[washingtonismoney]

This is not a great look: http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Baylor-...itter_kwtx

[washingtonismoney]

This is not a great look: http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Baylor-...itter_kwtx

[fullmetal]

In two months, a prostitution sting and inappropriate texts to a teenager (but an adult under Texas statute).  Go Baptist football.

[fullmetal]

In two months, a prostitution sting and inappropriate texts to a teenager (but an adult under Texas statute).  Go Baptist football.

[winflop]

Lack of institutional control that is just sickening.  Why the death penalty hasn't been applied is beyond me.

[winflop]

Lack of institutional control that is just sickening.  Why the death penalty hasn't been applied is beyond me.

[Goose]

Lack of institutional control that is just sickening.  Why the death penalty hasn't been applied is beyond me.

Well, I can't "prove" it, but I think it is two things. First, money. Baylor has a lot of it, and has invested a lot of it in sports facilities. No sports, brobdingnagian losses, and then they won't have nearly as much. And that makes the people with the money mad. The NCAA doesn't like it when people with money are mad. Second, the Big 12 is kind of a sick puppy anyway. Without Baylor, would it survive? If it doesn't, where does Texas go, and what dominos fall then?  The NCAA really doesn't want to do that experiment. So we have a "Sgt. Schultz" effect in full swing.

[Goose]

Lack of institutional control that is just sickening.  Why the death penalty hasn't been applied is beyond me.

Well, I can't "prove" it, but I think it is two things. First, money. Baylor has a lot of it, and has invested a lot of it in sports facilities. No sports, brobdingnagian losses, and then they won't have nearly as much. And that makes the people with the money mad. The NCAA doesn't like it when people with money are mad. Second, the Big 12 is kind of a sick puppy anyway. Without Baylor, would it survive? If it doesn't, where does Texas go, and what dominos fall then?  The NCAA really doesn't want to do that experiment. So we have a "Sgt. Schultz" effect in full swing.

[fullmetal]

You can't convince me that the Baylor boosters have sufficient money to influence the NCAA.  Baylor is such a regional school; if it weren't for Ann Richards, it wouldn't have even been included in the Big 12.  It's not really a top-tier research university as most of the flagship state university schools in the conference are.  It may be that the NCAA is afraid of setting precedent, only to find out in the next ten years that other schools are suffering from similar losses of institutional control.

Or maybe the NCAA is just spineless.

[fullmetal]

You can't convince me that the Baylor boosters have sufficient money to influence the NCAA.  Baylor is such a regional school; if it weren't for Ann Richards, it wouldn't have even been included in the Big 12.  It's not really a top-tier research university as most of the flagship state university schools in the conference are.  It may be that the NCAA is afraid of setting precedent, only to find out in the next ten years that other schools are suffering from similar losses of institutional control.

Or maybe the NCAA is just spineless.

[stupac2]

Or maybe the NCAA is just spineless.

^^^

[stupac2]

Or maybe the NCAA is just spineless.

^^^

[Goose]

You can't convince me that the Baylor boosters have sufficient money to influence the NCAA.  Baylor is such a regional school; if it weren't for Ann Richards, it wouldn't have even been included in the Big 12.  It's not really a top-tier research university as most of the flagship state university schools in the conference are.  It may be that the NCAA is afraid of setting precedent, only to find out in the next ten years that other schools are suffering from similar losses of institutional control.

Or maybe the NCAA is just spineless.

Well, I certainly don't want do disagree with the NCAA being spineless. Clearly it is. I know that I probably can't convince you  ;D. However, I think you greatly under-estimate the influence Baylor alums (and their money) can have, or more to the point, the damage they could cause. Baylor has spent cal-like sums on their stadium. It used to be nothing. After the death penalty, it would be again. Imagine the lawsuits that that the alums would generate regarding how damaging it was to the school, and questioning the NCAA's procedures, their monopolistic practices, etc. And since they are "insular", they would mean every bit of it. While it may be true that Baylor was an asterisk in the Big-12 years ago, it isn't now. I don't think that a spineless NCAA wants to be on the wrong side of them if it can be avoided. And it can be avoided by just pretending it never happened, as the NCAA pretty much has continued to do. Furthermore, I am pretty sure the NCAA doesn't care a lick about the quality (or lack thereof) of the research at Baylor ;D.

[Goose]

You can't convince me that the Baylor boosters have sufficient money to influence the NCAA.  Baylor is such a regional school; if it weren't for Ann Richards, it wouldn't have even been included in the Big 12.  It's not really a top-tier research university as most of the flagship state university schools in the conference are.  It may be that the NCAA is afraid of setting precedent, only to find out in the next ten years that other schools are suffering from similar losses of institutional control.

Or maybe the NCAA is just spineless.

Well, I certainly don't want do disagree with the NCAA being spineless. Clearly it is. I know that I probably can't convince you  ;D. However, I think you greatly under-estimate the influence Baylor alums (and their money) can have, or more to the point, the damage they could cause. Baylor has spent cal-like sums on their stadium. It used to be nothing. After the death penalty, it would be again. Imagine the lawsuits that that the alums would generate regarding how damaging it was to the school, and questioning the NCAA's procedures, their monopolistic practices, etc. And since they are "insular", they would mean every bit of it. While it may be true that Baylor was an asterisk in the Big-12 years ago, it isn't now. I don't think that a spineless NCAA wants to be on the wrong side of them if it can be avoided. And it can be avoided by just pretending it never happened, as the NCAA pretty much has continued to do. Furthermore, I am pretty sure the NCAA doesn't care a lick about the quality (or lack thereof) of the research at Baylor ;D.

[fullmetal]

I see McLane Stadium at least once a year, though only from the outside.  It is a monument to their idolatry :p

It's also true that Baylor will try to fight any sanctions through court or other means, and that would be a long and painful process.  But this isn't unique to Baylor; my contention is that Baylor doesn't wield *disproportional* influence over the NCAA.  In that sense, if the NCAA doesn't draw the line somewhere, it never will.

[fullmetal]

I see McLane Stadium at least once a year, though only from the outside.  It is a monument to their idolatry :p

It's also true that Baylor will try to fight any sanctions through court or other means, and that would be a long and painful process.  But this isn't unique to Baylor; my contention is that Baylor doesn't wield *disproportional* influence over the NCAA.  In that sense, if the NCAA doesn't draw the line somewhere, it never will.

[Goose]

I see McLane Stadium at least once a year, though only from the outside.  It is a monument to their idolatry :p

Indeed. From what I have head, it was at least partly a statement that Waco was somewhere, not nowhere. In that regard, I don't think the statement was heard.

It's also true that Baylor will try to fight any sanctions through court or other means, and that would be a long and painful process.  But this isn't unique to Baylor; my contention is that Baylor doesn't wield *disproportional* influence over the NCAA.  In that sense, if the NCAA doesn't draw the line somewhere, it never will.

Well, OK, I can go with that, although "disproportional" is a bit subjective. You have undoubtedly heard the one about “The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky it will probably slap another two years probation on Cleveland State.’’ I put Baylor in the Kentucky class, not the Cleveland State class. I think the NCAA perceives Baylor a bit like Baylor wants to be perceived, as a "football power". They really aren't, but a few pretty good years have made them think they are. You are completely correct that the NCAA has to draw the line somewhere. But unless the public (fat chance) or the University Presidents (not very  probable either) step up and force it, it won't happen. Sad.

[Goose]

I see McLane Stadium at least once a year, though only from the outside.  It is a monument to their idolatry :p

Indeed. From what I have head, it was at least partly a statement that Waco was somewhere, not nowhere. In that regard, I don't think the statement was heard.

It's also true that Baylor will try to fight any sanctions through court or other means, and that would be a long and painful process.  But this isn't unique to Baylor; my contention is that Baylor doesn't wield *disproportional* influence over the NCAA.  In that sense, if the NCAA doesn't draw the line somewhere, it never will.

Well, OK, I can go with that, although "disproportional" is a bit subjective. You have undoubtedly heard the one about “The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky it will probably slap another two years probation on Cleveland State.’’ I put Baylor in the Kentucky class, not the Cleveland State class. I think the NCAA perceives Baylor a bit like Baylor wants to be perceived, as a "football power". They really aren't, but a few pretty good years have made them think they are. You are completely correct that the NCAA has to draw the line somewhere. But unless the public (fat chance) or the University Presidents (not very  probable either) step up and force it, it won't happen. Sad.

[fullmetal]

I consider Baylor athletics to be "Oregon lite" in terms of "newcomer" status and recency of success and regression.  They're in between UK and Cleveland St.--UK will always be a top basketball school these days, relevant even when down.  Baylor is only relevant when they're good. 

Back to the topic at hand, I think the NCAA is going to be supremely cautious/conservative when taking action due to the pain of litigation/appeals.  It's probably a good time to be a bad program :(

[fullmetal]

I consider Baylor athletics to be "Oregon lite" in terms of "newcomer" status and recency of success and regression.  They're in between UK and Cleveland St.--UK will always be a top basketball school these days, relevant even when down.  Baylor is only relevant when they're good. 

Back to the topic at hand, I think the NCAA is going to be supremely cautious/conservative when taking action due to the pain of litigation/appeals.  It's probably a good time to be a bad program :(

[Goose]

I consider Baylor athletics to be "Oregon lite" in terms of "newcomer" status and recency of success and regression.  They're in between UK and Cleveland St.--UK will always be a top basketball school these days, relevant even when down.  Baylor is only relevant when they're good.

I think you have it exactly right. The are relevant only when "good", and good is somewhat difficult to calibrate because generally the Big-12 hasn't been. That makes Baylor actually being "good" hard to calibrate. The problem is that they THINK they are Kentucky ;D.

Back to the topic at hand, I think the NCAA is going to be supremely cautious/conservative when taking action due to the pain of litigation/appeals.  It's probably a good time to be a bad program :(

Sadly, I think you are again exactly correct. Worse, the lack of sanctions re-enforces the Baylor peoples idea that they ARE Kentucky, simply because the NCAA is afraid to act against anybody at this point.

[Goose]

I consider Baylor athletics to be "Oregon lite" in terms of "newcomer" status and recency of success and regression.  They're in between UK and Cleveland St.--UK will always be a top basketball school these days, relevant even when down.  Baylor is only relevant when they're good.

I think you have it exactly right. The are relevant only when "good", and good is somewhat difficult to calibrate because generally the Big-12 hasn't been. That makes Baylor actually being "good" hard to calibrate. The problem is that they THINK they are Kentucky ;D.

Back to the topic at hand, I think the NCAA is going to be supremely cautious/conservative when taking action due to the pain of litigation/appeals.  It's probably a good time to be a bad program :(

Sadly, I think you are again exactly correct. Worse, the lack of sanctions re-enforces the Baylor peoples idea that they ARE Kentucky, simply because the NCAA is afraid to act against anybody at this point.

[CornFed]

I consider Baylor athletics to be "Oregon lite" in terms of "newcomer" status and recency of success and regression.  They're in between UK and Cleveland St.--UK will always be a top basketball school these days, relevant even when down.  Baylor is only relevant when they're good. 

Back to the topic at hand, I think the NCAA is going to be supremely cautious/conservative when taking action due to the pain of litigation/appeals.  It's probably a good time to be a bad program :(

Is this what explains the lack of punishment for UNC?

[CornFed]

I consider Baylor athletics to be "Oregon lite" in terms of "newcomer" status and recency of success and regression.  They're in between UK and Cleveland St.--UK will always be a top basketball school these days, relevant even when down.  Baylor is only relevant when they're good. 

Back to the topic at hand, I think the NCAA is going to be supremely cautious/conservative when taking action due to the pain of litigation/appeals.  It's probably a good time to be a bad program :(

Is this what explains the lack of punishment for UNC?

[fullmetal]

If the NCAA metes out punishment, it sets a precedent as well as possibly violates prior precedent as far as severity vs. nature of violation goes.  I see continued paralysis in the near future.

[fullmetal]

If the NCAA metes out punishment, it sets a precedent as well as possibly violates prior precedent as far as severity vs. nature of violation goes.  I see continued paralysis in the near future.

[CTcard]

There are at least a couple of reasons the NCAA hasn't sanctioned Baylor at this point.

First of all, there is a process. It takes a while. Without a consent decree (which means agreement from the institution), they have to go through an investigation and several committees. Even with a consent decree, moving without due process could be a problem.

Secondly, in general the NCAA enforces rules that are supposed to have some kind of effect on competitive balance between institutions. Despite a few words in the bylaws about ethical conduct by institutions and individuals, in general the NCAA was never meant to be either a substitute or an add-on to the criminal laws of our country. Sometimes it has stepped into that role. The most well known such case was Penn State/Sandusky et al. In that case, Penn State agreed to everything in a consent decree. Still, after the furor died down a bit, the State of Pennsylvania took the NCAA to court and was more or less on the way towards winning their case that the consent decree wasn't lawful and the NCAA overstepped its jurisdiction - so an agreement was reached that had the NCAA basically back off.

Primarily, the people that should be doing something about the Baylor situation are Baylor University and the federal and Texas court systems. Baylor seems to be doing at least something: the head coach, athletic director, and president are all fired. That's something. I hope they are doing a lot more, but I don't have any connections to Baylor so I don't know.
Of the new stuff, the football ops guy was fired one month into the job, so they acted there. The statement by Kim Mulkey was certainly tone deaf (and stupid), but not exactly a firing offense.


Personally, with regards to the NCAA itself, I am more worried about the UNC case; though again I don't know enough details. Fake courses and fake grades to players definitely undermines the competitive balance, is in the realm of things the NCAA oversees, undermines the whole point of athletics in college, and I haven't heard that UNC has taken the matter overly seriously. [To be fair, it may be that the key part here was "I haven't heard".] Unless UNC itself has done more than I know, I don't like the rumours that the NCAA isn't looking at significant sanctions. 

[CTcard]

There are at least a couple of reasons the NCAA hasn't sanctioned Baylor at this point.

First of all, there is a process. It takes a while. Without a consent decree (which means agreement from the institution), they have to go through an investigation and several committees. Even with a consent decree, moving without due process could be a problem.

Secondly, in general the NCAA enforces rules that are supposed to have some kind of effect on competitive balance between institutions. Despite a few words in the bylaws about ethical conduct by institutions and individuals, in general the NCAA was never meant to be either a substitute or an add-on to the criminal laws of our country. Sometimes it has stepped into that role. The most well known such case was Penn State/Sandusky et al. In that case, Penn State agreed to everything in a consent decree. Still, after the furor died down a bit, the State of Pennsylvania took the NCAA to court and was more or less on the way towards winning their case that the consent decree wasn't lawful and the NCAA overstepped its jurisdiction - so an agreement was reached that had the NCAA basically back off.

Primarily, the people that should be doing something about the Baylor situation are Baylor University and the federal and Texas court systems. Baylor seems to be doing at least something: the head coach, athletic director, and president are all fired. That's something. I hope they are doing a lot more, but I don't have any connections to Baylor so I don't know.
Of the new stuff, the football ops guy was fired one month into the job, so they acted there. The statement by Kim Mulkey was certainly tone deaf (and stupid), but not exactly a firing offense.


Personally, with regards to the NCAA itself, I am more worried about the UNC case; though again I don't know enough details. Fake courses and fake grades to players definitely undermines the competitive balance, is in the realm of things the NCAA oversees, undermines the whole point of athletics in college, and I haven't heard that UNC has taken the matter overly seriously. [To be fair, it may be that the key part here was "I haven't heard".] Unless UNC itself has done more than I know, I don't like the rumours that the NCAA isn't looking at significant sanctions. 

[Goose]

Secondly, in general the NCAA enforces rules that are supposed to have some kind of effect on competitive balance between institutions.

Yes, and I would argue that suppressing information about known criminal activities (of any kind) by players at your institution does in fact drastically alter the competitive balance. Those players should be facing charges, not competing on the field. Further, new recruits should not be able to go to Baylor and expect immunity. That is also an unfair advantage, just as fake classes are.

Primarily, the people that should be doing something about the Baylor situation are Baylor University and the federal and Texas court systems. Baylor seems to be doing at least something: the head coach, athletic director, and president are all fired. That's something. I hope they are doing a lot more, but I don't have any connections to Baylor so I don't know.
Of the new stuff, the football ops guy was fired one month into the job, so they acted there. The statement by Kim Mulkey was certainly tone deaf (and stupid), but not exactly a firing offense.

I agree Baylor itself should be the first line of defense against improper conduct. But they were not. While things may appear to be better, it is not clear that whatever institutional shortfalls that previously existed and allowed such misconduct have been addressed. That is where the NCAA has a role to play, to ensure that the playing field is level.

Personally, with regards to the NCAA itself, I am more worried about the UNC case; though again I don't know enough details. Fake courses and fake grades to players definitely undermines the competitive balance, is in the realm of things the NCAA oversees, undermines the whole point of athletics in college, and I haven't heard that UNC has taken the matter overly seriously. [To be fair, it may be that the key part here was "I haven't heard".] Unless UNC itself has done more than I know, I don't like the rumours that the NCAA isn't looking at significant sanctions.

I don't like those rumors either. Keeping people in school who really don't qualify is quite unfair competition. It goes to the heart of competitive fairness. That should certainly be NCAA territory.

[Goose]

Secondly, in general the NCAA enforces rules that are supposed to have some kind of effect on competitive balance between institutions.

Yes, and I would argue that suppressing information about known criminal activities (of any kind) by players at your institution does in fact drastically alter the competitive balance. Those players should be facing charges, not competing on the field. Further, new recruits should not be able to go to Baylor and expect immunity. That is also an unfair advantage, just as fake classes are.

Primarily, the people that should be doing something about the Baylor situation are Baylor University and the federal and Texas court systems. Baylor seems to be doing at least something: the head coach, athletic director, and president are all fired. That's something. I hope they are doing a lot more, but I don't have any connections to Baylor so I don't know.
Of the new stuff, the football ops guy was fired one month into the job, so they acted there. The statement by Kim Mulkey was certainly tone deaf (and stupid), but not exactly a firing offense.

I agree Baylor itself should be the first line of defense against improper conduct. But they were not. While things may appear to be better, it is not clear that whatever institutional shortfalls that previously existed and allowed such misconduct have been addressed. That is where the NCAA has a role to play, to ensure that the playing field is level.

Personally, with regards to the NCAA itself, I am more worried about the UNC case; though again I don't know enough details. Fake courses and fake grades to players definitely undermines the competitive balance, is in the realm of things the NCAA oversees, undermines the whole point of athletics in college, and I haven't heard that UNC has taken the matter overly seriously. [To be fair, it may be that the key part here was "I haven't heard".] Unless UNC itself has done more than I know, I don't like the rumours that the NCAA isn't looking at significant sanctions.

I don't like those rumors either. Keeping people in school who really don't qualify is quite unfair competition. It goes to the heart of competitive fairness. That should certainly be NCAA territory.