re: Aggy Board OT Discussion Thread

quote:

---

I would hope A&M would start firing everybody

---

I'd bet good money were Sumlin in this spot he'd get fired.

I really can't get past the whole keeping him on football scholarship and enrolled after an indictment for rape of a fellow student. I honestly can't wrap my head around it. I get how the press is just poor and didn't report it. And I get how fans defend actions irrationally. I just don't get how adults running a University can all come to the conclusion that this is no big deal. The day of the indictment should have been the end of this for Baylor.

Sumlin would definitely be gone.

I just don't see how Briles can survive this? Petrino couldn't even survive his indiscretion.

quote:

---

I just don't get how adults running a University can all come to the conclusion that this is no big deal. The day of the indictment should have been the end of this for Baylor.

---

This right here is what flabbergasts me about the role they played in the whole thing.

quote:

---

Rumor on the internet now is that the girl's scholarship reduction (which is the reason she eventually transferred) happened within a week of the school being made aware of her allegations.

---

Gonna need more than rumor on this one. I refuse to believe it unless a reputable source prints it. It's simply too outlandish

She had a bum knee and I bet her poor recovery had to do with why she had her schollie reduced. It may be because of the rape but we can't really know that. They are pretty brutal on smaller sports with scholarships because they have so few to pass out.

But I'm going to quote the transcript and it's fricking brutal so skip it if you don't want to get super pissed off.

Victim: "I will never be the same. I'm no longer the soccer player or the social girl. I'm not even (first - last name). I'm just the girl who got raped."

And the son of a prominent former state senator. Even their firm website is in Baylor colors.

They gave this violent rapist a better deal than I got for getting caught with a little speed. That's fricked up. Oh well he'll never make it, he'll get violated and go to prison on a blue warrant, he's to much of a violent angry hothead not to.

quote:

---

Sumlin isn't beloved quite like Briles but there would be a shite ton of Ags defending him. We're all victims of our own biases.

---

To Sumlin's credit I don't think he would let a previous offender stay on the team once it went to court.

Kinda amazing Baylor acts so clueless about their PR position. They want a defense of naivety, and instead they come across as callus. They want it to blow over, even though national news is on the case. They want to look forward to the football season, not realizing the sip media will beat this drum until it effects their season. Even if Briles stays this is going to hang over like a shadow stealing their focus, it will pop up every post game press conference.

From a GOT standpoint I don't want him fired. A TCU national title (hell even a playoff appearance) could really screw up the balance of power in the state past the short term of the current coaches. Baylor will not win a national title (bowl chokers) so I like Briles sticking around as a foil to TCU to maybe hang the loss on them that keeps them out of the playoffs.

But this isn't going away.

quote:

---

To Sumlin's credit I don't think he would let a previous offender stay on the team once it went to court.

---

Of course he wouldn't. I honestly can't think of another case where a player was kept on after an indictment for a major crime came down. Was thinking Jameis but I don't believe he was ever indicted. It's one thing to stick by your players during an investigation but it's quite another once there has been an indictment, especially one from a GJ

Anyway at this point I don't think Sumlin would even take in a previous offender. He's made mistakes in the past but since we changed our eval methods starting with the class of '14, he's been possibly the most conservative major coach in the business on character risk. Here's a quote from Feldman's article that I'm pretty sure is Sumlin (re Zack Whitley)

“If you can’t find out, you can’t take him — not in this day and time,” said one head coach in a Power 5 conference. “You just can’t. And whatever happened, it’s going to come out eventually. We just had to pass on a guy who I think is a good kid, but we just couldn’t get an answer.”

As a former prosecutor, I expected probation due to his limited criminal history and the likely conflicting evidence that came out at trial. 10 years probation is the maximum allowed by law no matter what the jail sentence at issue is.

The 180 days is probably what is referred to as "shock probation" which is what we used to call going to stare or county jail for 6 months before going on long-term probation. It is also a sign that if the probationer messes up, the judge is going to revoke his probation and send the maximum sentence.

The most important fact in play I have not seen mention - how many years of prison is at issue in the underlying conviction. That number reflects the probationer could go to jail if his probation is revoked. For example, the judgment might read - "25 years confinement in TDCJ, confinement is suspended and defendant is placed on community supervision for a term of 10 years." If he screwed up, failed a drug test, whatever, he could go to prison for a max of 25 years.

Thus, I expect the judge to have assigned the max sentence since he gave probation.

IF the judge didn't (and for example did 8 years probated for 10 years), I would view that as absolute bias as a BU grad and the prosecutor should be in complete uproar