Kim Mulkey

[azfan]

Coach Mulkey has received a great deal of comment and some criticism on the BY. I'd like to make a couple of observations about her commitment to women's athletics and basketball in particular. This is separate and apart from her work leading and coaching her Baylor Bears.

Last year Coach Mulkey and Coach CTT arranged the Rumble on the Reservation a November 2018 game up on the Navajo reservation in Window Rock.

The background on this is that since arriving at ASU CTT has reached out to the native American community. We all remember Becenti one of CTTs early stars, a Navajo from Fort Defiance..

Part of this ongoing commitment is a game that's dedicated to bringing attention to the native American community. Usually the game in Tempe kicks off a couple hours before tip-off with booths and vendors and other cultural celebrations of Native American life.

Coach Thorne approach Coach Mulkey with the idea of playing a game up on the Navajo reservation at Window Rock. This is not an easy place to get to even for the Sun Devils. To her credit Coach Mulkey agreed and the game was held a year ago in November.

At halftime of the game both coaches were presented with Navajo blankets in gratitude for the game.

As a recent book Canyon Dreams ( I strongly recommend for a view of both the politics of basketball, Native American life, and Rez Ball) describes and most of us know native Americans love basketball.

The high school arena up at Window Rock for a small High School seats 6000. I was fortunate to get a ticket and arrive to 3 hours before game time. There were at least 2,000 people waiting in line for entry . If I'm not mistaken one of the officials in the arena said the line started to form at 8.

For those of you unfamiliar with geography up in northeastern Arizona in November there's typically a cold biting wind blowing through and on this game day that was the case.

Baylor had really nothing to gain from coming to this game and a great deal to lose. In fact ASU outplayed theeventual national champs for the first 17 minutes of the game.

This is a very personal example of Coach Mulkey demonstrating a commitment to advancing women's basketball by showing up. I'll always be grateful to her and CTT for arranging this game and having the opportunity to watch in person the number one team in the nation and national champ. It was an amazing day of basketball.

 

[DEpup]

I think Baylor though had everything to gain from that as good press in response to their other sports related challenges with football.

 

[azfan]

Rumble on the Rez

ASU women head to Navajo Reservation to play game against Baylor

The ASU women's basketball team went to the Navajo Reservation to play a game. The Sun Devils have a strong connection with the Native American community.

cronkitenews.azpbs.org

 

[DefenseBB]

I think Baylor though had everything to gain from that as good press in response to their other sports related challenges with football.

I have been both a Kim critic and Kim supporter and while I appreciate snark as much as the next guy, Kim did NOT do this for the press.if her Baylor debacle on defending the school against the football scandal and then defending her comments before finally relenting prove, she is not one for “window dressing”.
She does have a handful of causes that she is very committed to and stays in the background on. So in short, you are dead wrong on this view you postulated.
Now if she would toughen up her OOC to promote the WCBB on the national stage more, that would be awesome!

 

[Mulder]

Coach Mulkey is a credit to Baylor and the game of basketball.
As evident, she has nothing against burnt orange.

 

[TheFarmFan]

It seems like this post speaks much more to the credit of CTT. It's great that Mulkey agreed to it, but it seems like the lion's share of the moral worthiness should be attributed to CTT, no?

And needless to say, some of Mulkey's comments in the past about sexual assault at Baylor, and her harsh treatment of Britney Griner's sexuality, suggest that, in fact, she may not be quite such a champion for women after all.

Love her as a coach, and boy are her sideline antics attention generating for the sport. But she is not exactly what I'd call a role model for women.

 

[azfan]

It seems like this post speaks much more to the credit of CTT. It's great that Mulkey agreed to it, but it seems like the lion's share of the moral worthiness should be attributed to CTT, no?

And needless to say, some of Mulkey's comments in the past about sexual assault at Baylor, and her harsh treatment of Britney Griner's sexuality, suggest that, in fact, she may not be quite such a champion for women after all.

Love her as a coach, and boy are her sideline antics attention generating for the sport. But she is not exactly what I'd call a role model for women.

Interesting perspective. I was thinking specifically about advancing the cause of women's basketball and recognizing the Native American community when I made this post. Definitely CTT originated both the ongoing support for the Native American community as well as the specific game.

Coach Mulkey was very supportive and bringing her team to this underserved location.

Hadn't really thought about splitting the praise in some way between the two coaches and programs. Nor was I thinking about Coach Mulkey or CTT's views on other elements in the women's movement.

I do know that coach Mulkey was very supportive of Brittney Griner during the incident during Britney's freshman year. She used that as a teaching opportunity and a learning moment for the freshman.

Baylor star Griner out 2 games after punch

Brittney Griner, the former Houston high school star who has become a dunking and...

www.chron.com

From the above article:


Mulkey said that she hopes Griner learns from her mistakes. “I don't believe this incident should define Brittney Griner — either as a person or as a player,” she said. “Anyone who has been around her knows that she's a great kid. Her actions (Wednesday) night were very uncharacteristic of her. Unfortunately, she let her emotions get the best of her, and that can't happen.

“Brittney is a special young lady. She is great for our game, and I believe she will learn from this mistake and will become a better person moving forward.”

I am aware of the background of the institution for which Coach Mulkey works. I always make an effort to be open-minded, tolerant, and non-judgmental of some of the deeply held beliefs that individuals might hold particularly when those views run counter to mine.

Your point is taken.

I do think coach Mulkey deserves recognition and praise not only for the rumble on the rez but for her ongoing efforts to elevate the women's game and to widen its appeal.

From the Baylor website:

Baylor University, or simply Baylor, is a private Baptist Christian university in Waco, Texas. Chartered in 1845 by the last Congress of the Republic of Texas, it is the oldest continuously operating university in Texas and one of the first educational institutions west of the Mississippi River in the United States.

 

[DallasBUFan]

It seems like this post speaks much more to the credit of CTT. It's great that Mulkey agreed to it, but it seems like the lion's share of the moral worthiness should be attributed to CTT, no?

And needless to say, some of Mulkey's comments in the past about sexual assault at Baylor, and her harsh treatment of Britney Griner's sexuality, suggest that, in fact, she may not be quite such a champion for women after all.

Love her as a coach, and boy are her sideline antics attention generating for the sport. But she is not exactly what I'd call a role model for women.

EVERY STUDENT ATHLETE BACK THEN KNEW THAT BAYLOR HAD RULES AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY. It was a UNIVERSITY POLICY. EVEN THE SOFTBALL PLAYERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE "OUT". AS SOMEONE WHO GREW UP 34 MILES FROM CAMPUS, I MYSELF AND MANY FRIENDS GREW UP GOING TO CAMPS THERE AND SOME OF MY FRIENDS WERE RECRUITED AND PLAYED AT BAYLOR. AS I AM NOT FAR OFF FROM GRINER'S CLASS AT BAYLOR.

SO THIS CRAP ABOUT HOW SHE HANDLED IT COULD HAVE GONE FOR EVERY COACH WITH ATHLETES THERE. BAYLOR KICKED OUT A STUDENT FOR HAVING " ESC STYLE PICS" ONLINE. THIS WAS DURING 09-13 SAME TIME GRINER WAS THERE. SO IF A NORMAL STUDENT COULDN'T GET AWAY WITH BEING OUT AND GAY THEN WHY SHOULD GRINER BE THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED?!

 

[JonathanXIV]

First, no need for all caps. And while I am not a fan of how Kim handled either the Griner "incident" as well as her sexuality, for me the far bigger issue is the completely tone deaf way she responded to her university systematically covering up sexual assaults on its students to protect athletes. Her initial response was offensive, and her subsequent apology was far short of what it needed to be. Not saying she should be burned at the stake, but it is a big strike against her when seeking to claim her as a supporter of women or a credit to her institution.

 

[TheFarmFan]

So then let me ask this - why was Mulkey recruiting Griner when Griner was open about her sexuality since early in high school? Why did she let her sign at Baylor knowing she was asking her either to stifle herself or else be in violation of school rules? It seems like defenders of Mulkey want to have it both ways - that she was supportive of Griner but also had her hands tied because of Baylor's avowed anti-LGBTQ stance...

From Griner herself, per ESPN:

"It was a recruiting thing," Griner said during an interview with ESPN The Magazine and espnW. "The coaches thought that if it seemed like they condoned it, people wouldn't let their kids come play for Baylor."

...
But Griner reiterated on Friday that her sexuality was an open secret at Baylor. "I told Coach [Mulkey] when she was recruiting me. I was like, 'I'm gay. I hope that's not a problem,' and she told me that it wasn't," Griner said. "I mean, my teammates knew, obviously they all knew. Everybody knew about it."

So I guess the only conclusion is that Mulkey and Baylor are happy to quietly violate school rules if it brings them a national championship? Because everyone knew, but no one wanted it to become too public?

And yes - I understand that Mulkey doesn't get to control Baylor's position on LGBTQ students. On the other hand, she's one of the top coaches in the country, and she could get a coaching job at just about any top program in the country. Choosing to coach at Baylor, and choosing to sustain an institution that is so anathema to such a large segment of WCBB and women's sports in general, is, IMHO, a black mark on her legacy. I don't ever bring it up unsolicited, but if people want to talk about how Mulkey is such an ambassador for the sport, then we need to confront the fact that she leads a program that denies the identity of a substantial portion of the players who comprise women's basketball.

 

[Centerstream]

Coach Mulkey is a credit to Baylor and the game of basketball.
As evident, she has nothing against burnt orange.

View attachment 49741

And that coat she is wearing at the beginning of the game is going to end 10 rows up in the crowd behind the Lady Bear's bench at some point. It's her M.O. and why many WBB fans don't like her!!!

 

[azfan]

So then let me ask this - why was Mulkey recruiting Griner when Griner was open about her sexuality since early in high school? Why did she let her sign at Baylor knowing she was asking her either to stifle herself or else be in violation of school rules? It seems like defenders of Mulkey want to have it both ways - that she was supportive of Griner but also had her hands tied because of Baylor's avowed anti-LGBTQ stance...

From Griner herself, per ESPN:


So I guess the only conclusion is that Mulkey and Baylor are happy to quietly violate school rules if it brings them a national championship? Because everyone knew, but no one wanted it to become too public?

And yes - I understand that Mulkey doesn't get to control Baylor's position on LGBTQ students. On the other hand, she's one of the top coaches in the country, and she could get a coaching job at just about any top program in the country. Choosing to coach at Baylor, and choosing to sustain an institution that is so anathema to such a large segment of WCBB and women's sports in general, is, IMHO, a black mark on her legacy. I don't ever bring it up unsolicited, but if people want to talk about how Mulkey is such an ambassador for the sport, then we need to confront the fact that she leads a program that denies the identity of a substantial portion of the players who comprise women's basketball.

From my initial post:

"I'd like to make a couple of observations about her commitment to women's athletics and basketball in particular. This is separate and apart from her work leading and coaching her Baylor Bears."

My praise for Kim Mulkey to both make the effort to come to the underserved Navajo reservation - a small town of Fort Defiance to play the ASU Sun Devils in a commemoration and tribute to Native Americans seems to have unleashed ancillary emotions.

I think at times it's appropriate to focus on the healthy and constructive which is what I was doing in praising and continue to praise Kim Mulkey.

Another thread might explore the lingering feelings toward Baylor and Kim Mulkey regarding the crimes committed by the men's football and basketball programs.

 

[Centerstream]

And some BYers might think that one positive action does not define her commitment at all.
All my post was pointing out is that I think her court side behavior might not demonstrate this commitment that you speak of.
Just my opinion, not a fact.

 

[azfan]

So then let me ask this - why was Mulkey recruiting Griner when Griner was open about her sexuality since early in high school? Why did she let her sign at Baylor knowing she was asking her either to stifle herself or else be in violation of school rules? It seems like defenders of Mulkey want to have it both ways - that she was supportive of Griner but also had her hands tied because of Baylor's avowed anti-LGBTQ stance...

From Griner herself, per ESPN:


So I guess the only conclusion is that Mulkey and Baylor are happy to quietly violate school rules if it brings them a national championship? Because everyone knew, but no one wanted it to become too public?

And yes - I understand that Mulkey doesn't get to control Baylor's position on LGBTQ students. On the other hand, she's one of the top coaches in the country, and she could get a coaching job at just about any top program in the country. Choosing to coach at Baylor, and choosing to sustain an institution that is so anathema to such a large segment of WCBB and women's sports in general, is, IMHO, a black mark on her legacy. I don't ever bring it up unsolicited, but if people want to talk about how Mulkey is such an ambassador for the sport, then we need to confront the fact that she leads a program that denies the identity of a substantial portion of the players who comprise women's basketball.

Well said...if only partially considering the complexities of the business of big-time college athletics.

I have reflected on my post before clicking the post button. The safer avenue would not be to respond these excellent questions. However I feel confident enough in the civility on the BY that I can pushback on the condemnation of Mulkey and provide a rationale for my earlier praise. I do this in the spirit of collaboration and attempting to build bridges between opposeing views.

Mulkey clearly heavily recruited Brittney Griner. Brittney Griner and her family could not have been so naive as to not understand the atmosphere at Baylor. By that I mean as a private conservative christian school the belief system and attitude toward non-traditional sexuality was not and is not secret. As an employee and representative of Baylor one might suspect or assume the coach Mulkey would share those beliefs. Griner selected Baylor. She had many other alternatives.

So your question I think it's a valid one. Why would coach Mulkey recruit an athlete who has a lifestyle or a sexuality at odds with her institution. Another question might be why would Brittney Griner want to attend an institution it was hostile to her non-traditional sexuality. There are any number institutions of higher learning that are well known for their inclusiveness and support of alternative lifestyles and sexualit. One can think of schools ranging from Oberlin and Antioch to Swarthmore. Brittney Griner's ambition however might not be fully realized at those institutions.

One possible answer is that the relationship between Baylor and Griiner would be mutually beneficial. Both would have to sacrifice but both might benefit. And that appears to be exactly what happened. I actually think that's extremely healthy, positive, and inspirational. A mutually beneficial transaction between two parties on opposite ends of an attitude toward gender and sexuality. The world would certainly be better place if we can have more of that.

D1 Athletics including women's basketball is a big-time business. The school is selling a brand and the players who come to those schools are trying to establish or extend a brand. This is a voluntary mutual beneficial transaction.

If we can agree the Griner knew or easily could have known what the philosophy was at Baylor toward alternative sexuality then we should respect her and her family's agency in weighing the costs and benefits of attending Baylor. They were not exploited or in any way taken advantage of at least not more than any other D1 athlete at a big-time program.

Another point I'd like to raise. As a libertarian I celebrate the individuality that each of us expresses through our live including our gender and our sexuality.

However I understand that there are people who have alternative views. Many of those might be represented at an institution like Baylor. I'm not sure how productive it is to be as hostile and judgmental of traditionalists as they sometimes appear to be of non traditionalists.

A thought. Perhaps those who celebrate a non-traditional sexuality or gender view of individualism could also celebrate those who have an alternative view.

The hubris associated with thinking there's only one view of the world is, to my way of thinking, non productive and dangerous.

 

[TheFarmFan]

However I understand that there are people who have alternative views. Many of those might be represented at an institution like Baylor. I'm not sure how productive it is to be as hostile and judgmental of traditionalists as they sometimes appear to be of non traditionalists.

A thought. Perhaps those who celebrate a non-traditional sexuality or gender view of individualism could also celebrate those who have an alternative view.

The hubris associated with thinking there's only one view of the world is, to my way of thinking, non productive and dangerous.

With respect, I think this is something of a false equivalence. I am not saying someone should start a private university whose tenet is to kick out anyone who the university deems to have a "bigoted lifestyle" or else require that said athletes submit to "rehabilitation" to have their views reformed. That would be the equivalent of "be[ing] as hostile and judgmental of traditionalists." I've never advocated for anything close to that.

What I am saying is that I refuse to heap praise on anyone who furthers an institution that negligently causes significant mental health damage to young athletes by being complicit in demanding that said athletes deny who they are and cover it up so that they can win national championships while quietly violating the very tenets that the university claims to stand for. Mulkey knowingly recruited an openly gay athlete at a university that denies her the right to be herself, and then forced that athlete back into the closet for four years while happily winning trophies due to her participation on behalf of that unviersity. In that sense, what Kim did was opportunistic at best and deeply harmful at worst. Based on Griner's recounting of her time at Baylor, it sounds very much like the latter.

Moreover, I would push back against the idea that Mulkey, a highly compensated, trained, and experienced adult professional, and Griner, a not-yet-adult teenager trying to figure out her sexuality, were at an equal level in determining whether Baylor was an appropriate fit for Griner given Griner's emerging sexuality. For all we know (and we don't), Griner's family could have thought that Baylor and its intolerance of LGBTQ athletes might "straighten her out" (pardon the pun). Or she might have felt like staying close to home would be best for her, and that Baylor was the better of two-non-optimal in-state options. Or any of a number of considerations that factor into how 16- and 17-year-olds make decisions.

ETA: Oh, and to put a cherry on top of it, apparently Baylor committed "multiple" recruiting violations when recruiting Griner, including "impermissible contact" with both Griner and her family. Which means that for all we know, Griner felt a lot of pressure - from both her family and Mulkey, whose daughter was on Griner's AAU team - to pick Baylor, and may even have done so before she knew she was gay, since she claimed to commit to Baylor "early in the recruiting process." As a result of her violations, Mulkey had a number of sanctions leveled on her including the loss of several scholarships and a multi-month ban on any contact with recruits...

 

[azfan]

With respect, I think this is something of a false equivalence. I am not saying someone should start a private university whose tenet is to kick out anyone who the university deems to have a "bigoted lifestyle" or else require that said athletes submit to "rehabilitation" to have their views reformed. That would be the equivalent of "be[ing] as hostile and judgmental of traditionalists." I've never advocated for anything close to that.

What I am saying is that I refuse to heap praise on anyone who furthers an institution that negligently causes significant mental health damage to young athletes by being complicit in demanding that said athletes deny who they are and cover it up so that they can win national championships while quietly violating the very tenets that the university claims to stand for. Mulkey knowingly recruited an openly gay athlete at a university that denies her the right to be herself, and then forced that athlete back into the closet for four years while happily winning trophies due to her participation on behalf of that unviersity. In that sense, what Kim did was opportunistic at best and deeply harmful at worst. Based on Griner's recounting of her time at Baylor, it sounds very much like the latter.

Moreover, I would push back against the idea that Mulkey, a highly compensated, trained, and experienced adult professional, and Griner, a then-17-year-old trying to figure out her sexuality, were at an equal level in determining whether Baylor was an appropriate fit for Griner given Griner's emerging sexuality. For all we know (and we don't), Griner's family could have thought that Baylor and its intolerance of LGBTQ athletes might "straighten her out" (pardon the pun). Or she might have felt like staying close to home would be best for her, and that Baylor was the better of two-non-optimal in-state options. Or any of a number of considerations that factor into how 17-year-olds make decisions.

Thank you very much for thoughtfully and civilly taking time to respond to my comment. I think the essence of a civil society is an effort to truly try to understand.


Clearly this is a sensitive topic for you which is embroiled in a set of deeply held emotions. Certainly I respect that.

Let me clarify one point before moving on. In your immediate response you mentioned heaping praise on an institution. If you'll take a moment to reread my initial post you'll see that I wasn't heaping praise but I was voicing praise for Kim Mulkey as the coach of Baylor. I think this is an important distinction and I wasn't in any way making an effort to praise Baylor, a private conservative christian institution.

I didn't clearly or sufficiently communicate the underlying rationale for my post and I want to thank you for the time and energy you invested in making a civil critique and response.

I'm arguing essentially for tolerance.

Let me set aside for a second your obvious concern with power and balances.

My praise for Coach Mulkey was for advancing women's basketball. Coming to the Navajo reservation and CTT in a celebration that included indigenous culture and their affection for basketball I thought and continue to think of as praiseworthy

If you go back and re-read my response I carefully tried to include Brittney Griner within the confines and context of her family. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be surrounded by a family that has the time energy and ability to provide thoughtful support. I made the assumption that Griner came from such a family so that she would be receiving advice and consent because certainly no 17 or 18 year old unfortunately could be expected to take the time and energy to think about the mission statement of a private, in this case conservative christian school.

I respect the individual's agency. What you label as a false equivalence I see as the most important fulcrum of a free and liberal society. That is, in the absence of coercion, that the decisions of an individual should be respected.You have intimate knowledge of this particular situation and the relationship between coach Mulkey, Brittney Griner, and the environment. I have confidence in the ability of individuals to choose - they know better than anyone else what they want and what they need.

After rereading your response and thinking about your point of view I wonder if you might be able to step back and consider whether this was a mutually beneficial voluntary transaction between two parties that hold significant ideological and spiritual differences.

If that is in fact the case could you see how someone like myself who would find this to be positive, healthy and inspirational? Not that you have to agree with my view but can you see how areasonable well-intentioned person could hold that view?

It is when we reach beyond these differences to try to collaborate that we really do tend to grow as individuals. Just as we would not harshly judge Brittney Griner for a punch that broke an opponent's nose we should have the same tolerance and consideration for others.

We live in a world of difference. I can also see why it can be very very hard to step out of perspective her paradigm to try to understand another point of view particularly if you judge it to be bad or immoral.

While I do not belong to an organized religion I try to lead a good life. Part of that includes a sense of humility and I hope an ongoing effort to understand other points of view. My sympathy and support as I said in my previous post are for the individual. As a libertarian I do support choice.

So those who have been labeled the other or who have been marginalized have my sympathy and support. At the same time I try to be tolerant and understanding. Organized religions have a set of dogma and believe many of which I don't understand or agree with. But individuals who hold an authentic belief and set of perspectives certainly are not to be judged. Just as I would hope they wouldn't judge me with a ferocity and intensity I'm not sure how productive it is to judge them in that matter.

That said, clearly you hold a passionate and deeply considered judgement of Baylor and Kim Mulkey. You're not alone in that judgment. While I'm not comfortable in the role of a judge I do certainly appreciate your point of view, in a way it's ironic because I would guess that you and I would hold a similar set of perspectives and views on the freedom of the individual to express themselves not only through their sexuality but through their ideology.

I make every effort to extend that freedom to others particularly those with whom I disagree.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Azfan, I appreciate you thoughtfully engaging on this issue, and maybe in some other circumstances, I could reach the view you hold below:

If that is in fact the case could you see how someone like myself who would find this to be positive, healthy and inspirational?

In this particular case, I just can't find it to be positive, healthy, or inspirational. Here's why Griner herself had to say:

“Big Girl, I don’t care what you are,” Griner recalls Mulkey telling her, via The Slate. “You can be black, white, blue, purple, whatever. As long as you come here and do what you need to do and hoop, I don’t care.”

Apparently that did not turn out to be the case. Griner wrote in her book that she was once out with her girlfriend on Valentines Day when someone spotted her and informed Mulkey. Griner said Mulkey later told her that she needs to be more careful about keeping her relationships private and watching what she puts on Twitter.

“The more I think about it, the more I feel like the people who run the school want it both ways: they want to keep the policy, so they can keep selling themselves as a Christian university, but they are more than happy to benefit from the success of their gay athletes,” Griner wrote. “That is, as long as those gay athletes don’t talk about being gay.” . . .

“I would love to be an ambassador for Baylor, to show my school pride, but it’s hard to do that,” Griner said. “I’ve spent too much of my life being made to feel like there’s something wrong with me. And no matter how much support I felt as a basketball player at Baylor, it still doesn’t erase all the pain I felt there.”

Think about that - she won a national championship, and yet what she primarily emphasizes is how much pain she felt there. Can you think of one UConn player who's had a similar experience? How about at Notre Dame? Or Louisville? Stanford? Oregon? Tennessee? Any other top WCBB program?

(And it sure sounds to me like a 16-year-old Griner was misled about what she could expect in terms of support from Mulkey, which is a far cry from two freely consenting adults committing to a business endeavor.)

But here's where I'll met you halfway: I think Mulkey did a great job advancing youth sports on Native American reservations, and that is definitely to be commended. And I'm glad CTT reached out to her to do it.

 

[azfan]

I see this is a very positive exchange. I would attribute to you the same sense of consideration and respect that I've made to extend as we discuss this case.

I would never be so presumptuous has to try to change a person's perspective or point of view. I'm appreciative that you extended to me that same consideration.

Our conversation I think illustrates both the importance of sports in general and the manner in which leaders and sport can have an influence on society in particular.

The incentives in D1 big time programs can lead to unexpected outcomes.

I have tremendous respect for the leaders of D1 programs given the conflicta but they must negotiate.

At the risk of being unnecessarily inflammatory I think I can argue that Kim Mulkey has been as important an advocate for women's basketball has has Geno Auriemma and Tara Vanderveer.

 

[DallasBUFan]

I'm sorry, I am a Gay person and every person has the right to their opinons. Baylor is one of the few that still require chapel and other like classes. So they teach the Bible. The Bible say's being gay is wrong and so that's what they follow. Waco is such a conservative town and anyone like Griner being from Texas knows Baylor is a Baptist School and will teach the teachings of the Bible.

If Kim was bad to these girls mentally damaging them then why do the top talent's continue to go there? Why do all of her former player's continue to go there and support them?

I will say it again. She made the choice and could have transferred and didn't. Why? If Kim was bad to her why didn't she transfer?



Also, Cheryl Reeves is notorious for jacket tossing also. So Kim is in good company!

 

[j66kicker]

Many of your Griner questions/uncertainties are answered in her book, which is a quick, easy read. I highly recommend it if you really want to understand her. I'll mention just a couple of things germane to your discussion:

- BG was aware of her sexuality fairly early in life (don't remember if this is in the book or from her talk at a book signing here in Phoenix).

- BG's father rejected her sexuality and she had a difficult home life because of it.

 

[DallasBUFan]

We can call it the Toss of Champions.

 

[DallasBUFan]

Many of your Griner questions/uncertainties are answered in her book, which is a quick, easy read. I highly recommend it if you really want to understand her. I'll mention just a couple of things germane to your discussion:

- BG was aware of her sexuality fairly early in life (don't remember if this is in the book or from her talk at a book signing here in Phoenix).

- BG's father rejected her sexuality and she had a difficult home life because of it.

View attachment 49750

I've read it good read. However, I like to alway's keep the idea two sides to every story and the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle. Some post above really stretched it and acted like Kim beat her down mentally and if were that bad she would have left. She loved her celebrity status at Baylor and all over Waco.

 

[j66kicker]

If Kim was bad to these girls mentally damaging them then why do the top talent's continue to go there? Why do all of her former player's continue to go there and support them?

I will say it again. She made the choice and could have transferred and didn't. Why? If Kim was bad to her why didn't she transfer?



Also, Cheryl Reeves is notorious for jacket tossing also. So Kim is in good company!

Brittney Griner does not do this. A couple years ago when I went to her book talk she said she had not even spoken to Kim Mulkey since she left Baylor.

 

[DallasBUFan]

Brittney Griner does not do this. A couple years ago when I went to her book talk she said she had not even spoken to Kim Mulkey since she left Baylor.

1 PLAYER. MY POINT.

 

[DallasBUFan]

Brittney Griner does not do this. A couple years ago when I went to her book talk she said she had not even spoken to Kim Mulkey since she left Baylor.

I also didn't say Brittany did.....Odyssey, Kalani, Kadeja Cave, Alexis Prince and Jones, the list goes on all show up yearly.