(06-08-2015 01:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 01:15 PM)Libertygrad01 Wrote:  I'll take a stab at it. Presidents like to be with like minded people. So you have these progressive intellects sitting around a table and I'm sure the thought of inviting someone to their table that thinks and believes very different than they do is a hard pill to swallow. That's all speculation, what's not speculation is private vs. public. That's a major sticking point.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I'm not sure that 11 presidents at 11 state supported institutions in the south is exactly the League of Liberals.

There is a vast difference in mission of the institutions.

Liberty's admission page says to be considered for an academic scholarship a student must have a high school GPA of 2.7 and an ACT of 20. AState won't admit you without a 2.75 high school GPA and an ACT of 21, you can get conditional admission at lower levels but you are in a crack if you do because depending on your test scores you will have to complete three to 12 non-credit hours successfully to fully admitted and those don't count toward your degree progress for financial aid.

For clarification that scholarship is not an academic scholarship, it's there to help offset the overall cost of tuition and almost every kid gets some help.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I think that the majority of college football fans, if and when they see Liberty playing on TV at the FBS level would say:
"Who is this now? Liberty? Ok."

Most of them aren't going to know jack squat about who they are or what they believe.

And Most of them who don't are going to think Liberty is 1-AA or Division 2 just the same as they think about most of us.

And just as it is now, few are going to be able to tell you what conference they are in as they don't even know who is in the Belt.

You know how many people I talk to who think that Mercer just moved from the Sun Belt to the Southern Conference? A LOT.

It really isn't going to matter regardless of how many blow hards on here moan about how it will make the rest of the Sun Belt look bad.

(06-08-2015 02:40 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 09:55 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Well, I guess you pro-Liberty folks just might be on to something, but I know that the SBC is only a stepping stone to bigger and better things for them. With all of that filthy lucre, maybe they could convince the NCAA to let them go FBS and become an independent and be partners with BYU, Notre Dame and Army.

So it is okay for USA to use the Sun Belt as a stepping stone but not Liberty? Your school was the one with ULL making the biggest effort to replace UAB in CUSA.

You're kidding, right? USA FOUNDED THE SUN BELT! If anyone has the right to use it as a "stepping stone" it'd be US.

(06-08-2015 01:20 PM)glsjunior74 Wrote:  Does Bob Jones have a football team?

No, they're main sports are soccer and basketball. They don't have football.

http://www.bjubruins.com/index.aspx

(06-08-2015 01:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 01:20 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 01:10 PM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 01:06 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 12:48 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  Again, thanks to all the approve voters. I stand by my statement that Liberty is the best SBC candidate and any other equal would have already been chosen. I am still positive LU will be FBS sooner than later, I'm just doubting that it will be with a seemingly shortsighted SBC.

Curious... What facet do you believe is stopping Liberty from joining? I mean, I think everyone pretty much agrees that if you take the myopic ONLY athletics point of view, Liberty is the best candidate around.

So given that we agree it's not athletics/facilities (this is an assumption), what is it?

To keep from making it an argument, I will not respond to your answer (if you choose to).

I think the biggest fear of conference presidents is they will be buying championships in 5 years......they will not say that publicly so may use other reasons to mask.

Any President who thinks like that should be fired. Again, they are a private school with a $29M budget. Not $129M.

They have no history that indicates that their budget is buying them easy trophies against lesser competition.

The exposure from a single body bag game vs an ACC /P5 would trump an FCS championship for their "mission" of legitimacy very possibly.

I could see a quick jump to 40 million to truly test the waters for exposure/marketing/prestige.

(06-07-2015 02:34 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  I, personally, don't have a problem with Liberty. If they're willing to cap their athletic spending, you'll find that not many will either. They shouldn't have to, but that seems to be an issue...

Why would they cap their spending on athletics? Are we requesting others do the same? Sounds small time to me, compete or drop down! But cap spending?

Loaded gun in room with a bunch of 6 year olds

Gasoline open container few inches from fire



The word Liberty on our board..................

all going to get someone in trouble.......

(06-08-2015 01:20 PM)glsjunior74 Wrote:  Does Bob Jones have a football team?

LOL!!! Does GSU?

(06-08-2015 03:36 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:34 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  I, personally, don't have a problem with Liberty. If they're willing to cap their athletic spending, you'll find that not many will either. They shouldn't have to, but that seems to be an issue...

Why would they cap their spending on athletics? Are we requesting others do the same? Sounds small time to me, compete or drop down! But cap spending?

Try to comprehend....they are not like the "others" you speak of. Not...the....same.

If they wish to join a very competitive conference of public institutions all with similar resources and public restrictions...they will agree to terms that allow them to fit into that culture. If they have issues with that....so sorry.

(06-08-2015 03:37 PM)Buzz Lightyear Lite Wrote:  Loaded gun in room with a bunch of 6 year olds

Gasoline open container few inches from fire



The word Liberty on our board..................

all going to get someone in trouble.......

(06-08-2015 08:04 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  All their money is going to a K&N East stock car now:

William Byron, I believe he's still in HS.

"As for being "ready", FAU and FIU were not ready, WKU was not ready, and now everyone cries to get back with them."

FAU's lifetime record against ASU is 3-3. FYI

(06-08-2015 04:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 03:36 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:34 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  I, personally, don't have a problem with Liberty. If they're willing to cap their athletic spending, you'll find that not many will either. They shouldn't have to, but that seems to be an issue...

Why would they cap their spending on athletics? Are we requesting others do the same? Sounds small time to me, compete or drop down! But cap spending?

Try to comprehend....they are not like the "others" you speak of. Not...the....same.

If they wish to join a very competitive conference of public institutions all with similar resources and public restrictions...they will agree to terms that allow them to fit into that culture. If they have issues with that....so sorry.

I comprehend your rhetoric and his well, and it reeks of small time athletics! I don't care if they are members are not, but spare me the unfair advantages of a private institution in athletics. They are neither Notre Dame or Brigham Young, but in either case how has it worked out for them? Bottom line, you either grow your university and its budget, or you drop down. Are you saying you couldn't compete with SMU or Rice today? You and he seriously suffer from the small time mentality that permeates this board daily. You want to play G5 athletics, stop worrying about what others have and take care of your own business.

(06-08-2015 03:16 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 02:40 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 09:55 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Well, I guess you pro-Liberty folks just might be on to something, but I know that the SBC is only a stepping stone to bigger and better things for them. With all of that filthy lucre, maybe they could convince the NCAA to let them go FBS and become an independent and be partners with BYU, Notre Dame and Army.

So it is okay for USA to use the Sun Belt as a stepping stone but not Liberty? Your school was the one with ULL making the biggest effort to replace UAB in CUSA.

You're kidding, right? USA FOUNDED THE SUN BELT! If anyone has the right to use it as a "stepping stone" it'd be US.

I wasn't kidding about anything. I was just pointing out the irony in his post. But by the sound of it you have separate ideas of where you want USA's athletics to be.

(06-08-2015 10:37 AM)Usajags Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 03:13 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Having to drink out of a solo cup while tailgating at Furman & Sanford, you learn to hate dealing with these private schools due this pretentious facade they like to put up.

(06-08-2015 10:26 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 08:24 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  Problem with that logic is that Liberty was an on campus school quite a ways before it was an on line school. The difference is that Liberty does both well. Liberty was also one of the very first to do online and is way ahead of the curve. So many other on campus schools are now following suit.

The results of this poll make it clear that these issues rest with a scant few bitter folks. Most realize this is an athletics conversation and that Liberty would fit in quite well.

uta doesnt tout the online students when promoting the school. they show the 36,000 or so on campus but if you dig deeper they will say over 48,000 total counting the 12,000+ online students. large enough without stretching

Large enough to restart football, and a lot of this conversation goes away. It's all up to UTA to fix this problem.

you are right about that..

(06-08-2015 12:10 PM)theothermav Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 10:26 AM)runamuck Wrote:  uta doesnt tout the online students when promoting the school. they show the 36,000 or so on campus but if you dig deeper they will say over 48,000 total counting the 12,000+ online students. large enough without stretching

According to Liberty U:
Residential enrollment: over 13,500
Online enrollment: over 95,000

William McRaven, UT system chancellor, is not a proponent of online education.

I can see it for supplemental course taking but I feel that a university degree should include mostly oncampus coursework. I know a couple of people that wouldnt normally be accepted to the university but managed to get an online degree from somewhere and they go out in the job market and compete with folks that put in the time and effort at campus.

(06-08-2015 08:04 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  All their money is going to a K&N East stock car now:

That's cute. Here's ours.



https://vimeo.com/120726680

(06-08-2015 01:15 PM)Libertygrad01 Wrote:  I'll take a stab at it. Presidents like to be with like minded people.

You just answered your own question:

Im pretty sure that none of the Sun Belt Presidents have a problem with hiring different races or ethnicities. Nor do they have a problem hiring gay or lesbian faculty as long as their credentials are in order or meet the standards of the position. Something Liberty can say they would never do.

No other SB school can claim that 94% of their enrollment is white (3% of the other races are at Liberty for sports, the other 3 have no idea) and 93% are registered republican. Both things Liberty can say.

Liberty has nothing in common with not one other SB member.

(06-08-2015 04:43 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 04:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 03:36 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:34 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  I, personally, don't have a problem with Liberty. If they're willing to cap their athletic spending, you'll find that not many will either. They shouldn't have to, but that seems to be an issue...

Why would they cap their spending on athletics? Are we requesting others do the same? Sounds small time to me, compete or drop down! But cap spending?

Try to comprehend....they are not like the "others" you speak of. Not...the....same.

If they wish to join a very competitive conference of public institutions all with similar resources and public restrictions...they will agree to terms that allow them to fit into that culture. If they have issues with that....so sorry.

I comprehend your rhetoric and his well, and it reeks of small time athletics! I don't care if they are members are not, but spare me the unfair advantages of a private institution in athletics. They are neither Notre Dame or Brigham Young, but in either case how has it worked out for them? Bottom line, you either grow your university and its budget, or you drop down. Are you saying you couldn't compete with SMU or Rice today? You and he seriously suffer from the small time mentality that permeates this board daily. You want to play G5 athletics, stop worrying about what others have and take care of your own business.

I am pretty sure I know where Vandy, Rice, and Tulsa stand in terms of going full bore shoveling money into athletics to dominate their conference as their primary ticket to national repuation. It's not going to happen because they are primarily interested in other aspects for their national reputations. They are...already mainstream brands.

SMU...well....they tried to purchase a national reputation in football and may have learned their lesson.

But I frankly don't trust Liberty to not try to use FBS football as their primary springboard to national reputation no matter what it costs. FBS football success is a key element to "mainstreaming" their brand....like a Notre Dame or BYU.

The problem is "no matter the cost".

There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But this is a path that no other member of this conference can follow them on. No President or BOT in this conference can divert however much university money and resources to athletics that they want...and not report it to the world.

I have no idea what Liberty's actual intentions would be or what sort of member they would be. But we, and our conference, already play on a heavily tilted playing field in FBS football and I have no interest in seeing our entertaining and competitive conference dynamic tilted...or even the chance of it.

So are the benefits that Liberty brings worth bringing in an institution that doesn't share our resource level and restrictions? Uh...I don't see what overwhelming benefit that they bring to make me throw out those concerns. They are, after all....not Notre Dame.

So I've stated what would ease my concerns....and that is sharing our transparency requirements and voluntarily remaining in the same budgetary universe as the rest of us. But nooooooo.....that is somehow unreasonable!

Your idea that parity in sports leagues is for pansies...is plenty macho and manly...but I happen to like parity and level playing fields in sports. Just one of those things man.

If for no other reason I will be glad when we get all the teams we need so we can stop talking about Liberty especially and the other schools that are trying to move up. Everyone knows what Liberty stands for and I don't care...even less than less. No one on here is going to change their minds or the minds of the Liberty administration. Ahhh what I wouldn't give for a GS argument about how great their football team is or UL fans having a 200 page name thread.