Interim Baylor President David Garland released a statement to the press today in which he says there will be no release of the full Pepper Hamilton report because the report wasn't a written one; it was delivered orally:
In recent days, various voices have called for the release of the “full report.” Pepper Hamilton’s report was delivered in the form of an oral presentation that fully and comprehensively presented the individual and aggregated findings and the evidence supporting the findings.
How convenient. Garland then refers people to the already released, vague written summary that names no names. This should put interim Head Football Coach Jim Grobe in an interesting position to defend his decision to keep the entire coaching staff intact. He said his decision was based on reading part of the Pepper Hamilton report. If all that is available is what has already been released, there really could be no way to know what involvement other coaches had in covering up sexual abuse. Did he do his own internal review (seems doubtful he could have thoroughly investigated anything on his own in the little time he had)? Did he depend on the Board of Regents to tell him if any of the coaching staff was implicated in the report? Are the members of the Board of Regents now the only ones at Baylor who will ever know the entire contents of the report. Why in the world should anyone believe anything they say at this point?
To make matters worse, President Garland then goes on to say no further details will be released to protect the privacy of the victims that were raped and sexually assaulted by Baylor athletes and students:
We respect survivors’ freedom to choose whether, when and how to share their experiences and will support survivors who choose to share their experiences publicly. The details of these individuals’ experiences will not be discussed publicly by the University.
As Tom Ley of Deadspin put it:
We still don’t know who specifically turned a blind eye to sexual assault allegations, who allowed the football program to run its own improper disciplinary apparatus, or how exactly at least one victim was retaliated against. Without names, dates, and correspondences on the table, all of this has a much better chance at being completely forgotten. That’s exactly what the university wants, because Baylor is full of shit and David Garland is a disingenuous coward.
I couldn't agree more.
Looking at this dude's record... yikes. His Wake Forest teams got worse every year, before he randomly won the ACC (how) and then following that his teams kept on deteriorating again. I guess he has a rep of being a good guy with no scandals, but it seems to me like Baylor just basically hired Brady Hoke if Brady Hoke was at Michigan for like 14 years.
This shit just drives me up the wall. I get that the NCAA's goal truly is to level the playing field and give everyone a good experience (while making an asston of money) but this is insane.
Figured I'd split the three Bowl games into seperate threads to avoid large masses of posts all over the place and seeing how one can get lost in a thread approaching 300 posts.
This is your official 2nd Half Cotton Bowl Open Thread.
I'm sure that most of us read Smart Football, but in case anyone missed it, Chris Brown (=Smart Football) has a great article on the Baylor offense and its architect, Art Briles:
There's some really interesting stuff here. For me, this was the big eye-opener:
Superficially, Baylor is yet another shotgun spread that pushes the tempo and rarely huddles. But when you watch the Bears, it's evident that this is an offense unlike the others. While more and more college and NFL teams are adopting the same up-tempo spread philosophy Briles used at Stephenville, Baylor has stayed one step ahead by taking these ideas — from formations to play-calling aggressiveness to pace — to their extremes.
The first thing to notice when watching Baylor is the splits of the wide receivers. While most teams put their wide receivers on the numbers, the Bears line theirs up well outside, sometimes directly on the sideline. By doing this, they force defenses to account for the entire width of the field.
The fascinating advantage of Baylor's splits is the effect they have on pass coverage. Defenses now use lots of complex, hybrid pass coverages, but most still reduce to a basic distinction: Is it man-to-man or zone? By taking such wide splits, Baylor puts every pass defender on an island, transforming most zone defenses into a type of de facto one-on-one man coverage.
And this play (play-action inverted veer, with the inside receiver running a slant-and-go) is just plain nasty:
I was just curious if anyone knew the answer to this question. Josh Gordon was just waiting for that Michigan offer up until signing day of 2009, almost begging for it. He ended up going to Baylor and is having a pretty solid rookie campaign after going in the supplemental draft. He wasn't the original Sad Josh, was he?