Baylor football proving NCAA ‘Death Penalty’ may be needed after all
The latest announcement from the Baylor football program that Art Briles has a chance of returning is a sign that the rarely used “death penalty” by the NCAA may be in order.
Baylor had the chance to eventually make this nightmare go away. They saw to it that former University President Ken Starr and athletic director Ian McCaw were both in the Baylor history books, and they suspended head football coach Art Briles with “intent to terminate.”
Given the facts that are known and the egregious nature of the sexual assault cover-ups and lack of Title IX coordinator, it seems that the “terminate” part of that scenario was inevitable.
Apparently not…and if you think public backlash against Baylor was bad before, just wait to see what happens if the Board of Regents votes to reduce Briles’ penalty to a one-year suspension.
According to Chip Brown of Horns Digest, Baylor’s rich and powerful boosters are pressuring the Board of Regents to give Art Briles a one-year suspension (rather than outright termination) so he can return to the program for the 2017 season. It has to make one wonder if California judge Aaron Persky is one of those boosters.
Hey Baylor, just for the record…you’re doing it wrong.
The fact that this is even a discussion is nauseating to the point that one has to consider whether or not the NCAA should flex its often misguided muscle and just deep-six football at Baylor for a long time.
Yes…the dreaded “death penalty”.
This is the most severe penalty the NCAA can inflict upon a program, and Baylor should be in the crosshairs of those who make those decisions on Mark Emmert’s team.
For those not familiar with this contingency, the NCAA has the power to ban a school from competing in a particular sport for one year or more. The last (and only) time it happened to a Division I football program was in 1987 at SMU – and that was handed down because of a slush fund used to pay players.
Just from a one-year ban (and another year off trying to rebuild the program) SMU football was reduced to rubble and took another 20 years before they were even remotely competitive again.
If ever there were a case of “loss of institutional control” (the phrase which the NCAA likes to wildly throw around when they can’t really point to specific issues with evidence), it’s at Baylor. Here you have a program which has done the right thing to correct some terrible wrongdoing, only to have the big-money boosters come back and obviously create pressure with their checkbooks.
Shame on you Baylor, if you allow this to happen. Briles and his two former bosses conducted themselves in a deplorable manner and none deserve to be rewarded with a slap on the wrist and a new contract.
The board says Starr should have been the fall guy and that Briles didn’t deserve to be caught in the net. This sounds like an argument we’ve heard before from another school whose coach supposedly “did all he could” to prevent danger to his students and community.
also read: Predicting the Win-Loss Record for Every Big 12 Team
Art Briles doesn’t deserve to be given a light penalty. After everything that’s happened at their school, after the public outcry following a light sentence for a convicted rapist from Stanford, Baylor has the gall to talk about letting Art Briles come back.
They don’t deserve a football program.