Evidence trickles that could help the case to bring Art Briles back to college
BY MAC ENGEL
OCTOBER 19, 2020 05:00 AM
Baylor University was fined nearly half a million dollars, and one of its former regents under oath recently revealed more information that should alter the narrative, but the risk of hiring Art Briles remains virtually unchanged.
The former Baylor coach remains coaching a small East Texas high school in Mount Vernon, and, according to supporters, wants one more crack at college football.
During the offseason, Briles was offered an assistant position at a small college on the East coast that does not play on the FBS level. Briles passed.
He is 64, and the question remains will a desirable college football program put itself through 48 hours of social media hell to hire one of the most successful, and flammable, names in the sport?
With a college season that is unlike any in more than 100 years, the typical cycle of job openings may not function as usual. Coaches who were trending towards being fired may last one more season under the “COVID protection plan.”
I’ve said I would hire Briles in a hot second, but can understand why any athletic director does not. As one current Power 5 AD told me of the prospect of hiring Briles, “I wouldn’t, because I don’t have to.”
Does an AD and a university president want to even bother with the explanation that will come with hiring Briles?
Other schools have quietly kicked the tires on hiring Briles, from Houston to Texas Tech to Purdue, and all passed.
There is an increasing amount of evidence any AD or president could use to defend the hiring to the angry masses.
Last week, the United States Department of Education fined Baylor University $461,656 for various violations of the Clery Act from 2011 to 2016. Briles was the head football coach at Baylor from 2008 to 2016.
The Clery Act, which was signed in 1990, requires all on campus security and campus crime statistics to be accurately reported and maintained to improve safety.
Baylor famously reported zero on campus sexual assault cases in 2011, and two in 2012. It was another piece of evidence that confirmed that Baylor’s problems of handling sexual assault cases was a university-wide issue of denial, and not endemic to one specific department, or team.
Not long after all of the sexual assault allegations and Title IX violations came to light, the university implemented more than 100 new measures and protocols to address the problems.
Those measures were one of the reasons why the school was not fined more than nearly $500,000.
Last month, former Baylor University board of regent member, and one time regent chair, Ron Murff was deposed in the case of former student Dolores Lozano against Briles and Baylor.
The deposition was recently made available to the public.
In 2016, Lozano sued both parties for failing to respond adequately when she accused a football player of abuse. That original suit was dismissed by a Waco judge; the same judge permitted her to re-try the case, in 2018, under different allegations.
Murff was a member of the Baylor board when the school fired Briles in late May of 2016.
Under oath, Murff said, “I can’t say a specific rule [Briles] broke.”
He also said, “I think we, I knew when we [the Baylor board was] taking that vote [to fire Briles], that there were deficiencies throughout the university.”
Murff was asked by the lawyer representing Briles: “Deficiencies, not throughout the university, but in reporting and training to Art Briles. Did you consider that?”
“What I said was I knew that there was deficiencies in [Title IX] training throughout the university, and I understood that when I made the decision regarding Coach Briles,” Murff said.
The deposition lasted more than six hours. In reading the testimony, Murff’s deposition makes it sound like Briles was fired not for violating any specific university policy, but rather the number of allegations against members of his team that generated negative publicity.
There remains a suit of more than 10 Jane Does with similar allegations of mishandling Title IX claims against the University. Those cases will likely not see a courtroom until the fall of 2021.
According to interviews by the lawyer representing the defendants, Jim Dunnam out of Waco, the issue was never specific to the athletic department, but the university as a whole.
Then there is the matter of the NCAA investigation into Baylor for a “lack of institutional control,” as well as a potential show-cause penalty against Briles for failing to foster a compliant program.
A ruling that should have happened last year is not expected to be finalized until 2021.
All of this continues to alter a narrative, or maybe it does only in theory.
BY MAC ENGEL
OCTOBER 19, 2020 05:00 AM
Baylor University was fined nearly half a million dollars, and one of its former regents under oath recently revealed more information that should alter the narrative, but the risk of hiring Art Briles remains virtually unchanged.
The former Baylor coach remains coaching a small East Texas high school in Mount Vernon, and, according to supporters, wants one more crack at college football.
During the offseason, Briles was offered an assistant position at a small college on the East coast that does not play on the FBS level. Briles passed.
He is 64, and the question remains will a desirable college football program put itself through 48 hours of social media hell to hire one of the most successful, and flammable, names in the sport?
With a college season that is unlike any in more than 100 years, the typical cycle of job openings may not function as usual. Coaches who were trending towards being fired may last one more season under the “COVID protection plan.”
I’ve said I would hire Briles in a hot second, but can understand why any athletic director does not. As one current Power 5 AD told me of the prospect of hiring Briles, “I wouldn’t, because I don’t have to.”
Does an AD and a university president want to even bother with the explanation that will come with hiring Briles?
Other schools have quietly kicked the tires on hiring Briles, from Houston to Texas Tech to Purdue, and all passed.
There is an increasing amount of evidence any AD or president could use to defend the hiring to the angry masses.
Last week, the United States Department of Education fined Baylor University $461,656 for various violations of the Clery Act from 2011 to 2016. Briles was the head football coach at Baylor from 2008 to 2016.
The Clery Act, which was signed in 1990, requires all on campus security and campus crime statistics to be accurately reported and maintained to improve safety.
Baylor famously reported zero on campus sexual assault cases in 2011, and two in 2012. It was another piece of evidence that confirmed that Baylor’s problems of handling sexual assault cases was a university-wide issue of denial, and not endemic to one specific department, or team.
Not long after all of the sexual assault allegations and Title IX violations came to light, the university implemented more than 100 new measures and protocols to address the problems.
Those measures were one of the reasons why the school was not fined more than nearly $500,000.
Last month, former Baylor University board of regent member, and one time regent chair, Ron Murff was deposed in the case of former student Dolores Lozano against Briles and Baylor.
The deposition was recently made available to the public.
In 2016, Lozano sued both parties for failing to respond adequately when she accused a football player of abuse. That original suit was dismissed by a Waco judge; the same judge permitted her to re-try the case, in 2018, under different allegations.
Murff was a member of the Baylor board when the school fired Briles in late May of 2016.
Under oath, Murff said, “I can’t say a specific rule [Briles] broke.”
He also said, “I think we, I knew when we [the Baylor board was] taking that vote [to fire Briles], that there were deficiencies throughout the university.”
Murff was asked by the lawyer representing Briles: “Deficiencies, not throughout the university, but in reporting and training to Art Briles. Did you consider that?”
“What I said was I knew that there was deficiencies in [Title IX] training throughout the university, and I understood that when I made the decision regarding Coach Briles,” Murff said.
The deposition lasted more than six hours. In reading the testimony, Murff’s deposition makes it sound like Briles was fired not for violating any specific university policy, but rather the number of allegations against members of his team that generated negative publicity.
There remains a suit of more than 10 Jane Does with similar allegations of mishandling Title IX claims against the University. Those cases will likely not see a courtroom until the fall of 2021.
According to interviews by the lawyer representing the defendants, Jim Dunnam out of Waco, the issue was never specific to the athletic department, but the university as a whole.
Then there is the matter of the NCAA investigation into Baylor for a “lack of institutional control,” as well as a potential show-cause penalty against Briles for failing to foster a compliant program.
A ruling that should have happened last year is not expected to be finalized until 2021.
All of this continues to alter a narrative, or maybe it does only in theory.
Loading…
www.star-telegram.com
