(01-29-2014 08:54 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I guess this is "any kind of publicity is good publicity" for the Sun Belt. If this were to go down you better believe the presidents of the "big boys" will use it as leverage.

That's a valid problem. Liberty's policies and ongoing statements/actions of its administration are so toxic that would likely repel any future members that the Sun Belt might wish to approach for membership.

And beyond that, I'm not so sure that the prospect of attending Presidents meetings with Jerry Falwell, Jr, who will be your peer, is something that many University Presidents would find palatable.

(01-30-2014 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 08:54 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I guess this is "any kind of publicity is good publicity" for the Sun Belt. If this were to go down you better believe the presidents of the "big boys" will use it as leverage.

That's a valid problem. Liberty's policies and ongoing statements/actions of its administration are so toxic that would likely repel any future members that the Sun Belt might wish to approach for membership.

And beyond that, I'm not so sure that the prospect of attending Presidents meetings with Jerry Falwell, Jr, who will be your peer, is something that many University Presidents would find palatable.

I'll start by stating that I am not a religious person. People certainly have a right to their opinion... but the constant beat-down of Liberty reeks of "intolerance" as bad as some of Falwell's statements and Liberty's rules-of-attendance. Of course, people have the right to choose whom they associate with and I'm not criticizing that at all.

Their are a ton of Catholic schools nationwide, several Mormon schools, baptist schools and at least one religious school in Malibu who do not get hated on as bad as Liberty.

I will not rant but I will state this simple fact: working here in Raleigh, I've had the pleasure of working with several Liberty grads. They were all smart and well-educated. I would not want to attend Liberty... but I'm not stupid enough to say that it's "not a real university".

Liberty is OK but any president who votes for them has a hassle coming from the Faculty Senate and it's a hassle that the folks with TV cameras might actually pay attention to rather the resolutions about the cafeteria alternating between chocolate and vanilla pudding indicates the school is paying lip service to diversity since there are more flavors.

(01-30-2014 02:20 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I'll start by stating that I am not a religious person. People certainly have a right to their opinion... but the constant beat-down of Liberty reeks of "intolerance" as bad as some of Falwell's statements and Liberty's rules-of-attendance. Of course, people have the right to choose whom they associate with and I'm not criticizing that at all.

Their are a ton of Catholic schools nationwide, several Mormon schools, baptist schools and at least one religious school in Malibu who do not get hated on as bad as Liberty.

I will not rant but I will state this simple fact: working here in Raleigh, I've had the pleasure of working with several Liberty grads. They were all smart and well-educated. I would not want to attend Liberty... but I'm not stupid enough to say that it's "not a real university".

I also work with a few Liberty alums. They're good coworkers, friends and people. However, you can't be surprised with the intolerance shown towards a school whose founder preached hatred for decades on "behalf of God" and the people who followed in his footsteps continue his hateful rhetoric. I would also guess, if Regent were trying to become an FBS school, that most would react the same way.

(01-30-2014 02:20 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 08:54 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I guess this is "any kind of publicity is good publicity" for the Sun Belt. If this were to go down you better believe the presidents of the "big boys" will use it as leverage.

That's a valid problem. Liberty's policies and ongoing statements/actions of its administration are so toxic that would likely repel any future members that the Sun Belt might wish to approach for membership.

And beyond that, I'm not so sure that the prospect of attending Presidents meetings with Jerry Falwell, Jr, who will be your peer, is something that many University Presidents would find palatable.

I'll start by stating that I am not a religious person. People certainly have a right to their opinion... but the constant beat-down of Liberty reeks of "intolerance" as bad as some of Falwell's statements and Liberty's rules-of-attendance. Of course, people have the right to choose whom they associate with and I'm not criticizing that at all.

Their are a ton of Catholic schools nationwide, several Mormon schools, baptist schools and at least one religious school in Malibu who do not get hated on as bad as Liberty.

I will not rant but I will state this simple fact: working here in Raleigh, I've had the pleasure of working with several Liberty grads. They were all smart and well-educated. I would not want to attend Liberty... but I'm not stupid enough to say that it's "not a real university".

Liberty IS a real institution of higher learning and many of its graduates are nice and talented individuals. Criticism of Liberty's policies and ongoing outrageous statements by its leadership is valid and germaine to Liberty's fitness for entry to the Sun Belt or any other conference. It should be noted that Liberty discriminates in admissions, athletic participation, hiring, and tenure to an extent not seen elsewhere at other schools, including every single one of the Catholic schools.

I'm not sure you'd see BYU, Pepperdine, Baylor, or even Oral Roberts' Deans going on national radio like the Dean of the Liberty Law School did last week to say the following http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ba...ted-states

Liberty is treated differently than everyone else because they behave differently than everyone else.

(01-29-2014 02:34 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 01:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Right now JMU and Missouri State are the only candidates who could get the votes. The league is not in expand to 12 for the sake of 12 mode right now.

You don't think NDSU would get the votes? I get the geography issue, but geography went out the window when you added MNSU and Idaho.

Idaho is a temporary fix on both ends. Las Cruces NM is 30 minutes from El Paso, TX and that will either be temporary or all sports at dome point. Significantly extending the footprint while not bringing in additional $$$ will lead to one or several airport meetings.

(01-30-2014 09:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Liberty is OK but any president who votes for them has a hassle coming from the Faculty Senate and it's a hassle that the folks with TV cameras might actually pay attention to rather the resolutions about the cafeteria alternating between chocolate and vanilla pudding indicates the school is paying lip service to diversity since there are more flavors.

Exactly so do they bring more upside than hassle is the question and the answer is no.

Regardless of whether or not the controversy is warranted, it will be a factor in the decision. University presidents will have to decide if a vote for Liberty is worth the hassle that they'll get from the academics within their institutions. I doubt they're worth the headache.

I think the university presidents are being short-sighted by rejecting Liberty. Does conference affiliation really say that much? I doubt people will judge ULL or whoever academically just because they are in a sports conference with Liberty. The presidents seem to be making a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

Karl Benson wants Liberty because he understands something that the presidents do not: controversy sells. Controversy is the easiest way to make money these days, and the best way to get noticed.

In fact, I believe that even if Liberty doesn't get added, the controversy that Benson is creating just by talking to them has done more to put the spotlight on the Sun Belt than if he was talking to any other expansion candidate. Notice these rumors always happen during basketball season, which for the Sun Belt is just downtime between football and baseball. He's keeping people's minds on his conference.

With the lack of TV exposure most of the bottom 4 FBS football conferences are getting it would seem Liberty would have a lot to offer a conference with their sports network. I would watch my team play on their network every chance I got.

IMHO the ones on this board that are intolerant towards Liberty are exhibiting the same attitude they are accusing Liberty of exhibiting because the school refuses to accept "unconditional acceptance." it's sort of like they are looking in the mirror and complaining about what they are seeing.

I envy Liberty's sport network. I wish my team had one.

You would be better off streaming online. Existence of games on their basic cable TV network doesnt mean anyone is watching.

(01-30-2014 01:36 PM)panama Wrote:  You would be better off streaming online. Existence of games on their basic cable TV network doesnt mean anyone is watching.

You can stream live LU games online for free. LU even has an iPad/iPhone app for it.

Here is the link to the app.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/liberty-...75422?mt=8

(01-30-2014 01:36 PM)panama Wrote:  You would be better off streaming online. Existence of games on their basic cable TV network doesnt mean anyone is watching.

That's what the MAC does. Anything that's not already televised is streamed online. For every sport.

Cool. Just downloaded their iPad app

In my honest opinion, the Sun Belt should re-think about this. Why not giving a shot to UALR and UTA to sponsor football (which at one point in their past both schools used to sponsor that said sport)? And/or how about upgrading New Mexico State to full membership status? Then, you'll have Liberty to join for FBS as an affiliate member.

I think Liberty would be a great addition to the a Sunbelt and possibly could be a rival opponent against UL-L. Their annual budget is much higher than most Sunbelt schools.

(01-31-2014 07:51 AM)jlog3000 Wrote:  In my honest opinion, the Sun Belt should re-think about this. Why not giving a shot to UALR and UTA to sponsor football (which at one point in their past both schools used to sponsor that said sport)? And/or how about upgrading New Mexico State to full membership status? Then, you'll have Liberty to join for FBS as an affiliate member.

First of all, the Sun Belt doesn't want Liberty. The OP was kicked off by a tweet by an "insider" who isn't one.

Secondly, UALR has zero interest of starting football. UTA is years away from FBS. If you'd like to understand why they would join a football focused conference to not play football, please take a look at the Southland conference in the Sagarins (its not pretty) to see their alternative.

NMSU will likely be offered full membership in the Sun Belt. That makes sense.

The teams up for inclusion include:

1) JMU - I think they really don't want to join FBS, if it means joining the belt
2) Missouri State
3) Stay at 11 and wait

Other teams that have support in the Belt include.

SHSU - being blocked, not by Texas State, but by ULL and Arkansas State
NDSU - We have Idaho. Fargo is much easier to get to than Moscow, ID.

Other teams that are interested, but significant problems exist.

Liberty
Lamar
Jacksonville State
Eastern Kentucky

--------

Benson is likely in contact with ALL of the above schools, including Liberty. But he's probably in contact with Lamar, and they're not likely getting a bid either.

(01-31-2014 09:13 AM)Savacool Wrote:  I think Liberty would be a great addition to the a Sunbelt and possibly could be a rival opponent against UL-L. Their annual budget is much higher than most Sunbelt schools.

Liberty would make a wonderful travel pair for AAC members Temple and East Carolina. You are welcome to have them 'grace' your conference.

I hear it is official. My source says the Sunbelt either is or is not in talks with Liberty. He was not at liberty to tell me which one is in fact true.

But it no doubt was or was not happening.

(01-31-2014 10:23 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  UALR has zero interest of starting football. UTA is years away from FBS. If you'd like to understand why they would join a football focused conference to not play football, please take a look at the Southland conference in the Sagarins (its not pretty) to see their alternative.

Don't wanna argue, but can you please explain any reason that UALR and UTA don't feel like re-instating football? It would be appreciated for me to understand. Otherwise, and in my opinion, there's no need for non-football full membership schools to be in FBS conferences.

(01-31-2014 10:23 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Stay at 11 and wait

If they stay at 11 members, it'll be in the same state that the AAC will be to start off next season at least.