Re: Athletic Director - Ian McCaw
Posted: August 16th, 2017, 8:19 am
PH is looking wise this morning.
What the heck is happening in the world today!!??
What the heck is happening in the world today!!??
https://forums.aseaofred.com/forums/
https://forums.aseaofred.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24290
flamehunter wrote:I'll bit too. So you are fine with this guy never getting an opportunity to coach again? Just love how people can justify killing someone's career for something someone else did. Let's stop playing the sixth degree of separation game with crimes... Who on this board wouldn't have a job right now? Answer - No one.Purple Haize wrote:If this happens I will never doubt you again. Personally I hope it doesn't. Don't want to sell out that badly for wins.
willflop wrote:To spin it negatively, being removed as a defendant is not the same as being shown innocent.Or they found out that McCaw actually did what was required and doesn't carry enough value in the case. Agree - that this is the first step in starting to clear the guys name and proves LU did their homework on this hire.
However, presumably, they both have money (which is what this is about), and Baylor doesn't really have a vested interest in protecting them (that I can think of), so why remove them? I know Briles filed a different case for defamation, not sure how that panned out. It's at least one step supporting LU's narrative on McCaw, agree or disagree.
thepostman wrote:PH is looking wise this morning.If and when anything actually happens as far as Briles coming to Liberty, I will take my hat off to Purple for nailing his bold prediction. For now, this is a totally separate issue, which in fact contradicts the assertions he made from the moment IM was hired that he was negligent in how he handled things at Baylor. This is only one case of course.
What the heck is happening in the world today!!??
oldflame wrote:Right, only one case, but maybe it sets a case law precedent. It's not just any one case, but one of the high profile ones that actually lead to a 20 year conviction of the perpetrator. If things were going to stick, I don't see another case being more sticky than this one.thepostman wrote:PH is looking wise this morning.If and when anything actually happens as far as Briles coming to Liberty, I will take my hat off to Purple for nailing his bold prediction. For now, this is a totally separate issue, which in fact contradicts the assertions he made from the moment IM was hired that he was negligent in how he handled things at Baylor. This is only one case of course.
What the heck is happening in the world today!!??
prototype wrote:Didn't say he should never coach again. Said I don't want him to coach here. Whether he ever did anything illegal or not, he definitely ran a program that enabled the stuff that happened to happen. Has he acknowledged any responsibility for any of it? I haven't heard that he has. To me it is a character issue. That has to stand above the ability to win football games.flamehunter wrote:I'll bit too. So you are fine with this guy never getting an opportunity to coach again? Just love how people can justify killing someone's career for something someone else did. Let's stop playing the sixth degree of separation game with crimes... Who on this board wouldn't have a job right now? Answer - No one.Purple Haize wrote:If this happens I will never doubt you again. Personally I hope it doesn't. Don't want to sell out that badly for wins.
oldflame wrote:He was removed from the suit not found Not Guilty. I have seen nothing to change my mind that he acted negligently in how he handled the situation. Was it criminal? Was it worth the resources required to continue to pursue? Was it part of a larger deal? I dunno. It does not mean he's not a good hire to get LU to where LU wants to gothepostman wrote:PH is looking wise this morning.If and when anything actually happens as far as Briles coming to Liberty, I will take my hat off to Purple for nailing his bold prediction. For now, this is a totally separate issue, which in fact contradicts the assertions he made from the moment IM was hired that he was negligent in how he handled things at Baylor. This is only one case of course.
What the heck is happening in the world today!!??
Purple Haize wrote:I agree, if you want to choose the negative spin over the positive. Conversely, you also haven't been given anything to suggest negligence, beyond the broad "it happened on his watch."
He was removed from the suit not found Not Guilty. I have seen nothing to change my mind that he acted negligently in how he handled the situation. Was it criminal? Was it worth the resources required to continue to pursue? Was it part of a larger deal? I dunno. It does not mean he's not a good hire to get LU to where LU wants to go
willflop wrote:Purple Haize wrote:I agree, if you want to choose the negative spin over the positive. Conversely, you also haven't been given anything to suggest negligence, beyond the broad "it happened on his watch."
He was removed from the suit not found Not Guilty. I have seen nothing to change my mind that he acted negligently in how he handled the situation. Was it criminal? Was it worth the resources required to continue to pursue? Was it part of a larger deal? I dunno. It does not mean he's not a good hire to get LU to where LU wants to go
If we start from a position of neutrality, accepting that we don't have access to what really happened (which you admitted), we are left with evidential snippets, accusations, denials, and then this case as one of our only objective chances to prove something.
And, after it played out, we are left with the fact that he was sued for negligence in a high profile money case, the charges were dropped against him personally, and Baylor settled (guilty). The McCaw narrative is that he wasn't negligent, reported it to JA, but the "system of Baylor" was actively working against IX cases and didn't act in accordance. His narrative matches what happened in this case. Doesn't prove anything absolutely, but that ship has sailed.
All your what-ifs are valid, but favoring those above all else doesn't seem to have a rationale.
willflop wrote:You and I had multiple pages of back and forth when this thread first started. I'm pretty sure everything you said could be boiled down to the "on his watch" argument. But, no need to rehash, I'm not trying to be an apologist either way, just calling it how I see it from my limited view point.It could be boiled down to what a normal person would do. I can't see not following up on multiple reports of rape. But that's just me. Passing the buck on that as a defense doesn't sit well either
Purple Haize wrote:He said he followed up. Glad we got that confusion cleared up.willflop wrote:You and I had multiple pages of back and forth when this thread first started. I'm pretty sure everything you said could be boiled down to the "on his watch" argument. But, no need to rehash, I'm not trying to be an apologist either way, just calling it how I see it from my limited view point.It could be boiled down to what a normal person would do. I can't see not following up on multiple reports of rape. But that's just me. Passing the buck on that as a defense doesn't sit well either
But hey LU is FBS and playing the Big Boys and on the cusp of the ACC!!!
thepostman wrote:Word on the street another ACC opponent will be announced shortly. The source is sketchy though. I also have no idea what ACC opponent it would be because this guy is very Sly like.Do you mean ballcoach?
Purple Haize wrote:IM to UVA?The students would literally spontaneously combust. Heads would explode. Children would be screaming. Rivers would turn to blood.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-b ... y,amp.html
Sly Fox wrote:Neither one is a concern any time soon.Yeah. UVA isn't going to name a new AD immediately