ESPN Eating Art Briles Alive

#2
#2
I didn't see GameDay but everyone else I've been listening too has been pretty tough on him this week.
 
#3
#3
Plecoptera said:
I didn't see GameDay but everyone else I've been listening too has been pretty tough on him this week.
Click to expand...

Yea they was saying they would never hire him again . He needs to learn some responsibility , he doesn't even understand the magnitude of what was done
 
#4
#4
He's going to be a head coach next season. A team like LSU may be shopping and if Herman doesn't want the job then its Briles
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
Best response came from Sam Ponder "I don't know how you accept the apology of a guy who won't tell you why he's apologizing"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 people
#8
#8
Yeah well he sort of deserves it, if Art had taken responsibility when all that was going down there would have been some measure of forgiveness.
Instead he played dumb and went into denial and minimization mode, he'll keep taking it on the chin for a while. And yeah, that was brutal.
 
#9
#9
This whole episode perplexes me. I fail to see how anything that happened is Briles fault. He had zero legal responsibility and he probably did what every player and player's parent would want their head coach to do by giving his guys the benefit of the doubt and trying to keep them out of trouble. I look at Briles as a victim in this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
VolunteerHillbilly said:
This whole episode perplexes me. I fail to see how anything that happened is Briles fault. He had zero legal responsibility and he probably did what every player and player's parent would want their head coach to do by giving his guys the benefit of the doubt and trying to keep them out of trouble. I look at Briles as a victim in this.
Click to expand...

I hope to God that my sarcasm meter isn't working this morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#13
#13
VolunteerHillbilly said:
This whole episode perplexes me. I fail to see how anything that happened is Briles fault. He had zero legal responsibility and he probably did what every player and player's parent would want their head coach to do by giving his guys the benefit of the doubt and trying to keep them out of trouble. I look at Briles as a victim in this.
Click to expand...

Do you also believe that Joe Paterno is innocent and did everything he should? Because it's roughly the same precedent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
Briles is a Texan and hasn't left the state to coach. I think a place like Rice would be fitting for him. Non-Power 5 that he could build up.
 
#16
#16
LittleCat said:
Wonder if UK is desperate enough to go after him. I'd go for him.
Click to expand...

I could see that happening if Stoops doesn't turn things around. And I don't see Stoops making that happen.

give_him 6 said:
Briles is a Texan and hasn't left the state to coach. I think a place like Rice would be fitting for him. Non-Power 5 that he could build up.
Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if he left the state. Rice could happen, maybe Houston if Hermann leaves.
 
#17
#17
Daloth said:
Do you also believe that Joe Paterno is innocent and did everything he should? Because it's roughly the same precedent.
Click to expand...
It's nowhere near close. It was fairly well established that Paterno had knowledge of what his employee was doing to minors that were under the care and supervision of Paterno's program while attending camps over a period of many years. Briles was presented with he said/she said scenarios presented by adults and he chose to give his player the benefit of the doubt. As a lawyer, I have to do this every day. I don't see the problem with it. In hindsight, it's easy to look back and say that he's a bad person because he took the side of a predator over a victim but at the time that he was presented with this information Briles had no way to know who was telling him the truth so he protected his player.
 
#18
#18
VolunteerHillbilly said:
It's nowhere near close. It was fairly well established that Paterno had knowledge of what his employee was doing to minors that were under the care and supervision of Paterno's program while attending camps over a period of many years. Briles was presented with he said/she said scenarios presented by adults and he chose to give his player the benefit of the doubt. As a lawyer, I have to do this every day. I don't see the problem with it. In hindsight, it's easy to look back and say that he's a bad person because he took the side of a predator over a victim but at the time that he was presented with this information Briles had no way to know who was telling him the truth so he protected his player.
Click to expand...

As a lawyer, you should know that Title IX didn't give him the option of taking the player's word and doing nothing. He was obligated to report what he'd been told. He certainly shouldn't have been negotiating with the accusers, or having a staff member do so.

Even if we ignore the Title IX issue, with the baffling number of players who were accused, several of them more than once, at what point does Briles have to ask himself if some of those cases weren't legitimate?

Back to the Paterno comparison, there were no witnesses until Sandusky had been plying his trade for quite a while. The first several times it was reported to Paterno it was simply the victims' words against Sandusky's. Was Paterno justified in doing nothing for a couple of decades? That's the case you're making for Briles.
 
#19
#19
Mika said:
I could see that happening if Stoops doesn't turn things around. And I don't see Stoops making that happen.



I'd be really surprised if he left the state. Rice could happen, maybe Houston if Hermann leaves.
Click to expand...
Briles won't be going back to UofH. He burned that bridge going out of the door by recruiting players to Baylor while still on Houston's dime...their still mad. Look for UH to go after one of TCUs OCs, Gilbert (OC at Texas) or promote Applewhite.
 
#20
#20
bamawriter said:
As a lawyer, you should know that Title IX didn't give him the option of taking the player's word and doing nothing. He was obligated to report what he'd been told. He certainly shouldn't have been negotiating with the accusers, or having a staff member do so.

Even if we ignore the Title IX issue, with the baffling number of players who were accused, several of them more than once, at what point does Briles have to ask himself if some of those cases weren't legitimate?

Back to the Paterno comparison, there were no witnesses until Sandusky had been plying his trade for quite a while. The first several times it was reported to Paterno it was simply the victims' words against Sandusky's. Was Paterno justified in doing nothing for a couple of decades? That's the case you're making for Briles.
Click to expand...

As a lawyer, I don't know that a football coach at a university that accepts federal funding is a "responsible employee" who is obligated to report allegations of sexual misconduct. At the least, there would have to be some factual determination that the victim had a reasonable belief that the coach was a responsible employee within the meaning of the law. I also recognize that what constitutes a "responsible employee" is, in part, a matter of administrative interpretation that will change from one administration to the next. As to the Paterno comparison, I assume that Pennsylvania has a law similar to Tenn. Code Ann. Section 37-1-403 that obligates anyone to report child abuse.

Like I said, it's easy to look in the review mirror and Monday morning QB the hell out of Briles.
 
#21
#21
VolunteerHillbilly said:
As a lawyer, I don't know that a football coach at a university that accepts federal funding is a "responsible employee" who is obligated to report allegations of sexual misconduct. At the least, there would have to be some factual determination that the victim had a reasonable belief that the coach was a responsible employee within the meaning of the law. I also recognize that what constitutes a "responsible employee" is, in part, a matter of administrative interpretation that will change from one administration to the next. As to the Paterno comparison, I assume that Pennsylvania has a law similar to Tenn. Code Ann. Section 37-1-403 that obligates anyone to report child abuse.

Like I said, it's easy to look in the review mirror and Monday morning QB the hell out of Briles.
Click to expand...

Given that Baylor is working their way thru settlements, I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to argue that Briles wasn't a "responsible employee."

But, again, setting all of that aside:

Even if we ignore the Title IX issue, with the baffling number of players who were accused, several of them more than once, at what point does Briles have to ask himself if some of those cases weren't legitimate?
Click to expand...
 
#22
#22
VolunteerHillbilly said:
It's nowhere near close. It was fairly well established that Paterno had knowledge of what his employee was doing to minors that were under the care and supervision of Paterno's program while attending camps over a period of many years. Briles was presented with he said/she said scenarios presented by adults and he chose to give his player the benefit of the doubt. As a lawyer, I have to do this every day...
Click to expand...
Sure, that's what you are supposed to do as an attorney.

Do you not think that a coach has some responsibility, or at least a sense of self-preservation, to investigate claims that could (and did) damage his team? Is it really wise for a coach to figure, Herp derp, I dunno, so I figure my player is in the clear?

--and there are a lot more people to blame, starting with the Board of Trustees at a church-affiliated school.
 
#24
#24
There is a very real possibility that the man knew of systematic cover ups of sexual assault and sexual assault accusations.

I want him nowhere near our program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top