OT - New Baylor Lawsuit. | Page 4 | The Boneyard
.-.

OT - New Baylor Lawsuit.

Jimdish255 said:
Unfortunately this provides a great opportunity for the NCAA to slide the UNC scandal under the rug once and for all and then give Baylor a 1 year Bowl ban.
Expand ...
And they'll probably make it retroactive to 1987, too.
 
Jimdish255 said:
Unfortunately this provides a great opportunity for the NCAA to slide the UNC scandal under the rug once and for all and then give Baylor a 1 year Bowl ban.
Expand ...
Not sure there will even be a bowl ban... unless Baylor was having a bad year and wasn't going to make a bowl.

NCAA enforcement is dead against the big schools. The reason UConn got screwed is we fit under a black letter rule (and I do think there is something to the Emmert hate and JC wasn't a "beloved" coach). Go below "x" APR and you get "y" punishment. Granted they changed the rule on us, but it was a tangible objective rule that allowed an easy hit for the NCAA. Any principles-based rule, or anything that requires evidence, is a non-starter with the NCAA at this point. UNC will walk, Baylor will walk, PSU and USC would walk if their transgressions happened today.

Until the big schools themselves start pressuring the NCAA to enforce rules, nothing is going to happen. That's already what is going on. The SEC got pissed at Harbaugh (literally) moving into their backyard... so a rule got changed. Other than such a direct impact on an entire conference, however, the P5 conferences aren't going to let their schools make a big deal, because each conference has had a rogue program that should be on life support (UNC/Miami, PSU, USC, Baylor, the whole SEC).

Since I'm on a roll, I also don't agree with the general claim that when Baylor cheats, Texas State (or another small school) gets punished. The NCAA has left a lot of these schools alone since they don't get positive PR out of the punishment. Look at how all of the small schools that violated the APR got waivers. I think the AAC, MAC, and Big East teams are the ones that need to watch out. They are big enough for people to care, but not rich enough to make the NCAA's life miserable.
 
.-.
Trying to reconcile this:

ESPN reported Friday that NCAA enforcement personnel have interviewed former Baylor administrators and sexual assault victims at the school to see if any NCAA rules may have been broken. Because the Big 12 doesn't have an investigative arm, Bowlsby said the conference would defer to the NCAA on any inquiry into possible rules violations.
Expand ...

With This:

"The football program was a black hole into which reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared," the court filing said.
Expand ...

Does the second finding not make the answer to the first question self-evident? If NCAA rules do not expressly prohibit the above malfeasance what do they prohibit?
 
Jimdish255 said:
Trying to reconcile this:



With This:



Does the second finding not make the answer to the first question self-evident? If NCAA rules do not expressly prohibit the above malfeasance what do they prohibit?
Expand ...

Maybe in due time (or not)... lawsuit allegations do not necessarily equal actionable facts. The sooner the better tho' (can dream no?).
 
All we gotta do is invent some camera that women (and kids and elders) can wear on the top of their heads...
 
Butch said:
All we gotta do is invent some camera that women (and kids and elders) can wear on the top of their heads...
Expand ...
GoPro?
th
 
.-.
J187Money said:
I would add - that without targeting young women specifically, the best advice that I give (including to 45 year old married guys) is this:

If you proactively keep yourself out of risky situations, more likely than not you will avoid bad things from happening. This is not a cure-all, but rather common sense.

- If a 45 year old married guy spends his time on business trips hanging out in hotel bars till 1am, it is more likely he will cheat on his wife
- If someone drives home from a bar after a few drinks and is only "buzzed", it is more likely that he/she will get in an accident or get pulled over
- If someone goes to buy drugs in the north end of Hartford at 2am, it is more likely that they will get the crap beat out of them and they will get robbed
- If a college girl is out, alone, drunk, at 2am - lots of bad things can happen

What I talk to my boys about all of the time - is to be cognizant of the world and how it works, and what situation you find yourself in. Make good decisions. You can't control what other people do, so you have to proactively ensure good outcomes by managing your own behavior. That's life. I worry about outcomes. I'd like the process to be different, but I'm not god.
Expand ...
It's true that you can't control other people's actions. It's also a valid point that you can think about the risks of different situations especially involving alcohol or other substances. But in the end, the situations you cited just reinforce the mental framing that people who are in those situations deserve what's coming to them. We want the world to be an ordered, non-random place where the good are rewarded and the wicked are punished. Karma. That's okay (and very common) to want that world, but I think some people want to believe it so bad that when they see bad things happen they retroactively apply karmic logic, instead of questioning whether the world really operates that way.

On one hand, "control what you can control" is a reasonable, pragmatic approach to life and coping with a chaotic world. But I think it's worth challenging ourselves to ask is there anything we can do to influence the culture and maybe reduce some of the risks of those behaviors as well.
 
J187Money said:
You aren't wrong. And I have exactly those discussions with my kids. And they see the way I treat their mother and other women, so I don't set bad examples for them.

But I wasn't specifically talking about strangers. What I will tell my niece is this: being anywhere drunk at 2am other than being alone in your own bed with a locked door is an invitation to trouble. Because you can't control other people's behavior. And if you think you can trust some guy you are dating, someone from the dorm, some guy you met at a frat party that "seems" like a nice guy - you are sorely mistaken.
Expand ...
This. If you read my friendly rules Loop, you will see they are not just stranger danger. It starts with the premise most men are pigs. Add alcohol to the mix and you have a greater pig plus one impaired target. There is a reason bars stay in business and frats throw parties. The signals that are sent are real and they influence a man's decision along with opportunity. Most of my rules are avoid being an opportunistic victim. Most predators operate on signals (visual, behavioral or communicative queues) and opportunity (access, control, and risk avoidance). This is not 100% of the cases but the vast majority. Take the young jogger killed in NY. The one day her father didn't go with her, she is asssulted and killed on her route. Why? She was a beautiful girl, physically fit running around in yoga shorts and a tight shirt with nobody around. She caught somebody's attention previously, the opportunity arose, she was impaired by being oblivious to her surroundings, lacked the ability to defend herself against a stronger male attacker, and this young girl was murdered. Is this her fault? No! This should never happen and makes me sick, but it does. So, I'd rather have my girls safe than dead. The "knowing" vs. "not knowing" your attacker is statistically correct, but the inference draw is not. The overwhelming number of cases have the factors present I described in one way or another. Within that set, for college age woman, the overwhelming number of cases involve intoxication and the victim being separated from friends (leave in car, walk home alone, go off to a room).

Any way. These are the hard realities.
 
shizzle787 said:
I was just going to post this. This is embarassing.
Expand ...
Yep, but kind of tough for us to dwell on this given Vaughan.

Still, Baylor out and Cinci, UConn and Houston in?

(I know, I know)
 
.-.
FfldCntyFan said:
This is the most benign infraction that has occurred there and it is both comically and tragically ironic that it is the only instance they acted on immediately.
Expand ...

Rhule owned him... he had no other choice.
 
Jimdish255 said:
Unfortunately this provides a great opportunity for the NCAA to slide the UNC scandal under the rug once and for all and then give Baylor a 1 year Bowl ban.
Expand ...
I fear you are right. The NCAA has done nothing to a member who committed all kinds of infractions in men's and women's sports for over fifteen years! I can hear it now, "Hey, at least we're not Baylor." They both deserve the death penalty. The National Craven Cowards' Association will never do it. I am disgusted.
 
.-.
Why on earth did Rhule take this job? I wonder if he leaves after this year, or maybe even before this year...he's destined for failure at Baylor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
406
Guests online
8,577
Total visitors
8,983
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,302
Messages
4,430,799
Members
10,276
Latest member
swede23


p
p
Top Bottom