LU needs to be somewhere between the two extremes as mentioned by Curtis. It's really a matter of what is LU's goal. If it's to achieve FBS, one set of objectives need to be followed. If it is to use sports as an avenue to promote the school and church, those are different goals. LU cannot have it both ways.

I cringed when I saw that Jr. is speaking Thursday night at the RNC. Jr. seems to become smitten with the political spectrum. How does his speech benefit the school the athletic program? Answer is is does not. It benefits himself and hampers the perception of the school. Parents of kids who would consider athletics at LU, who do not support the Trump phenomena, have to be wondering if LU is the best for their son or daughter. The hardcore LU supporter who will not question or challenge the decisions of Jr. and the admins will defend his participation. Their support for Jr. is similar to those akin of those that support Trump. And it seems the wiser conversation would be what has to happen for LU to achieve FBS rather than another conversation discussing, defending or chastising recent decisions and choices.

(07-19-2016 01:20 PM)Libertygrad01 Wrote:  Were not going to hire Briles because he looked the other way when his players sexually assaulted females. Even try to do his own investigation. No one will touch him for awhile. While I agree liberty recruits a different type of kid, there's lots of quality Christian coaches out there.

I don't think there are quality FBS level coaches that are Christian and are willing to be FCS and are willing to only recruit the type of kids LU wants. The only reason we got Gill was because he was basically down on his luck. Otherwise if he was winning at the FBS level there is no way we could of got him. If we can't swing getting a winning HC at the FCS level to leave their FCS school with our restrictions how can we get a FBS level one that is willing to guide us to the next level. We may pay more but even that doesn't get us much. I think most LU fans live in a dream state concerning LU.

(07-19-2016 02:27 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 01:20 PM)Libertygrad01 Wrote:  Were not going to hire Briles because he looked the other way when his players sexually assaulted females. Even try to do his own investigation. No one will touch him for awhile. While I agree liberty recruits a different type of kid, there's lots of quality Christian coaches out there.

I don't think there are quality FBS level coaches that are Christian and are willing to be FCS and are willing to only recruit the type of kids LU wants. The only reason we got Gill was because he was basically down on his luck. Otherwise if he was winning at the FBS level there is no way we could of got him. If we can't swing getting a winning HC at the FCS level to leave their FCS school with our restrictions how can we get a FBS level one that is willing to guide us to the next level. We may pay more but even that doesn't get us much. I think most LU fans live in a dream state concerning LU.

Some LU fans seem to want to play the part of the martyr justifying the current position as LU being shunned or limited or distinctively different. From the sports perspective, LU is very similar to low level FBS programs and a few FCS programs. Facilities, student support are top notch.

LU seems destined to be FCS for a long time. Several have stated, myself included, that LU would be FBS within 1-3 years. That an indy path would be pursued if no invite was coming. Unforeseen was abrupt about face that the Chancellor has recently made in bringing LU into emotional and political issues. One can only scratch one's head why that position has become the new norm for the admins of LU. With this swashbuckling approach provides more ammunition for the LU naysayers to stay away from LU.

I'm all about LU and proudly wear the gear. But we can't be a hardcore christian school and FBS at the same time. BYU was grandfather into the FBS system and any other household name school that is Christian is either Christian in name only or a light version of a Christian school. Times have changed and LU just happens to just have been founded a few decades late. I'm all for LU to become a low fat version of a Christian school. And for anyone that says if LU turns away from the OG mission we should burn the school down that's just silly. I've seen that on the other board and I'm dumbfounded by it. If a LU fan can't think strategically/long term and the only way forward is to shut down LU please stop thinking. Statements like that just embarrass yourself and the school.

A lot of good discussion here with points on both sides that are justifiable. I like it!

I think Liberty needs to figure out what it wants to be. If they want to be FBS, then they can't be as political as they are. If they want to be political, that's fine too but they can't cry when no conference wants to extend an invitation. In my opinion, I don't think Liberty should take as outward an approach to politics but I don't want them to compromise on their Biblical stances.

Liberty is not a better job than a typical FBS school. Liberty isn't a destination job for Christian coaches, at least not yet. Even BYU had their coach (Bronco Mendenhall? Did I just invent that name or is that something close to it?) who I believe was an alumni or at least a Mormon who left for UVA after 10 or so years I think. Gill's stock was low and Liberty offered and he accepted. I think Gill would jump at an FBS job and he may have had a chance if last year turned out much better. Rocco was a finalist for plenty of FBS jobs and Liberty would give him a new contract. It may have been Liberty paying the market price or it could have been to keep Rocco. Regardless, he moved to Richmond laterally (at best) compared to Liberty.

Speaking of Rocco, I think we've seen now that typical Liberty coaches don't move on to bigger and better things. McKay went to be an assistant coach which I feel is worse than a head coach at a lower prestige program. Everyone else recently has been fired that I can remember. I don't know if it speaks to me that Liberty is keeping it's talented coaches or if it is instead Liberty's hires aren't good enough to be poached by the big boys. Our two most successful coaches, Tolsma and Green, were here prior to Jeff Barber, right? That kind of puts him in a different light, unfortunately, but at least he has been able to keep them.

As for Jerry Jr. speaking at the RNC, I have mixed feelings. I support his right to be outspoken for his beliefs and for him to support whatever political candidate he wants but he is a public figure at a polarizing university and anything he does gets inspected and is used for ammunition against that university. He represents Liberty whether he wants to or not and by attaching himself to Trump then he likewise attaches Liberty to Trump (even against an overwhelming student body and other Liberty associates who very much didn't support Trump).

(07-19-2016 04:57 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  A lot of good discussion here with points on both sides that are justifiable. I like it!

I think Liberty needs to figure out what it wants to be. If they want to be FBS, then they can't be as political as they are. If they want to be political, that's fine too but they can't cry when no conference wants to extend an invitation. In my opinion, I don't think Liberty should take as outward an approach to politics but I don't want them to compromise on their Biblical stances.

Liberty is not a better job than a typical FBS school. Liberty isn't a destination job for Christian coaches, at least not yet. Even BYU had their coach (Bronco Mendenhall? Did I just invent that name or is that something close to it?) who I believe was an alumni or at least a Mormon who left for UVA after 10 or so years I think. Gill's stock was low and Liberty offered and he accepted. I think Gill would jump at an FBS job and he may have had a chance if last year turned out much better. Rocco was a finalist for plenty of FBS jobs and Liberty would give him a new contract. It may have been Liberty paying the market price or it could have been to keep Rocco. Regardless, he moved to Richmond laterally (at best) compared to Liberty.

Speaking of Rocco, I think we've seen now that typical Liberty coaches don't move on to bigger and better things. McKay went to be an assistant coach which I feel is worse than a head coach at a lower prestige program. Everyone else recently has been fired that I can remember. I don't know if it speaks to me that Liberty is keeping it's talented coaches or if it is instead Liberty's hires aren't good enough to be poached by the big boys. Our two most successful coaches, Tolsma and Green, were here prior to Jeff Barber, right? That kind of puts him in a different light, unfortunately, but at least he has been able to keep them.

As for Jerry Jr. speaking at the RNC, I have mixed feelings. I support his right to be outspoken for his beliefs and for him to support whatever political candidate he wants but he is a public figure at a polarizing university and anything he does gets inspected and is used for ammunition against that university. He represents Liberty whether he wants to or not and by attaching himself to Trump then he likewise attaches Liberty to Trump (even against an overwhelming student body and other Liberty associates who very much didn't support Trump).

Basically LU hires assistant coaches from other schools to HC positions. If we can get a winning HC at another FCS school to come here I would be blown away. In a make believe world there are a ton of Christian coaches that would love to come to LU. In the real world there are almost zero HC's and zero winning FCS HC's willing to come to LU. We need to lighten up on our mission. Because of that mission we have people in charge like JFJr. Christians tend to like leaders and no matter how bad those leaders are its taboo to speak ill of them and it crazy to fire them. I don't know if it's the whole pastor leading the flock thing burnt into their heads but that doesn't work on me. If a leader isn't performing you find a new one that can. At the end of the day it's a job with income and performance standards.

I would stop supporting the school if they ever went Christian light. The mission is to raise champions for Christ, I would rather see them flounder around in mediocrity than change their mission. I want a school a can send my now 10 and 7 year old sons to where I know they're going to be challenged to be Godly men. FBS isn't that important to me.

In the past 6-12 months Jr. has really come out of his shell and been more vocal than ever. I believe that's due to an acknowledgement that an FBS invite just isn't going to happen. Why play nice, be quiet and just get along when the lowest FBS conference wouldn't even consider you? They were vetting EKU for heavens sakes. Liberty made a sizable offer to join the conference and the poor SB schools still turned their noses. It almost appears that Jr. said screw this, I'm not doing a song and dance and still be ignored.

(07-19-2016 05:22 PM)Libertygrad01 Wrote:  I would stop supporting the school if they ever went Christian light. The mission is to raise champions for Christ, I would rather see them flounder around in mediocrity than change their mission. I want a school a can send my now 10 and 7 year old sons to where I know they're going to be challenged to be Godly men. FBS isn't that important to me.

In the past 6-12 months Jr. has really come out of his shell and been more vocal than ever. I believe that's due to an acknowledgement that an FBS invite just isn't going to happen. Why play nice, be quiet and just get along when the lowest FBS conference wouldn't even consider you? They were vetting EKU for heavens sakes. Liberty made a sizable offer to join the conference and the poor SB schools still turned their noses. It almost appears that Jr. said screw this, I'm not doing a song and dance and still be ignored.

If LU went Christian light and you stopped being a fan I'm sure you would be replaced with many more fans and not be missed. That goes for anyone that thinks that them saying they won't be a fan is somehow drawing a line in the sand and means something. I am not going to force feed my son anything Christian. I think if he wants to find God he will otherwise he will go to UT or some other public school in Texas. My fandom doesn't hinge on what your fandom hinges on. I guess this is more like the old saying goes "out with the old in with the new".

I went to Liberty for their Christian values and teachings. Others have whatever reason to go to Liberty and that's fine. It could have been the cheapest, closest, most convenient, legacy, the only option, or whatever. Maybe some are just fans and that's fine too. But for me personally, I like Liberty and chose them because they were different in a good way. If they went mainstream, I would hate it and it would take me a while to get over it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the fans who aren't alumni, or the alumni and students who went due to any reason other than the Christian values. But Liberty talks a tough game against schools who were formerly Christian and are now secular such as Duke, Harvard, and others and would be extremely hypocritical by joining them. For what? To compete against better football teams? How trivial compared to the price in my opinion and you won't find a stronger supporter for FBS. Compromising values and integrity for sports seems so petty and Liberty would be so ordinary.

(07-19-2016 07:11 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I went to Liberty for their Christian values and teachings. Others have whatever reason to go to Liberty and that's fine. It could have been the cheapest, closest, most convenient, legacy, the only option, or whatever. Maybe some are just fans and that's fine too. But for me personally, I like Liberty and chose them because they were different in a good way. If they went mainstream, I would hate it and it would take me a while to get over it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the fans who aren't alumni, or the alumni and students who went due to any reason other than the Christian values. But Liberty talks a tough game against schools who were formerly Christian and are now secular such as Duke, Harvard, and others and would be extremely hypocritical by joining them. For what? To compete against better football teams? How trivial compared to the price in my opinion and you won't find a stronger supporter for FBS. Compromising values and integrity for sports seems so petty and Liberty would be so ordinary.

Your underestimating the value of playing big time ball. LU could very well become a household name. Hosting a FBS team is really a couple hour advertisement for LU. Looking to go up a level on sports is far from petty.

(07-19-2016 07:11 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I went to Liberty for their Christian values and teachings. Others have whatever reason to go to Liberty and that's fine. It could have been the cheapest, closest, most convenient, legacy, the only option, or whatever. Maybe some are just fans and that's fine too. But for me personally, I like Liberty and chose them because they were different in a good way. If they went mainstream, I would hate it and it would take me a while to get over it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the fans who aren't alumni, or the alumni and students who went due to any reason other than the Christian values. But Liberty talks a tough game against schools who were formerly Christian and are now secular such as Duke, Harvard, and others and would be extremely hypocritical by joining them. For what? To compete against better football teams? How trivial compared to the price in my opinion and you won't find a stronger supporter for FBS. Compromising values and integrity for sports seems so petty and Liberty would be so ordinary.

My wife is an LU alumni and I see both points. I think that LU should tone down the politics a little and focus on winning more. You don't have to stray from your beliefs but I think LU needs to be open to teaching both sides of any arguement. I feel they also should work on the academics because they aren't great (I only look at us news). All in all LU is a great school where I plan to get my masters from but it needs to be a little harder academically and athletically in order to continue the growth. This is just my opinion so I am open to changing it with a healthy argument lol.

(07-19-2016 04:50 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I'm all about LU and proudly wear the gear. But we can't be a hardcore christian school and FBS at the same time. BYU was grandfather into the FBS system and any other household name school that is Christian is either Christian in name only or a light version of a Christian school. Times have changed and LU just happens to just have been founded a few decades late. I'm all for LU to become a low fat version of a Christian school. And for anyone that says if LU turns away from the OG mission we should burn the school down that's just silly. I've seen that on the other board and I'm dumbfounded by it. If a LU fan can't think strategically/long term and the only way forward is to shut down LU please stop thinking. Statements like that just embarrass yourself and the school.

Good points and maybe some variations to your thoughts may make a more valid position. LU being a Christian school is a lesser issue than statements being made by school leaders that are headline/statements/actions grabbing attention by media and non-supporters. It's okay to have the requirements of the students be more stringent than other schools. Only those kids who agree, or those parents who insist their kids agree, can choose to come to LU. That's a voluntary choice.

When JFJr. stumps for Trump at the RNC, makes disparaging comments towards and welcomes guns to campus, he alienates those on the fence about LU and throws gasoline to those who want to demean the school.

To those who feel that more control exerted by JFJr. in his off-the-cuff comments, his associations with polarizing figures and his overt support in national politics is a lessening of quality at LU, and somehow this challenges LU being a religious school, that's simply not true.

LU has reached a point where it can stand on it's own merit. It's time for the leaders of the school to respect that. Using the prominence of LU to further one's own personal agendas is a more serious problem than believing LU is compromising by toning down the rhetoric and make wiser choices.

(07-19-2016 05:22 PM)Libertygrad01 Wrote:  I would stop supporting the school if they ever went Christian light. The mission is to raise champions for Christ, I would rather see them flounder around in mediocrity than change their mission. I want a school a can send my now 10 and 7 year old sons to where I know they're going to be challenged to be Godly men. FBS isn't that important to me.

In the past 6-12 months Jr. has really come out of his shell and been more vocal than ever. I believe that's due to an acknowledgement that an FBS invite just isn't going to happen. Why play nice, be quiet and just get along when the lowest FBS conference wouldn't even consider you? They were vetting EKU for heavens sakes. Liberty made a sizable offer to join the conference and the poor SB schools still turned their noses. It almost appears that Jr. said screw this, I'm not doing a song and dance and still be ignored.

LG, if you truly believe the mission of the athletics at LU is to raise champions for Christ then you are buying the corporate slogan. All the facilities at the school are there to support the school to build a base to keep it's mission healthy and viable. One's choice to take a spiritual path is on the inner. LU or TRBC does not do that. It's on the inner. Does LU and TRBC provide an opportunity, an environment to stimulate that choice for the individual. Absolutely. But the spiritual path is a solo, inner path. When we place institutions and individuals in hierarchical positions we limit ourselves and place those in a superior position.

(07-19-2016 07:33 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:11 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I went to Liberty for their Christian values and teachings. Others have whatever reason to go to Liberty and that's fine. It could have been the cheapest, closest, most convenient, legacy, the only option, or whatever. Maybe some are just fans and that's fine too. But for me personally, I like Liberty and chose them because they were different in a good way. If they went mainstream, I would hate it and it would take me a while to get over it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the fans who aren't alumni, or the alumni and students who went due to any reason other than the Christian values. But Liberty talks a tough game against schools who were formerly Christian and are now secular such as Duke, Harvard, and others and would be extremely hypocritical by joining them. For what? To compete against better football teams? How trivial compared to the price in my opinion and you won't find a stronger supporter for FBS. Compromising values and integrity for sports seems so petty and Liberty would be so ordinary.

My wife is an LU alumni and I see both points. I think that LU should tone down the politics a little and focus on winning more. You don't have to stray from your beliefs but I think LU needs to be open to teaching both sides of any arguement. I feel they also should work on the academics because they aren't great (I only look at us news). All in all LU is a great school where I plan to get my masters from but it needs to be a little harder academically and athletically in order to continue the growth. This is just my opinion so I am open to changing it with a healthy argument lol.

I think Liberty has much room to grow into being a better Christian school without having to compromise their Christian values. I too would like them to improve their academic standards which takes time. They just moved up a notch in the Carnegie Foundation for their research which should help with their US News and World rankings by moving them into a "national" university rather than regional. When I was a student, they taught both creation and evolution, they taught all types of political policies (at least in the economics classes I took. I can't speak for the actual political classes). I would like to see Liberty spend less time getting actively involved in an offensive manner and take a more defensive approach. That doesn't mean tolerating or accepting an opposing viewpoint but playing nice.

I understand I and the others with my viewpoint may be in the minority and that's fine. If Liberty changed and I withdrew my support, Liberty would be fine without me and the others. They'd make new fans and alumni and perhaps be better off financially. I just don't think it would be worth it and I hope the leaders see the risks and costs associated with trading integrity for fame and money. What's the point of competing sports at the highest level to get more exposure for the school if you compromise what the school stood for to reach those heights?

(07-19-2016 07:28 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:11 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I went to Liberty for their Christian values and teachings. Others have whatever reason to go to Liberty and that's fine. It could have been the cheapest, closest, most convenient, legacy, the only option, or whatever. Maybe some are just fans and that's fine too. But for me personally, I like Liberty and chose them because they were different in a good way. If they went mainstream, I would hate it and it would take me a while to get over it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the fans who aren't alumni, or the alumni and students who went due to any reason other than the Christian values. But Liberty talks a tough game against schools who were formerly Christian and are now secular such as Duke, Harvard, and others and would be extremely hypocritical by joining them. For what? To compete against better football teams? How trivial compared to the price in my opinion and you won't find a stronger supporter for FBS. Compromising values and integrity for sports seems so petty and Liberty would be so ordinary.

Your underestimating the value of playing big time ball. LU could very well become a household name. Hosting a FBS team is really a couple hour advertisement for LU. Looking to go up a level on sports is far from petty.

You are right, it isn't petty. If Liberty was a bowl regular, that could be huge for placing the spotlight on LU. Liberty could have the east coast exposure that BYU lacks. But what will that exposure do for Liberty if they are no longer Christian? What good is it if Liberty is just another school? What will all the telecasts say: "Today's match up between Liberty University and Virginia Tech is going to be a good one. This rivalry started way back when Liberty dropped it's Christian persona to focus more on athletics." I just don't think that's desirable and by conforming with everyone else, Liberty is no longer special and doesn't stand out.

Liberty's opponents will still dislike Liberty unless they pulled a complete 180 rather than moving to the middle ground. Liberty would alienate most of their supporters. And then Liberty would be just like everyone else and immediately compete with the hundreds and thousands of other schools for students, exposure, fans, support, and whatever else after having no history of that. Look at the commencement speakers and convocation speakers. Who comes to Liberty for those things if they stop being who they are?

(07-19-2016 08:58 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:28 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:11 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I went to Liberty for their Christian values and teachings. Others have whatever reason to go to Liberty and that's fine. It could have been the cheapest, closest, most convenient, legacy, the only option, or whatever. Maybe some are just fans and that's fine too. But for me personally, I like Liberty and chose them because they were different in a good way. If they went mainstream, I would hate it and it would take me a while to get over it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the fans who aren't alumni, or the alumni and students who went due to any reason other than the Christian values. But Liberty talks a tough game against schools who were formerly Christian and are now secular such as Duke, Harvard, and others and would be extremely hypocritical by joining them. For what? To compete against better football teams? How trivial compared to the price in my opinion and you won't find a stronger supporter for FBS. Compromising values and integrity for sports seems so petty and Liberty would be so ordinary.

Your underestimating the value of playing big time ball. LU could very well become a household name. Hosting a FBS team is really a couple hour advertisement for LU. Looking to go up a level on sports is far from petty.

You are right, it isn't petty. If Liberty was a bowl regular, that could be huge for placing the spotlight on LU. Liberty could have the east coast exposure that BYU lacks. But what will that exposure do for Liberty if they are no longer Christian? What good is it if Liberty is just another school? What will all the telecasts say: "Today's match up between Liberty University and Virginia Tech is going to be a good one. This rivalry started way back when Liberty dropped it's Christian persona to focus more on athletics." I just don't think that's desirable and by conforming with everyone else, Liberty is no longer special and doesn't stand out.

Liberty's opponents will still dislike Liberty unless they pulled a complete 180 rather than moving to the middle ground. Liberty would alienate most of their supporters. And then Liberty would be just like everyone else and immediately compete with the hundreds and thousands of other schools for students, exposure, fans, support, and whatever else after having no history of that. Look at the commencement speakers and convocation speakers. Who comes to Liberty for those things if they stop being who they are?

Remember I said lowfat Christian not a secular school. If everything is all or nothing and you had your way LU might never go FBS or be good at sports.

(07-19-2016 08:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:33 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:11 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I went to Liberty for their Christian values and teachings. Others have whatever reason to go to Liberty and that's fine. It could have been the cheapest, closest, most convenient, legacy, the only option, or whatever. Maybe some are just fans and that's fine too. But for me personally, I like Liberty and chose them because they were different in a good way. If they went mainstream, I would hate it and it would take me a while to get over it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the fans who aren't alumni, or the alumni and students who went due to any reason other than the Christian values. But Liberty talks a tough game against schools who were formerly Christian and are now secular such as Duke, Harvard, and others and would be extremely hypocritical by joining them. For what? To compete against better football teams? How trivial compared to the price in my opinion and you won't find a stronger supporter for FBS. Compromising values and integrity for sports seems so petty and Liberty would be so ordinary.

My wife is an LU alumni and I see both points. I think that LU should tone down the politics a little and focus on winning more. You don't have to stray from your beliefs but I think LU needs to be open to teaching both sides of any arguement. I feel they also should work on the academics because they aren't great (I only look at us news). All in all LU is a great school where I plan to get my masters from but it needs to be a little harder academically and athletically in order to continue the growth. This is just my opinion so I am open to changing it with a healthy argument lol.

I think Liberty has much room to grow into being a better Christian school without having to compromise their Christian values. I too would like them to improve their academic standards which takes time. They just moved up a notch in the Carnegie Foundation for their research which should help with their US News and World rankings by moving them into a "national" university rather than regional. When I was a student, they taught both creation and evolution, they taught all types of political policies (at least in the economics classes I took. I can't speak for the actual political classes). I would like to see Liberty spend less time getting actively involved in an offensive manner and take a more defensive approach. That doesn't mean tolerating or accepting an opposing viewpoint but playing nice.

I understand I and the others with my viewpoint may be in the minority and that's fine. If Liberty changed and I withdrew my support, Liberty would be fine without me and the others. They'd make new fans and alumni and perhaps be better off financially. I just don't think it would be worth it and I hope the leaders see the risks and costs associated with trading integrity for fame and money. What's the point of competing sports at the highest level to get more exposure for the school if you compromise what the school stood for to reach those heights?

What's the point at being small and being almost completely unheard of anywhere but the east coast? If LU has a message that they want to reach to the farthest corners of the US doing what they are doing will not do that. In most things if you aren't moving forward your moving backwards. LU's online program will one day level out and be smaller once all the public schools get on board with online. If LU stays small we could very well die off like we almost did before JFSr. died and LU cashed in on his life insurance. I'd rather LU grow and be a water down version of itself than no longer exist.

(07-19-2016 09:02 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  Remember I said lowfat Christian not a secular school. If everything is all or nothing and you had your way LU might never go FBS or be good at sports.

I could deal with Liberty making some changes, but nothing to change the Christian identity and nothing to change what they teach.

If I had it my way, Liberty would be undefeated at the highest level of all sports while maintaining their Christian values and beliefs. I understand nobody is that successful so it won't happen (but I do believe in miracles). In my opinion, life has so many more important things than sports and I believe Liberty's mission to train champions for Christ is one of those things bigger than sports. Having said that, I would rather Liberty compromise it's athletic standing rather than it's Christian values and beliefs. Ideally, they would work together and I would try my best to make that happen. I think sports at universities should be a showcase to get others to look into what a school offers and their identity rather than changing their identity to be better at sports. If you feel that is okay then I can't tell you that your opinion is wrong and mine is right. You have just as much right to your opinion as I do mine and I appreciate the cordial back and forth.

(BTW I removed some quotes to save room in case anyone wanted a reason and it wasn't obvious)

Wow! Great conversations. I am firmly in the camp of LU maintaining it's mission statement and not compromising its ethical or moral direction. I'd hate for it to go mainstream like others (SMU, TCU, Baylor, Duke, etc.). I would still be a fan and an alumni. But I can honestly say I'd be far less passionate than I am now about LU athletics, and a bit less excited as an alumni about the direction of the university.

LU can surely improve in many ways. It's not a perfect place. However, just as secular, private, "Christian-lite" schools are able to decide what their beliefs and stances are and live them out loud, LU should be afforded the same opportunity. Right now, of course, no one is taking that opportunity away.

As far a Jr. speaking at the convention. It's his choice. He will speak for himself and not proclaim that LU endorses any particular candidate.

It's difficult for me to understand the point being made that if LU (JFJr.) tones down it's/his rhetoric how that will undermine and compromise the mission of the school. The rhetoric creates a division rather than unity.

If one is saying JFJr NOT making unwise, headline grabbing statements would compromise the school I just don't get it. If one believe that, they are playing the victim card. That is the woe is me position in making excuse and blaming others for one's lack of success and failure.

Where others may be uncomfortable chastising JFJr. or holding him accountable I am not. When he took the helm from Sr., I had high hopes and have stated here on this forum, and many other times on the SBC, of how he was different than Sr. I've received negative reps strongly defending LU in the past as I was convinced Jr. would be different than Sr. with his public persona. I was wrong.

Even with his RNC speaking position being labeled as a personal appearance and not a school endorsed function, he is still going to be identified and mentioned nationally as the Chancellor of LU. Seems the enticement and seduction of the limelight and political arena was too great for him to say no. A stronger, wiser leader would have thanked the offer to speak and politely said no like numerous GOP leaders have done so.

The sad part of this is how it hampers the school and it's athletic development. It throws fuel on the fire for those in the anti-LU camp. To those who believe it would compromises LU mission if he did not speak, nothing could be farther than the truth. It's actually the opposite. JFJR. would have been a stronger person for it and gained respect for standing above the fray of a hotly contested presidential race. Instead, he's in the middle of it by choice. A very unwise choice driven by ego gratification rather than wisdom for the school he represents.

As far as those on the hot seat at LU, include JFJr. for me. He had made a very large tactical error. A very big mistake.