right now
Last edited:
USC is not a bad job, neither is Baylor. I wasn't really comparing USC to Baylor,my apologies if my post accidentally implied that. But if you want to make comparisons...
Lou Holz & Steve Spurrier were not able to achieve great success compared to their past posts as football coaches. That difficult environment within the SEC, to achieve greater or equal success, might have had something to do with why he turned it down,
I haven't seen any mention of actions by the NCAA to penalize the program yet. They probably intend to try and avoid as much of that as they can with the moves they made with Briles and Ken Starr. If there is any major penalties coming from the NCAA over this issue then that's another story.
Lou Holz & Steve Spurrier were not able to achieve great success compared to their past posts as football coaches. That difficult environment within the SEC, to achieve greater or equal success, might have had something to do with why he turned it down,
I haven't seen any mention of actions by the NCAA to penalize the program yet. They probably intend to try and avoid as much of that as they can with the moves they made with Briles and Ken Starr. If there is any major penalties coming from the NCAA over this issue then that's another story.
Last edited:
Thats part of the point, no coach knows what, if any, penalties will occur. From the public report "The University has retained the services of Rick Evrard, of Bond, Schoenech & King, PLLC, and has made contact with the NCAA to initially discuss potential infractions and to offer full cooperation with any resulting investigation." So baylor definitely thinks its a possibility.
Obvious possibility is lack of institutional control. Also possible is impermissible benefits. In the report it stated that football players had different investigation procedures than the average student and that would change. Since these procedures helped the players remain in school and eligible to play, this can definitely be seen as being under NCAA jurisdiction even moreso than Penn State.
And considering Baylor had a major institutional control scandal issue less than 15 years ago with the cover up by the basketball coach of a murder, I'm sure that will be remembered even if not officially considered.
Hadn't read that item. Most definitely penalties coming over that one issue.
But they are reportedly going to keep the present staff for the next year. When they hire somebody, the person they hire, as well as the institution itself will either know what the penalties are, or have a pretty good idea of what they might be.
It seems an obvious choice but 1) why would they bring someone associated with Briles in and 2) Why would Monty want to go there and have to deal with what could be significant penalties to that program?
I can't see Monty having any interest, at least until he knows the fallout. Unless they just like living down there so much that the potential fallout doesn't matter. At this point I think that it's wishful thinking on their part. By next year that may not be the case.
Baylor board also says this...
https://baylor.forums.rivals.com/threads/gus-malzahn-under-consideration-for-baylor-hc.9918/
https://baylor.forums.rivals.com/threads/gus-malzahn-under-consideration-for-baylor-hc.9918/
Maybe the 3-4 million dollar raise he would get? Briles was making 6 million.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
🏈 Recruiting Tulsa has huge recruiting day with numerous portal additions- Latest: Chris Harmon