Baylor needs to hire some good lawyers (Update: Briles Fired, AD and Starr Resigns)

Uh-oh, major charges, including LoIC: Baylor receives notice of allegations from NCAA for lack of institutional control



This is great news, though I doubt much will happen...

This is a useless penalty. Baylor is a shell of their former self. Now personally I don't care if they give them sanctions for 10 years, but it seems like piling on to me. NCAA should have done this two years ago IF BAYLOR VIOLATED rules. I am not taking up for Baylor I am saying NCAA should give themselves sanctions for dragging their feet or making up a new interpretation.
 
This is a useless penalty. Baylor is a shell of their former self. Now personally I don't care if they give them sanctions for 10 years, but it seems like piling on to me. NCAA should have done this two years ago IF BAYLOR VIOLATED rules. I am not taking up for Baylor I am saying NCAA should give themselves sanctions for dragging their feet or making up a new interpretation.

Investigations take time. The NCAA learned they can't just an outside investigation to punish a program after the Penn State scandal.

Not sure they made up a new rule or anything this time, either. By going with LOIC, they cover their backsides with a broad definition.
 
just when you think the Baylor story has finally faded away those morons find a way to bring it all back up.

Baylor had a Mole embed himself into local sexual assault survivor groups so they could feed info back to their PR firm.


https://deadspin.com/report-baylor-...tter&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter

This stuff borders on the D.P. Though, I doubt the NCAA has the will to issue another penalty like they levied on SMU.

It just seems like Baylor didn't just decide to take the punishment and move on.

They deserve the most severe penalties that can be levied.
 
45 minutes of deliberations? It takes that long to make introductions and elect a foreman.

The jury didn't just say the defendant didn't do it....they said there was no crime here.
 
The jury didn't just say the defendant didn't do it....they said there was no crime here.

I am not sure what you can do based on the article. You have Oakman saying everything was consentual. His friends saying that he openly said what he planned to do with her and her response was a smirk. She deleted texts asking him to go out to the bar. Based on the article there was more then enough reasonable doubt.
 
So what's the take from this? Baylor has major issues in this area but this guy wasn't part of it (at least not from a legal / criminal standpoint)? He's part of the legal / criminal issue but got away with it because his accuser had credibility issues? Briles et al. were run out of town when they needn't be? Briles turned a blind eye to what was happening - which may have been lawful but not moral?

Who knows?
 

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads