CraigS

2 minutes ago, ST413 said:

I don't think it was hearing about it  because yes that wa evident.  But like you said you hear about it all over the place. I think it was having the report come out with evidence so to speak and the aftermath as well.  Like I have said before now that there is a "report", how would it look later in life if you are up for a job and your name is known as a football player at Baylor around this time.  Not something most people would want to be labeled as.

Not disagreeing, but...does it take a report? Is Florida State any better with Jamison..stealing, derogatory comments about women (with video) etc.....that was all over the news......no one was wanting out of those NLI . ... the difference - No coaches were fired. 

Just saying, IMO - I call BS on any reason other than Briles getting fired as the reason players are wanting out of their NLI...that's all...just MY opinion only.

My only reason to get involved in this conversation is to say this.....the Baylor situation is not unique. This culture of protecting the male athletes (particularly football players) of sexual misconduct runs rampant....be it HS, NCAA, NFL, etc. 

To claim "I didn't know" is juvenile at best, it may be worse at some schools than others, some may get caught, others not....but it is out there. If players cared about this topic, they would self report from within the program...these "kids" have the power to make an impact by disowning or reporting fellow players known to participate in this behavior......but they do not. IMO, they aren't the rapist, but they are enabling the culture to continue by staying silent. AND - stating you don't want to enroll AFTER the fact it went this big....doesn't mean much other than you are protecting you own self interest, not that of the REAL victims.

1 hour ago, ST413 said:

The big thing I see on Baylors part was trying to hide accusations or keep such for being made.  You have the knowledge in the local case but I didn't see any coverup just some things that could have and should have been handled better..

Correct, no cover-up by SISD. Just a similar coach (room mates) with no discipline that let me know BOLDLY, he was a "foot-ball coach" and he had sons....and of course no effort during or after to apply any discipline, in fact even after a restraining order.... tried to have him slipped into the school (off limits per restraining order) to have his senior pictures taken. Only after "others" informed me of the intentions and I made a big deal about it, on legal terms pertaining to SISD, did it not take place. I only bring this back up because it is a culture to protect the "superstars" and their entitlements and of course Briles and company are 2 peas... when it comes to lack of discipline. So playing for one is no different than playing for the other.... I just find it hard to believe the events that "HE" may have just heard about (but been around a long time) is the main reason for not wanting to enroll.

1 hour ago, ST413 said:

I know you know very well how it all went down at Silsbee.  I am not arguing any point you made here except for that last statement.  As for what I have been told one players decision to be removed from Baylor is largely a part of these findings.  Did Briles removal play a part as well, I am sure it did.

 as others have mentioned....this is nothing new, this information has been out there for quite awhile......No one - Me, you or anyone other than the kid KNOWS his reasoning for not wanting to enroll......but it is NOT because this is something new....one might have to admit to having not done their research .... but, the only thing "new" is Briles is out a job due to what's been going on for a while.

On 6/10/2016 at 10:45 PM, ST413 said:

Definately not a joking matter.  And one the issue wasn't that school officials tried to cover up the incident, the issue was how to handle it while the case was untried.  Remember in this country even those accused of such acts are innocent until proven guilty.  Were  mistakes made or were there things that could have been handled better, of course.   But the big difference in that and Baylor is that during that school year the accusations and charges had been made but no official outcome had come out yet hence the school was in a tough spot. In Baylors case that official outcome has just come out and now after that outcome and its effects is when these young men are wanting out of their letters of intent.

Not much difference at all really. No "charges" were brought against the Baylor players until after they were no longer players at Baylor. It is said that Baylor failed to investigate. Well, the police were investigating, why did Baylor have to investigate? Well, that's the same thing Silsbee said, the police and DA's office were handling the case, there was nothing the school could do, per se without any "charges".

With that said, in Silsbee's defense, once the DA's office screwed it up, it did limit the schools "legal" ability toward the accused. UNTIL, the special prosecutor did get an indictment, by that point the player was no longer a student at SHS (the same as at Baylor) However, like so many now want to blame Baylor for not doing more....the same could be said of Silsbee.

ALSO, whereas the connection mentioned by others....Briles and the former SHS AD were roommates during their college careers...and it is believed that the former AD was in some way going to benefit from that relationship had Briles remained as HC at Baylor........it is also said the lack of discipline at Baylor by Briles is the cause of said culture....it is also said that the lack of discipline at SHS was the reason for the resignation of the former HC/AD of SHS.......

With that said....I might know a little about exactly how this went down at SHS! 

AND, Those wanting to bail on Baylor now has NOTHING to do with the situation going on there EXCEPT that Briles is gone.

Disclaimer: This culture of blame the victims and protect the superstar athletes is not limited to Baylor and/or SHS. It is a national problem (all sports , mostly football), these 2 schools at their respective levels just got caught and got more publicity.

- carry on

and hopefully won't be, I'm just getting started on paying my fair share of $40M (or whatever it is) for a new school.....between increase in taxes on a home and commercial property....they can play on grass.

On 6/9/2016 at 4:57 PM, Dick Vitale said:

He didn't run anywhere...he STOOD for what he believed in.

You can split hairs all you want....when a person shuns, avoids, runs from (literally), fails to live up to, etc, they are "running" from their responsibilities.........and in doing so, it's very UN-American.

I noticed Louisville recognized his widow at the game yesterday, the players had "Ali" on the sides of their cap......I never cheered so loud when UCSB hit the walk off grand slam in the bottom of the 9th to send the #2 team in the land packing........Cassius Clay was a loud mouth muslim draft dodger....nothing more!

As far as "standing" for what he believed in......so are the pedophiles ... doesn't make them "good" people.

10 hours ago, baddog said:

Again I'll ask.....what good is it to be on a list? This guy in Orlando was on a list and so was the guy and his wife in San  Bernadino. So, we know who they are and we put them on a list. Guess it's something good to throw out there after a massacre......"We had an eye on them".

Reminds me of the commercials......I'm not a security guard, I'm a security monitor, I don't stop robberies, I let you know when there is one....There's a robbery.........or the insecticide inspector, not killing the termites, letting you know there's a problem....as the person falls through the stairway....There's a problem....it goes on to say... what good does it do to identify there's a problem, if you're not going to do anything about it.....so we've become "Terrorist Monitors" it seems........

30 minutes ago, Dick Vitale said:

Ali never ran for president...

You're correct...just his responsibilities, whether he agreed with them or not.

1 hour ago, PhatMack19 said:

I bet we will start seeing more of the top players not signing LOI's.  The higher rated players will have a little more leeway with this, but why sign something that binds you to a school when you don't have to?

"If you don't have to" that is the problem. If you want the guaranteed money (scholly) then you "have to". If they hold out as a walk-on there may not be any money left in that class budget. 

I suppose some coaches could hold some money back just in case, but I doubt that happens very often. Not to mention, I'd guess more times than not, most of these kids can't afford to walk-on.......play with fire - you will get burnt. 

I'm more app to agree with GCMPats visit, make an informed decision as best you can, sign LOI and go get a free education. If you don't like it, move on, just understand, that life has rules, learn to live by them and with them...it won't get any better as you enter the rest of your life after sports.

Good riddance, but it does explain the actions of certain others dealing with similar circumstances, being room mates and all.

"My name is Nobody" is one of I think several, If I remember correctly "Nobody is still my name" is another one in that series....anyway, really funny westerns.

34 minutes ago, BC is back said:

Ready to see that WOS and BC game! People might doubt me but this game is going to come down to the wire mark my words on that one.

Marked - now that gives you a .00000001% chance to join KJ Dad in the "I told you so" category...

69 Ford Bronco

Any of the classic sports movies (at least in my mind), in no particular order.

Miracle, Friday Night Lights, Hoosiers, League of their own, Rudy, Remember the Titans, Glory Road, Eight Men out, Money ball, The Natural, Tin Cup, Field of Dreams........

15 hours ago, Whoa said:

Craig, I must ask do you really believe Admin are dumb?  By definition you must have at least a Masters.  I know it is popular for rednecks to dog teachers, admin, etc...but disagree in a somewhat intelligent manner.

Showing your a#%

Yes I do. At least in the case of the ones that I compare to the fed gov. 

Pop tart shaped gun suspension comes to mind, expelling kids for wearing a tshirt with the American flag comes to mind, letting confused sick people that can't look in their drawers / panties and know what sex they are use opposite bathrooms, comes  to mind......and many many more of these same type stupid ass examples, come to mind.

With that said, my wife is a teacher, and for the most part educators are well meaning smart people......then there are the dumb asses like the ones mentioned.

I wouldn't have to "show my a#%" if the admins weren't such dumb a#%'s

41 minutes ago, Whoa said:

I can give one example FOR SURE I had a 11th grader enroll who was 100% black-  no doubt about it -   and mom said he was anglo  so that's what the Counselor's  did

put down the race they stated which was obviously wrong

don't know how the DMV or jail would view it

In most cases, the school admins are as dumb as the fed gov....that's why Cavness and company standing up for the "normal" people is such appreciated.

21 minutes ago, NDNation said:

So if you go into the DMV and you have male parts but you associate as a female, will they list female on your drivers license?

No, they didn't list it on their birth certificate, don't expect it on any other official form. What they don't get to choose is their sex...what they get to choose is how to act. 

On this subject, I am aware that some people (very very very few) ARE actually born with BOTH sexual organs....now those are the ones, the ONLY ones we should be discussing.

Just because you identify better with a group that you weren't born as, doesn't mean you become that....some blacks are accused of being "to white" (whatever that means) for identifying with what some believe to be white ideals. This doesn't make them white, or not black enough...it's just what they believe. They can't change their birth certificates, they can't check the "white" box under race. They can even bleach themselves (Michael Jackson) and it still DOES NOT make them white....

38 minutes ago, gohornets23 said:

so don't hold hands or kiss your wife in public, homosexuals find it disgusting, keep your weird hetero fetishes secret, stop throwing it in the face of the rest of world

lmao - I noticed you ignored the first part. Speaks volumns for your concerns......

On 4/25/2016 at 2:53 PM, gohornets23 said:

Invasion of whose privacy? The entire town of Port Neches? I mean if they published names I could see that being a problem, but otherwise who cares. And yes, the idea is quite comforting, seeing as how I believe people should feel free to make themselves as happy as they want to be in this world, the only problem is that there are so many who have been brainwashed into being ashamed of completely human desire, they feel the need to lead a double life. Usually its those people who are the hardest on everybody else for their personal lives, kinda like how the most severely anti-gay people are typically deep down attracted to the same sex and lead horrible shame filled lives unnecessarily, 

Do not judge others by your own desires.

On 4/25/2016 at 11:00 AM, gohornets23 said:

Everybody knows its the super conservative people that have the most to hide. I find comfort in knowing that all over the town of PN there are "church ladies" walking around with their judging eyes that have a secret drawer of sinful freaky stuff

If they are married,  then there is nothing "sinful" about freaky stuff...the key part of you're comment is "secret" which is where ones sex life, desires, and preferences should remain..unlike the LGBT who want to flaunt it and shove it into the public arena for attention.

On 4/28/2016 at 7:28 PM, bullets13 said:

eating cake isn't a sin, but we're defending Christians' rights to not make it for certain sinners.  Drinking alcohol isn't a sin, but drunkenness is, and as you point out, drunkenness also often leads to more sins. It only makes sense that Christians would not be selling/buying/drinking alcohol with all of the sinning that is associated it.  I'm not sure what i'm making up.  As for my "agenda", if you can't see the irony and hypocrisy of a person who's in the process of sinning (drunkenness), at a party celebrating the result of sin (a child born out of wedlock), by his step-daughter who's only part of his family due to his and his wife's sin, (divorceX2)  trashing others who commit a sin he doesn't agree with... I'd say you're being deliberately obtuse, or your comprehension skills are as poor as you accuse mine of being.  

I'll tell you my biggest issue with gays as a sin. Most Christians, know they sin, admit to sinning, even if they are sinning and continue said sin....multiple marriages, child out of wed lock, adultery, etc........Gays, they won't admit it is a sin.....fine if you admit it is, and state boldly, I am a sinner and will willfully continue to sin, OR...I'm not a Christian, therefore I don't believe in sin........but STOP denying or acting like it's ok, just because two consensual adults are in love, and that makes it all ok.........the acceptance to gays IMO, is no different than accepting adultery and polygamy. After all all 3 of these pertain to consensual adults that "love" each other.

3 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

 

If it was just one guy, i wouldn't be labeling all Christians.  Truth be told, i've seen hundreds of Christians drunk, hundreds of Christians hating gays, dozens of Christians cheating... and those are just the ones that make it into the public eye.  But if you show me the Christian who doesn't sin, i'll be happy to amend my remarks.  

as to the second highlighted point, sure you can recognize others' sins.  but if you're devoting more energy to damning others for their sin than correcting your own, you dang sure are a hypocrite (and by you i'm talking about any Christian, not necessarily yourself).

On another note, i attended church 2-3 times a week from the age of 12 until i graduated college (and still do occasionally).  I graduated from a conservative Baptist college, and 24 of my college hours were earned taking Christian/Bible courses.  I also went to chapel while i was there twice a week for 4.5 years on top of regular church services.  So it's safe to say I'm well-versed in conservative Christianity and it's beliefs and teachings.  I

 

 

So what's it with you....just because everyone sins, no one can have an opinion of others sins? and/or...just because everyone has their own sin it doesn't matter what the sin is we should legislate that everyone be excepting of all sin? 

It's been said, they aren't hurting you, so why do you care? So what if was exposing your son or daughter with words or visuals of exceptance with  (fill in blank with something you hate) and he/she began to think it's ok...all the long you're trying teach them it isn't....and as you try to raise your child by your beliefs....society began to destroy your life by tagging you with a adjective ... homophobe, islamaphobe....sexist...bigot...blah blah blah....whereas all you're trying to do is teach your child to be the person you'd like them to be....

39 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

kinda funny how they can stand idly by as others around them drink, but have a coronary and start boycotting businesses when two dudes hold hands.

You and the rest of the liberals take bits and pieces and use it as a whole story or circumstance...for instance...you see one guy drunk, one guy cheating, one guy hating gays, one guy ...blah blah blah....then go on to tell the story about how "Christians" go around doing all these things. Yes, each their own, some will certainly have different takes, beliefs, and actions....that doesn't translate to "Christian" beliefs.........the things you mention are true, none should be tolerated or acted on......but that doesn't mean just because one is already happening we should allow all....it doesn't mean just because I to am committing sin that I can't recognize others, and be considered hypocritical. 

On another note: It sure seems the non believers claim to know more about Christianity than the Christians themselves..........the truth is...you don't know anything, you once again, pick and choose pieces to satisfy up your agenda.

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I assure you my "interpretation skills" are more than adequate, especially when no interpretation is needed.  However, i must ask, since you say that Christians would not assist sin to take place: are there not millions of Christians across the country involved in the selling of alcohol?   Lots of sin is derived from alcohol, but Christians aren't boycotting stores that sell it.  Why is that?  That's a sin that most Christians like to partake in themselves.  And yes, i understand that alcohol can be used without getting drunk, but what percentage of drinkers never get drunk?  The number is going to be tiny.  I know plenty of "good Christians" who drink as hard on Friday and Saturday as they pray on Sunday.  

And sure, they were just celebrating life.  But my "liberal agenda" has nothing to do with a DIVORCED man having a party for the birth of his grandchild that was CONCEIVED OUT OF WEDLOCK, getting DRUNK, and then going on a tirade about how "queers are ruining the country" and "throwing their sin in our face".  Which yes, they are putting their sin out there for everyone to see, but no more than the long litany of sins that my buddy was shoving in my face.   The irony wasn't lost on me, even if you choose to ignore it.  

selling, buying or drinking alcohol is not a sin, various activities that some "blame" on alcohol are sins....again, you just make stuff up to fit your agenda. 

If your friend never told you that his sin was better than the other - then YES, the irony was lost on you, because there wasn't any....you inserted your own interpretation (agenda) of that into the repeating of the situation.

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

How come you don't feel as strongly about out of wedlock sexual activity?  That one's not as bad as the others because you did it, right?

If I have to explain why 2 men having sex isn't the same as opposite sexes having sex out of wedlock in the context of my comment - GROSS, then we'll just leave it at that.

On the Christian side of things - yes, I did commit that sin. However, I assure you my parents (Christians) did not knowingly contribute to my sinful ways by openly allowing me to use their home for said activity.......oh snap, a very revealing moment for me....my parents, my very own parents discriminated against me........I now must commit suicide! 

Again, A) you have limited comprehensive skills - 'B) slow to understand - C) or just argue to argue....there is no option D