Anyone else hearing this is a possibility?
The Hines article today seems to hint it's a little more than the rumor mill...
The Hines article today seems to hint it's a little more than the rumor mill...
Briles as OC?
- Thread starter RealTUTypical
- Start date
I haven't really kept up with the coverage at all, but some Baylor folks I know were saying he was a fall guy.
That would be one hell of a pick up as an OC.
That would be one hell of a pick up as an OC.
Fall guy for the Board of Directors? I don't see how he could be a fall guy, he is not low enough on the totem poll. That just sounds like an excuse for people trying to expain away their wishing they hadn't canned him.
Unlike the US Government where a Lieutenant Colonel can be the fall guy for an arms for cash deal with a country you've prohibited such sales to in order to fund a contra group to overthrow a dictator (also against US law), no one would ever believe an assistant coach or quality control coach would ever have enough authority to take control of such a serious matter without the head coach knowing.
It's even better if everyone just takes the 5th, then No one has to fall on his sword.
Last edited:
Spoken like somebody who doesn't have a daughter attending TU.
Baylor has been proven to be a win at all costs school despite their Baptist affiliation just look at their sports department over the years. TU is greatly supervised compared to Baylor. I have no inside info on what TU will do. However, if they do give Briles a second chance make no mistake he will be walking the straight and narrow. As a fallout will be placed on Monty's shoulders.
As Gold and many know, I have worked in student affairs at Baylor, TU, and now at ORU. TUs process for for Title IX investigations and sexual assault/harassment is very thorough and leaves no questions. Individuals on either side may not like the outcome or result but it is thorough and fair. Many felt Pat Swilling got hosed, but TU took the necessary steps to make sure it would not end up in the same place Baylor is now. I do believe the young lady filed a Title IX suit against TU which eventually was dismissed.
Baylor was weird and I can't say what process athletes underwent because as I said in a different thread, athletes were a separate entity there. They didn't really live in on campus housing. I never met a football or basketball player or baseball or track or any other athlete when I worked there. The board there has way too much influence and say in day to day type of things...Moreso than any other school I've ever seen.
Briles would be fine here, much the same as I expect Haith to be on the up and up here. I honestly believe at his core Briles is a good person. I can't say that about other coaches I've met over the years. Burns was a snake oil salesman...DW was a prick, TG had many different faces he switched around. BB is one of the nicest, most genuine people I've ever met. Dave Bliss- I met him at an intro event at Baylor when he was first hired. You left the room feeling dirty and apprehensive because you basically knew he would do anything he had to in order to win.
**puke** The Red Dirt Tradition continues. Something you can count on year after year.
TU screwed up the Swilling ordeal. They let him continue his classes for two years, forcing the victim to leave the school. While there have not been any more high-profile cases in recent years, I still don't fully trust our system. I hope Dr. Clancy has a better mind for allowing such people at TU considering he has at least one daughter still at TU.
I'm really sorry but the article did not hint at anything at all. Just said he was there watching a practice visiting a friend.
What did TU do wrong here?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_7bad8fce-bc24-50e2-ab4b-2896e7400f7e.html
Is there a case against Briles and is he under NCAA investigation with possible sanctions?
If those conditions are in play we need to steer clear. If this is based on innuendo and another institition finding a scapegoat, he deserves another chance.
Honestly I only have the time and inclination to follow TU closely so don't know any particulars about Baylor. I am a TU fan and not a college sports fan in general.
If those conditions are in play we need to steer clear. If this is based on innuendo and another institition finding a scapegoat, he deserves another chance.
Honestly I only have the time and inclination to follow TU closely so don't know any particulars about Baylor. I am a TU fan and not a college sports fan in general.
Briles is not named in any civil case as I am aware of, and the title IX suits generally only name the university (and perhaps president and BOT). And the NCAA already said they aren't touching this case as they feel the title IX investigation the DOE/DOJ have initiated should handle it sufficiently (I feel the NCAA is making a mistake as this is a clear case of Lack of Institutional Control w/ regards to athletics). Right now Briles is clear and the only suit with his name on it is the one he brought against Baylor.
In Mondays sports section, Guerin Emig writes about OU's lack of "character screening "by letting someone like Dede Westbrook on the football team. His personal history of violence is awful and it is inferred that academics are not his forte. I am disinclined to agree with Emig's opinion that TU should not have Art Briles attending TU bowl practices because it sends the same message as allowing Westbrook enrolling at OU.
OU is making mega millions of entertainment dollars and this isn't the first time they have allowed football studs with dubious character baggage on their team...Barry Switzer lost his job because they looked the other way. Art Briles paid the price for lack of control in Baylor's program, however the complete story has not yet been revealed and having Briles at our practices as Montgomery's guest isn't even close in comparison to what OU allowed with Westbrook.
Westbrook was not convicted. I thought you were innocent until proven guilty in America. I could be wrong tho.
The morality comparisons by local journalists are alsome.
The morality comparisons by local journalists are alsome.
The purpose of the football team on today's campus is marketing the school on a national stage.
It's good that Coach Montgomery is sticking by a mentor and friend, who by most accounts, made some errors in judgment. However, I'm not sure this is the type of publicity the school wants or would tolerate on a long term basis. It makes you wonder if Coach is not long for the TU world. It's bad enough that they are making movies and TV shows that mention Tulsa alongside FSU, Baylor, OU and other schools with a checkered past on this issue. But Tulsa hiring one of the actors from those schools after being put on notice of some deficiencies in their sexual assault policies in the past, does not look good. And for many people in the decision making loop, football is only about appearances.
It's good that Coach Montgomery is sticking by a mentor and friend, who by most accounts, made some errors in judgment. However, I'm not sure this is the type of publicity the school wants or would tolerate on a long term basis. It makes you wonder if Coach is not long for the TU world. It's bad enough that they are making movies and TV shows that mention Tulsa alongside FSU, Baylor, OU and other schools with a checkered past on this issue. But Tulsa hiring one of the actors from those schools after being put on notice of some deficiencies in their sexual assault policies in the past, does not look good. And for many people in the decision making loop, football is only about appearances.
We're doing just fine without Briles. I dont want want people looking down on TU because of who they hire, which you know is going to happen. Whether he is involved in a suit or not, he knew about what was going on, theres no way he didnt. And decided to look the other way. Dont need someone with that character around here. We may get alittle publicity if we hire him, but it wont be the kind that we want
Conviction or not, the police reports are alarming. I mean, bite marks?! And then the state's witness (ie the victim) went MIA? OU allegedly didn't know anything about it?
The implication is that the victim(s) were pressured/threatened to shut up.
That program doesn't get the benefit of the doubt considering recent history. I'm glad the World ran the story.
The implication is that the victim(s) were pressured/threatened to shut up.
That program doesn't get the benefit of the doubt considering recent history. I'm glad the World ran the story.
Police reports aren't admissible in court. I don't know what happened and you don't either.
Domestic violence is a significant problem. I have represented both victims and the accused in these situations. I have a lot of stories. My personal opinion is to stick to the facts. Westbrook has no criminal liability in these cases.
Domestic violence is a significant problem. I have represented both victims and the accused in these situations. I have a lot of stories. My personal opinion is to stick to the facts. Westbrook has no criminal liability in these cases.
I agree with Gold in this instance. Domestic violence laws are now often being used as a weapon against a partner. Scratch yourself up, call the police, and your partner has to be removed or taken to jail. Often they think better of it the next day and recant. I can't say if something like this happened in this case but a police report taken at the time of the incident can't be taken as fact with no other evidence.
The fact that a witness files multiple sworn statements against someone asserting that he used violence against her, but then refuses to cooperate and therefore frustrates a criminal prosecution does not mean that the person is innocent or guilty. It establishes an inference that the acts occurred but that conviction was not possible under our system of criminal justice adjudication or that for policy reasons, prosecution was declined as not practicable. (Nobody gets re-elected throwing domestic violence victims in jail for recanting their stories).
His situation was different than Swilling in that there was only one incident known to TU. The "victim" had to be tricked into talking with the authorities and she declined to say that a crime occurred when interviewed. With Westbrook it is on going series of incidents with the same person who has family ties to him.
I don't know what that inference means. An inference in court of public opinion? Is that a thing?
You are right one thing, though. I'm still waiting for an accuser to be prosecuted for false testimony. Sadly, that happens, too.
You are right one thing, though. I'm still waiting for an accuser to be prosecuted for false testimony. Sadly, that happens, too.
It's not really about Westbrook. Joe Mixon wasn't convicted either. Were charges even filed before Tyreek Hill was cut loose in Stillwater? He certainly wasn't convicted at that point.
It's about OU.
Sing one song and your college career is over. Assault a female? No biggie.
It's about OU.
Sing one song and your college career is over. Assault a female? No biggie.
Last edited:
Gold this is in your field of expertise, however whenever I have been in depositions I sure didn't get the feeling of being innocent until proven guilty. I had to fight tooth and nail with a healthy dose of anguish. I know anyone can be accused of wrongdoing and its the attorney's obligation to defend his client, but a boy or man hitting a woman is the lowest form of incompetence.
+By the way, if you have Netflix watch "Last Chance U" about Eastern Mississippi Junior College football. Its sad, funny and revealing.
If you were in a deposition, you were more than likely in a civil case and it can bebrutal. But the burden of proof is also very different.
Yes, domestic violence is truly vile. Please know I'm not defending anyone here. I just don't like the inferences upon inferences where someone wasn't found to be guilty.
Last I dealt with this issue down there, Texas has different rules about expungement. In Oklahoma, his "record" could be cleaned, and in many cases, even so if he was convicted. He would be able to answer that he had never been convicted of a crime even if he had been in that scenario. I'm surprised that didn't happen here, but like I said, Texas has a very different way of handling these things from my limited exposure.
Baylor has had two of the most incredible scandals in NCAA history.
The basketball murder goes down as the number one of all time. Just horrible especially for a Baptist affiliated school.
GO TU!!!!
TU is obligated to make sure the female student is able to pursue her education without undue interference from the assaulter. If PS2 and the young lady did not share classes, PS2 would have been instructed that he is in no way to retaliate, threaten, or even do anything that could be construed as intentionally making her uncomfortable...and this would include PS2's friends. You don't have to kick him out of school but you do take reasonable measures to make sure she can pursue her education. Even if they did share a class, arrangements could be made that one or both of them could get their lecture notes and materials at separate times. I said it earlier, one or both of them might not like the terms and may not be completely satisfied with the findings, but that doesn't mean TU did not do its due diligence in making sure the young lady could continue to pursue her education at TU
The Westbrook situation/past is in line with what occurred with the player at Baylor who left Boise State after a similar incident and Briles said that the Broncos coaching staff did not disclose the info to Baylor (Boise St said they did). Why would you take that type of chance? Is it worth it?
I've said it many times...even if Briles didn't know, why didn't he?
Briles is the poster child for the "win at all cost" mentality. He brought in questionable players because they were good and looked the other way (at best) or covered up the sexual assaults of his players (at worst). For the record, I don't think Briles is a bad guy. I think he got caught up in big time college athletics. Got caught up in the pressure to build a new stadium and facilities. Got caught up in the fame of being a national coaching figure. Unfortunately, he is now caught up in a entirely different type of fame.
This thread got me curious about the Swilling case. The litigation against TU by the complaintant was dismissed on summary judgment (I think we discussed that when the Frontier article came out).
TU went after the attorney who disclosed information to Frontier for violating a discovery protective order. He's going to be sanctioned for attorney fees and they are significant. Moral of story: don't mess around with TU in court.
TU went after the attorney who disclosed information to Frontier for violating a discovery protective order. He's going to be sanctioned for attorney fees and they are significant. Moral of story: don't mess around with TU in court.
It seems to me, and you may be completely right, that Briles' biggest problem was a contract that was heavy on incentives. That is always my beef with the incentive contracts. If you have a coach that has a gambling debt or a wife who is a spend thrift or what not, suddenly there is a direct financial incentive to break the rules to get yourself clear of your financial problems. If memory serves, he wasn't making Stoops and Mack Brown money unless he won, but he was expected to have the same type of lifestyle and profile. This has to be a problem for more than one coach.
I cant speak for Oklahoma criminal court, but in Florida and certain circumstances in federal criminal court, so long as the witness is available to be confronted as a witness in court, prior sworn inconsistent statements under oath can be introduced so that the fact finder, whether that be the judge, jury, or in our case, public opinion, can, but is not required to, draw an inference that the incident the person is accused of did actually occur if the persons introduces any evidence or mounts any defense that tends to negate or discount the prior inconsistent statement.
For instance, suppose On three prior occasions, I exchanged text messages with three different girls. In each of those text messages I indicated that I was at home in my bed with a bottle of Boone's Farm. I also indicated that i was sore from the previous night's game where i was the winning goalkeeper and needed a massage. Each of the three women agreed to come over. Each agreed to get in bed with me. Each agreed to give me a massage. Two of the three agreed to have sex with me afterwards, though one changed her mind about whether it was consensual the next day. The third told police it was not consensual but refused to prosecute. If there is a fourth victim, and there is a trial, and in that trial, if I attempted to negate or deny that I invited the fourth girl over by text message, offered her Boone's Farm, or asked for a massage, then the prior statements could be introduced to support the victim's story or impeach defense witnesses. You have to give notice, disclose evidence and jump through other hoops but a pattern of behavior can be used to prove the existence of a fact in a criminal trial, even if no conviction is reached.
In the Westbrook case, he has had a series of incidents involving the same woman in which violence resulted when a particular subject was discussed. He has had another violent incident with a different woman or a similar subject. So while the court presumes he is not guilty at the beginning of the trial, it does not also presume that the prior incidents did not occur simply because there was no conviction nor does the court presume the instant case is not factual simply because no conviction was found in the prior cases. The rules of evidence limit the facts that a fact finder can hear until the reliability of the evidence can be established, as well as the relevance of the evidence. In the fact pattern, whether or not three previous women accused me of doing the same thing is not relevant because it does not prove or disprove a relevant fact at issue in the present case -- until such time that I attempt to introduce evidence or a defense that I did not commit the act I am accused of because I am incapable of committing or did not commit such a crime. However, if my lawyer asks the question on cross to the fourth victim, "Did you know my client hate's Boone's Farm? Isn't it true you are lying?" Then the State is free to march in the previous three women to testify that I gave them Boone's Farm and raped some of them.
So Westbrook and his girlfriend saying "Hey, he is a good guy and he never did these things and you cant say he did because he wasn't convicted" does not hold water. They both have an incentive to lie and they both can be impeached through their prior inconsistent statements and acts. In her case, she has made several similar sworn statements that he engaged in a particular pattern of conduct. It does not establish his guilt for those prior acts or establish guilt if there is a similar incident in the future. What those statements do accomplish is it creates a body of evidence that a reasonable fact finder can find that the acts mentioned in the sworn statements did occur. For me, I make that conclusion.
Evidence defeats the presumption of innocence. In the Westbrook case, there is a pattern of evidence. I have a problem with anyone saying he is a criminal. I have a problem with people saying he is guilty of domestic violence. I have no problem whatsoever with people saying that he engaged in conduct that resulted in not just one, but at least two, young women being injured and so upset that they contacted law enforcement. I have no idea whether there are additional facts that negate his guilt. The purpose of the criminal courtroom process is not to establish facts .. it is to admit evidence and assign blame. I can prove you did any number of things that are contrary to the laws on the books. That does not mean you are guilty of a crime, unless you intended to actually commit that crime and there is no available defense. If prosecution is dropped because the only witness is not available because she refuses to cooperate that does not mean that he didn't do it or that I (or a jury under certain circumstances) cannot conclude that the boy has a problem with putting his hands on women under certain circumstances.
In the Swilling case, there was a prior incident, but they did not rise to the level of a pattern of criminal behavior -- at least none introduced at the conduct hearing. In the one case that TU knew about before the incident that caused his suspension, the victim told the police that "she was taken advantage of" but declined to say that he raped her or anything inappropriate happened.
In the case involving the suspension, the victim declined to get police involved choosing instead to hire lawyers to attempt to get a cash verdict from the university after her parents learned of the situation. She solicited contact with Swilling over a period of days. He invited her over to lay in his bed and "hang out". They exchanged messages that were sexually descriptive and she did not indicate that his sexual advances were not welcome. She entered his bedroom and laid on his bed voluntarily. Her close friend was in the next room with her boyfriend and saw the girl enter the room. She later told police that she did not want to say that she did not believe her friend, but she also said she didn't hear anything coming from the bedroom that would incidate anything other than consensual sex occurred. Before the conduct hearing, the friend contacted Dean Taylor and indicated that she didn't want Dean Taylor to not believe her friend, but she didn't want to attend and testify at the hearing because she didn't want to miss class. Under these circumstances, I have trouble with people saying Pat Swilling raped her or engaged in a pattern of behavior of sexual assault based solely on the presented evidence in those two incidents. It is simply a different animal than the Westbrook situation. And I say that after prosecuting and defending dozens of domestic violence and sexual assault cases in criminal, civil, and dependency court.
FWIW I have more trouble with the comments above about being concerned about daughters at TU. On the contrary, I would be concerned if I had a son at TU. It does not take much these days to be accused of something that never occurred and have to prove your innocence.
Last edited:
Seems to me you should just advise your son to stay far away from the Boones Farm.
