Anything and everything about Liberty Flames football. Your comments on games, recruiting and the direction of the program as we move into new era.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke, Class of 20Something

#536540
I wouldn't want to be the defense attorney in this situation. "Nothing burger" comes to mind. Not saying assault did or didn't happen, but from what I have read, looks like they were dismissed for violation of LU rules, not Title IX.
If you have enough $, people will sue. You wouldn't believe the things that WalDumb gets sued for, simply because they have coffers full of $$$$$. (I do wish someone would successfully sue WalDumb for enough $ it would put them out of bidness).
#536547
flameshaw wrote:I wouldn't want to be the defense attorney in this situation. "Nothing burger" comes to mind. Not saying assault did or didn't happen, but from what I have read, looks like they were dismissed for violation of LU rules, not Title IX.
If you have enough $, people will sue. You wouldn't believe the things that WalDumb gets sued for, simply because they have coffers full of $$$$$. (I do wish someone would successfully sue WalDumb for enough $ it would put them out of bidness).
So......not a Wal Mart fan? Commie. :D
#536553
Purple Haize wrote:
flameshaw wrote:I wouldn't want to be the defense attorney in this situation. "Nothing burger" comes to mind. Not saying assault did or didn't happen, but from what I have read, looks like they were dismissed for violation of LU rules, not Title IX.
If you have enough $, people will sue. You wouldn't believe the things that WalDumb gets sued for, simply because they have coffers full of $$$$$. (I do wish someone would successfully sue WalDumb for enough $ it would put them out of bidness).
So......not a Wal Mart fan? Commie. :D
I used to do some bidness with them. If you knew what I knew, you wouldn't like them either. Horrible place. I wouldn't eat "fresh" food from there if you paid me $$$$$$$$$$.
#536554
My guess is that the suit has less to do with the dismissal but more to do with the public way they were handled before the facts were made. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the law in this case as it relates to an educational institution and those under it's charge.
#536559
flameshaw wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
flameshaw wrote:I wouldn't want to be the defense attorney in this situation. "Nothing burger" comes to mind. Not saying assault did or didn't happen, but from what I have read, looks like they were dismissed for violation of LU rules, not Title IX.
If you have enough $, people will sue. You wouldn't believe the things that WalDumb gets sued for, simply because they have coffers full of $$$$$. (I do wish someone would successfully sue WalDumb for enough $ it would put them out of bidness).
So......not a Wal Mart fan? Commie. :D
I used to do some bidness with them. If you knew what I knew, you wouldn't like them either. Horrible place. I wouldn't eat "fresh" food from there if you paid me $$$$$$$$$$.
I don't eat 'fresh' food from there so I guess I'm good! :D
#545034
Michigan State just had a Baylor level rape case come up in football. I would be surprised if Liberty didn't force a story reminding the world it's being sued for being too cautious with Title IX. As strong as the MeToo movement has become, being on this side of this kind of lawsuit is good PR. Ian's name will have a small peak from MSU articles referencing Baylor, it's smart to have recent news articles showing a difference.
#545047
JK37 wrote:Dangerous to try spin sexual assault right now, no matter which way you came out of it. Better to stay quiet, I think, and just be happy you’re not on the wrong side of it.
Personally, I’m anti sexual assault
#548416
Liberty University settles lawsuit by ex-athlete that it libeled as a rapist
I really don’t know much about this story but here’s the headline College AD used from a story from college fix, whatever that is. Not to mention Jackson claimed LU did this to make an example after hiring McCaw. Didn’t all this go down when JB was here?
Jackson’s lawsuit said Liberty was determined to make an example out of him because it had hired away a new athletic director from Baylor University, at the time dealing with the fallout of a massive sexual-assault scandal in the athletic department.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43494/
#548421
All you really need to know is that Jackson thought he had NFL potential. LOL. I doubt he got enough money to buy a Happy Meal, most likely at his next place of employment. (At least it is much more likely than the NFL).
His comment about NFL potential and McCaw, leave little doubt, he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
#548426
There was a thought that the school cracked down significantly on Title IX in the semester before we officially hired McCaw knowing he’d be hired. Jeff’s contracted had expired an was only renewed on a month to month basis for a few months before he was fired so the school was already targeting the next hire when all this went down.
#548430
Jonathan Carone wrote:There was a thought that the school cracked down significantly on Title IX in the semester before we officially hired McCaw knowing he’d be hired. Jeff’s contracted had expired an was only renewed on a month to month basis for a few months before he was fired so the school was already targeting the next hire when all this went down.
I understand that there was a "thought". There was also a "thought" prevalent on this board, that we only vetted McCaw for a week or slightly more before we hired him. (it was much, much longer than that, in addition to some other candidates). There was also a thought, shared by our previous N&A reporter, via Twitter, and some here, that this was an easy $10M+ judgement. I understand the kids lawyer trying to reach for anything that might help him. He pretty much had a very flimsy case to begin with. Then IMHO, pulled a real dumb move, by reportedly accepting a scholarship to another D1 school. (That pretty much proves his "reputation" and/or ability to pursue a NFL career wasn't hurt). Should have hired a better lawyer. :D
#548505
Why because they wouldnt allow the others that were at the same sleazy party to coorborate their story that the alleged victim wasnt exactly a saint. There may be some truth to that but the fact is almost all involved had been here multiple years and knew fully what they signed up for. If they were all so tight then why not take the punishment that comes along with exonerating your teammate. The potential punishment i heard was fair or similar to kids i knew that got busted 10 years ago for similar transgressions.

How would you propose them handling it? Honest question. I dont think you can just waive their punishment.
#548508
jinxy wrote:Why because they wouldnt allow the others that were at the same sleazy party to coorborate their story that the alleged victim wasnt exactly a saint. There may be some truth to that but the fact is almost all involved had been here multiple years and knew fully what they signed up for. If they were all so tight then why not take the punishment that comes along with exonerating your teammate. The potential punishment i heard was fair or similar to kids i knew that got busted 10 years ago for similar transgressions.

How would you propose them handling it? Honest question. I dont think you can just waive their punishment.
Publicity is what this lawsuit is all about. Had LU even included their claims of innocence the idea of defemation wouldn't have made it very far. I know we don't want to sweep things under the rug, but when enforcing the Liberty Way(not Title IX) perhaps discretion is beneficial. I'm not saying don't hold the student accountable, just maybe not have a university press release on his dismissal.
#548511
jinxy wrote:How would you propose them handling it? Honest question. I dont think you can just waive their punishment.
My question would be why not? The legal system does it all the time. If our goal is to know whether one of our students did something terrible and illegal, we should do what we can to encourage witnesses to testify one way or the other.

If you don’t give some type of immunity to witnesses in these cases, it actually discourages women to come forward if they’ve been sexually assaulted. They fear not only the public shame at a conservative school but also the reprimands and punishment for being at the party.

Our goal has to be the safety of our students and the only way we can fully get that is to have transparent investigations where potential witnesses aren’t threatened with punishment for speaking up.
NCAA Realignment Megathread

Does Gonzaga and St Mary have D1 football ? When[…]

LaTech

We are halfway through the season, yet we are stil[…]

Dondi Costin - LU President

HEB is alright, but honestly Trader Joe's is my […]

JMU for 6 games

The fact of the matter is, JMU and Liberty could n[…]