First off, I am not attesting to the undeniable accuracy of what he is saying. I just figured if Chip Brown was reporting on this, I may as well try and throw my hat in the ring. This also might just be what other articles have been saying; I'm not sure, I haven't been reading the speculation stuff. So take this fwiw!
The entire regents did not vote to fire briles. A subcommittee which is in charge of athletic decisions made the decision and voted on their own to fire briles.
The entire point of firing with him is to fire him with cause, because he deserved to be fired. Baylor CAN NOT afford to fire Briles without cause: he is due 40m guaranteed on his contract.
[This what I have the hardest time believing] the pepper Hamilton report (whatever that actually means) is extremely light on actual facts and lists of wrongdoing. It is more a collection of recommendations to improve procedures. Thus, without a list of wrongdoing against Briles, you can't fire him for cause.
I assumed when I read the paragraphs about general culture problems within the football program that a list of factual occurrences would be released summarizing what that actually means. Apparently there isn't any such list of factual allegations, and specifically not much against Briles himself. Again, I have a hard time believing this.
Briles has hired 2 law firms. One is working on the argument that he should not be fired at all because he didn't do anything wrong, and the other is working on a settlement deal if he is fired.
So basically, tl;Dr the regents are just as clueless as the average human being and may have royally screwed this up. If what I'm hearing is true, the regents may have jumped to fire briles too soon and may not be able to fire him for cause, in which case Baylor is in a serious pickle because they cannot afford to pay briles his 40m remaining guaranteed and have a new football coach (we aren't Notre Dame).
Anyway, take it fwiw, guys .