(05-24-2013 12:45 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If the MAC needs another member and likes Liberty University, why not take them into the conference right away.

The only way that the MAC would take Liberty University would be if it was desperate for a 14th and couldn't see any more desirable school available.

Which is why LU is not going to the MAC ~ the MAC is not desperate enough for a 14th to take LU, and if it was that desperate, there'd likely be more appealing alternatives available.

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

So, do not foresee an ACC invitation coming for Liberty University anytime soon in their future.

(05-24-2013 11:24 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

I don't believe in many of the beliefs that Liberty supports. But, they should be free to express them without discrimination. However, while you spout off about as being for free speech and anti-discrimination, your views are are clearly discriminatory towards Liberty and their beliefs. That's the problem with most free speech advocates, they only support free speech if agrees with their point of view. Say something anti-Islam and you are a bigot. Say something anti-Christian or Mormon and no one pays attention. We can have anti-Mormon or Catholic plays on Broadway and they are critically acclaimed. Imagine the reaction from an anti-Islam play? Would you be just as accepting or would you find it offensive?

The criteria for admitting Liberty or any other school in a conference should depend on whether their athletic department is a good fit for the conference. If their Christian beliefs, e.g. not playing on Sunday, renders the school incompatible, so be it. But to advocate rejecting a school simply because their administration maintains certain religious beliefs that conflict with your accepted view of what Christians should believe, in my opinion, also conflicts with beliefs you are advocating on so many levels.

The Sun Belt does not discriminate against fundamenatalists, who contribute to each member institution as students, faculty, staff, alumni, athletes, and fans. The Belt is well within their rights (morally, ethically, and legally) to demand that any institution in their private association (See Dale v Boy Scouts) not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation (Liberty does discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation).

I'm a bit confused. Liberty doesn't hire persons of certain religious traditions or Gay persons in their non-theological hiring. The Sun Belt doesn't extend a bid to Liberty, possibly due to Liberty's discriminatory practices. Exactly, how is Liberty the victim?

Liberty has a right to its own free speech and its own discriminatory policies. It does not have a right to escape consequences for its abuse of those rights.

Liberty's advocacy of human rights abuses go well beyond a generic opposition to Gay rights or marriage equality. The Dean of their Law School (a member of the leadership of the school) engages in extremely questionable rhetoric/actions (calling a pro-life GOP Senator a cockroach on national radio for disagreing with him on marriage equality and defending a proponent of jailing all Gay persons in Uganda - and thats just in the last couple of weeks). This behavior is ongoing and is apparently condoned by the leadership of the institution. Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

Beyond the discrimination issues, Liberty's mission isn't to compete at the highest levels of sport for purely competitive purposes. Its to evangelize and advocate for discrimination and conservative political causes. Their motto isn't "Champions", its "Champions for Christ" (using a very limited message IMHO). And its more than a slogan at Liberty. They really aren't looking to join the Belt to just play football, but rather to use the conference I've called home for almost 40 years to promote an agenda unrelated to athletic excellence. They aren't a fit with public institutions that look for the most talented students, alumni, staff, faculty, and athletes.

I suggest that Liberty find a conference where they DO fit in. The Sun Belt isn't a fit for them. I certainly wouldn't feel welcome at an away game at an institution where the school's leadership defends people advocating jailing all Gay persons for the crime of existing.

(05-24-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 11:24 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

I don't believe in many of the beliefs that Liberty supports. But, they should be free to express them without discrimination. However, while you spout off about as being for free speech and anti-discrimination, your views are are clearly discriminatory towards Liberty and their beliefs. That's the problem with most free speech advocates, they only support free speech if agrees with their point of view. Say something anti-Islam and you are a bigot. Say something anti-Christian or Mormon and no one pays attention. We can have anti-Mormon or Catholic plays on Broadway and they are critically acclaimed. Imagine the reaction from an anti-Islam play? Would you be just as accepting or would you find it offensive?

The criteria for admitting Liberty or any other school in a conference should depend on whether their athletic department is a good fit for the conference. If their Christian beliefs, e.g. not playing on Sunday, renders the school incompatible, so be it. But to advocate rejecting a school simply because their administration maintains certain religious beliefs that conflict with your accepted view of what Christians should believe, in my opinion, also conflicts with beliefs you are advocating on so many levels.

The Sun Belt does not discriminate against fundamenatalists, who contribute to each member institution as students, faculty, staff, alumni, athletes, and fans. The Belt is well within their rights (morally, ethically, and legally) to demand that any institution in their private association (See Dale v Boy Scouts) not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation (Liberty does discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation).

I'm a bit confused. Liberty doesn't hire persons of certain religious traditions or Gay persons in their non-theological hiring. The Sun Belt doesn't extend a bid to Liberty, possibly due to Liberty's discriminatory practices. Exactly, how is Liberty the victim?

Liberty has a right to its own free speech and its own discriminatory policies. It does not have a right to escape consequences for its abuse of those rights.

Liberty's advocacy of human rights abuses go well beyond a generic opposition to Gay rights or marriage equality. The Dean of their Law School (a member of the leadership of the school) engages in extremely questionable rhetoric/actions (calling a pro-life GOP Senator a cockroach on national radio for disagreing with him on marriage equality and defending a proponent of jailing all Gay persons in Uganda - and thats just in the last couple of weeks). This behavior is ongoing and is apparently condoned by the leadership of the institution. Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

Beyond the discrimination issues, Liberty's mission isn't to compete at the highest levels of sport for purely competitive purposes. Its to evangelize and advocate for discrimination and conservative political causes. Their motto isn't "Champions", its "Champions for Christ" (using a very limited message IMHO). And its more than a slogan at Liberty. They really aren't looking to join the Belt to just play football, but rather to use the conference I've called home for almost 40 years to promote an agenda unrelated to athletic excellence. They aren't a fit with public institutions that look for the most talented students, alumni, staff, faculty, and athletes.

I suggest that Liberty find a conference where they DO fit in. The Sun Belt isn't a fit for them. I certainly wouldn't feel welcome at an away game at an institution where the school's leadership defends people advocating jailing all Gay persons for the crime of existing.

So is Uganda jailing all persons named Gay?

(05-24-2013 12:58 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:45 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If the MAC needs another member and likes Liberty University, why not take them into the conference right away.

I'm not sure that's the case, but if it was the case, then I would imagine that they would.


Btw, I think that the U of Vermont is the highest university east of the Rockies

Considering that Appalachian State is Over 3,000 feet higher, you must be talking about something other than altitude.
Additionally some of the mountain peaks near Boone are the highest East of the Rockies. That's one reason there are so
many ski slopes around App State.

Surprised the MAC has not grabbed Liberty up already.

Why? If you think Liberty does not fit with the Sun Belt how would it fit with the MAC?

If the MAC wanted to expand it would go for many of the same institutions that the Sun Belt wants such as JMU, Missouri State, or Delaware.

Lastly everybody if you have ever been you would know that Ohio U is the "highest" school east of the Rockies.

(05-24-2013 05:19 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 11:24 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

I don't believe in many of the beliefs that Liberty supports. But, they should be free to express them without discrimination. However, while you spout off about as being for free speech and anti-discrimination, your views are are clearly discriminatory towards Liberty and their beliefs. That's the problem with most free speech advocates, they only support free speech if agrees with their point of view. Say something anti-Islam and you are a bigot. Say something anti-Christian or Mormon and no one pays attention. We can have anti-Mormon or Catholic plays on Broadway and they are critically acclaimed. Imagine the reaction from an anti-Islam play? Would you be just as accepting or would you find it offensive?

The criteria for admitting Liberty or any other school in a conference should depend on whether their athletic department is a good fit for the conference. If their Christian beliefs, e.g. not playing on Sunday, renders the school incompatible, so be it. But to advocate rejecting a school simply because their administration maintains certain religious beliefs that conflict with your accepted view of what Christians should believe, in my opinion, also conflicts with beliefs you are advocating on so many levels.

The Sun Belt does not discriminate against fundamenatalists, who contribute to each member institution as students, faculty, staff, alumni, athletes, and fans. The Belt is well within their rights (morally, ethically, and legally) to demand that any institution in their private association (See Dale v Boy Scouts) not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation (Liberty does discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation).

I'm a bit confused. Liberty doesn't hire persons of certain religious traditions or Gay persons in their non-theological hiring. The Sun Belt doesn't extend a bid to Liberty, possibly due to Liberty's discriminatory practices. Exactly, how is Liberty the victim?

Liberty has a right to its own free speech and its own discriminatory policies. It does not have a right to escape consequences for its abuse of those rights.

Liberty's advocacy of human rights abuses go well beyond a generic opposition to Gay rights or marriage equality. The Dean of their Law School (a member of the leadership of the school) engages in extremely questionable rhetoric/actions (calling a pro-life GOP Senator a cockroach on national radio for disagreing with him on marriage equality and defending a proponent of jailing all Gay persons in Uganda - and thats just in the last couple of weeks). This behavior is ongoing and is apparently condoned by the leadership of the institution. Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

Beyond the discrimination issues, Liberty's mission isn't to compete at the highest levels of sport for purely competitive purposes. Its to evangelize and advocate for discrimination and conservative political causes. Their motto isn't "Champions", its "Champions for Christ" (using a very limited message IMHO). And its more than a slogan at Liberty. They really aren't looking to join the Belt to just play football, but rather to use the conference I've called home for almost 40 years to promote an agenda unrelated to athletic excellence. They aren't a fit with public institutions that look for the most talented students, alumni, staff, faculty, and athletes.

I suggest that Liberty find a conference where they DO fit in. The Sun Belt isn't a fit for them. I certainly wouldn't feel welcome at an away game at an institution where the school's leadership defends people advocating jailing all Gay persons for the crime of existing.

So is Uganda jailing all persons named Gay?

A bill currently pending in the Ugandan legislature, which was written and originally promoted by US evangelicals through their Ugandan allies, demands the death penalty for being Gay and up to 10 years in prison for being Gay or supporting Gay anything (even if one is straight). Liberty University's Law School Dean, Mat Staver, is involved in sustaining the advocates of that legislation. As the US advocates of the Ugandan legislation 'now' (after they were called out on it by liberals) say that they don't support the death penalty, I'll just leave my accusation at some US evangelicals, supported by Liberty University's administration, advocate legislation to jail all Gay persons for the crime of existing. The law as current written is actually WORSE than just jailing all Gays.

I brought it up as advocates of Liberty's inclusion in the Sun Belt opine that it is 'religious bigotry' that is behind the Belt telling Liberty 'no thanks'. I'd like to point out the Liberty University is involved in the sustanance of the complete and total abrogation of any freedom of speech, petition, religion, association, expression, press, and due process at the same time.

I'm a liberal and I believe people are entitled to their own opinions and religious beliefs. With that said, Liberty can teach creationism and other forms of fundamentalism just like Brigham Young University, Oral Roberts Univ, Bob Jones University, etc. But they also have to face the consequences if a sports league or academic consortium refuses to associate with them because it goes against what they stand for which is the case with Liberty and the Sun Belt or BYU and the Pac-12. Nobody forces Liberty students to attend that school, I'm sure they had choices before deciding to attend Liberty. If that's their choice, that's fine with me.

Liberty has the right to teach creationism in their curriculum. The Sun Belt, MAC or any other conference have the right to deny membership based on that criteria alone.

The SBC teams have a right to not want Liberty. Just like I have a right to not want any SBC teams in C-USA. Their issue is social & mine is no SBC team adds any value to C-USA.

(05-24-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

I wouldn't go that far. BJU is about as bad as it gets. THey've literally got a "dating room" where students are supervised, strict dress codes, a middle-school-ish demerit system, etc. I knew some folks that went to [s]13th grade[/u] college there.

(05-24-2013 07:06 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  The SBC teams have a right to not want Liberty. Just like I have a right to not want any SBC teams in C-USA. Their issue is social & mine is no SBC team adds any value to C-USA.

And yet the SBC was a better conference last year than CUSA. In football. Exactly one of the 12 programs continuing in CUSA went bowling last year (and that team will be playing in the Sun Belt next year - and has never won a bowl game - ever - WKU). And here's a news flash for CUSA.....next year isn't looking much better for them either. Every single continuing program in the Belt has been to a bowl game in the last 5 years.

You have a 'market'. Well at least you are located in a market. Big whoop. Good luck delivering it. UNCC brings nothing but bad basketball, non-existant football, and entitlement.

And the A-10 is also welcome to be glad to be rid of an RPI drag at UNCC. As far as the shade against SBC teams, South Alabama has more at large bids in basketball than UNCC has over the last 8 years. All Sun Belt teams, except UTA and UALR (neither of whom play football) including Georgia State have better football programs than UNCC does at present. UNCC's record in men's basketball and football doesn't give them any reason to cast shade against any SBC program. UNCC hasn't done anything since 2005. Except mouth off with nothing to back it up. For the record, that was 8 long years ago.

USM or Marshall have some recent results that would allow them to credibly talk smack about value (although I'd dispute that). UNCC? You got nothing.

Good luck in CUSA. You couldn't compete in the A-10. And there's no evidence you'll compete in football anytime soon. Feel free to continue to talk smack about the Belt. We'll just concentrate on continuing to be a better football conference, partly because UNCC is in CUSA.

"The true negro does not want integration."'Jerry Falwell

(05-24-2013 07:32 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

I wouldn't go that far. BJU is about as bad as it gets. THey've literally got a "dating room" where students are supervised, strict dress codes, a middle-school-ish demerit system, etc. I knew some folks that went to [s]13th grade[/u] college there.

You may have a point about BJU, but at least they don't continue to make **ses of themselves on an almost weekly basis with public, outrageous, behavior.

(05-24-2013 07:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:06 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  The SBC teams have a right to not want Liberty. Just like I have a right to not want any SBC teams in C-USA. Their issue is social & mine is no SBC team adds any value to C-USA.

And yet the SBC was a better conference last year than CUSA. In football. Exactly one of the 12 programs continuing in CUSA went bowling last year (and that team will be playing in the Sun Belt next year - and has never won a bowl game - ever - WKU). And here's a news flash for CUSA.....next year isn't looking much better for them either. Every single continuing program in the Belt has been to a bowl game in the last 5 years.

You have a 'market'. Well at least you are located in a market. Big whoop. Good luck delivering it. UNCC brings nothing but bad basketball, non-existant football, and entitlement.

And the A-10 is also welcome to be glad to be rid of an RPI drag at UNCC. As far as the shade against SBC teams, South Alabama has more at large bids in basketball than UNCC has over the last 8 years. All Sun Belt teams, except UTA and UALR (neither of whom play football) including Georgia State have better football programs than UNCC does at present. UNCC's record in men's basketball and football doesn't give them any reason to cast shade against any SBC program. UNCC hasn't done anything since 2005. Except mouth off with nothing to back it up. For the record, that was 8 long years ago.

USM or Marshall have some recent results that would allow them to credibly talk smack about value (although I'd dispute that). UNCC? You got nothing.

Good luck in CUSA. You couldn't compete in the A-10. And there's no evidence you'll compete in football anytime soon. Feel free to continue to talk smack about the Belt. We'll just concentrate on continuing to be a better football conference, partly because UNCC is in CUSA.

Rice beat Air Force 33-14 in the Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth.

(05-24-2013 07:55 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:06 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  The SBC teams have a right to not want Liberty. Just like I have a right to not want any SBC teams in C-USA. Their issue is social & mine is no SBC team adds any value to C-USA.

And yet the SBC was a better conference last year than CUSA. In football. Exactly one of the 12 programs continuing in CUSA went bowling last year (and that team will be playing in the Sun Belt next year - and has never won a bowl game - ever - WKU). And here's a news flash for CUSA.....next year isn't looking much better for them either. Every single continuing program in the Belt has been to a bowl game in the last 5 years.

You have a 'market'. Well at least you are located in a market. Big whoop. Good luck delivering it. UNCC brings nothing but bad basketball, non-existant football, and entitlement.

And the A-10 is also welcome to be glad to be rid of an RPI drag at UNCC. As far as the shade against SBC teams, South Alabama has more at large bids in basketball than UNCC has over the last 8 years. All Sun Belt teams, except UTA and UALR (neither of whom play football) including Georgia State have better football programs than UNCC does at present. UNCC's record in men's basketball and football doesn't give them any reason to cast shade against any SBC program. UNCC hasn't done anything since 2005. Except mouth off with nothing to back it up. For the record, that was 8 long years ago.

USM or Marshall have some recent results that would allow them to credibly talk smack about value (although I'd dispute that). UNCC? You got nothing.

Good luck in CUSA. You couldn't compete in the A-10. And there's no evidence you'll compete in football anytime soon. Feel free to continue to talk smack about the Belt. We'll just concentrate on continuing to be a better football conference, partly because UNCC is in CUSA.

Rice beat Air Force 33-14 in the Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth.

I stand corrected, 2 of the 12 teams slated to play in CUSA in 2014-5 played in bowl games last year. Congrats to Rice on beating a 6-6 Air Force Team to finish 7-6. Meanwhile ULL soundly beat ECU (who finished 7-1 in CUSA), and stAte beat a ranked Kent State team in its bowl game. Meanwhile WKU (who is moving to CUSA) lost to a 6-6 CMU team.

The Sun Belt next year has a lot of returning players. Texas State and South Alabama will likely improve. ULL is going to be very good. stAte will likely be good. The preseason folks predict 5 of the 9 SBC teams finishing bowl eligible next year (ULL, stAte, WKU, Troy, and ULM). Georgia State will suck. Badly.

(05-24-2013 12:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:45 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If the MAC needs another member and likes Liberty University, why not take them into the conference right away.

I'm not sure that's the case, but if it was the case, then I would imagine that they would.


Btw, I think that the U of Vermont is the highest university east of the Rockies

you've never been to Morgantown have you?

(05-24-2013 08:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:55 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:06 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  The SBC teams have a right to not want Liberty. Just like I have a right to not want any SBC teams in C-USA. Their issue is social & mine is no SBC team adds any value to C-USA.

And yet the SBC was a better conference last year than CUSA. In football. Exactly one of the 12 programs continuing in CUSA went bowling last year (and that team will be playing in the Sun Belt next year - and has never won a bowl game - ever - WKU). And here's a news flash for CUSA.....next year isn't looking much better for them either. Every single continuing program in the Belt has been to a bowl game in the last 5 years.

You have a 'market'. Well at least you are located in a market. Big whoop. Good luck delivering it. UNCC brings nothing but bad basketball, non-existant football, and entitlement.

And the A-10 is also welcome to be glad to be rid of an RPI drag at UNCC. As far as the shade against SBC teams, South Alabama has more at large bids in basketball than UNCC has over the last 8 years. All Sun Belt teams, except UTA and UALR (neither of whom play football) including Georgia State have better football programs than UNCC does at present. UNCC's record in men's basketball and football doesn't give them any reason to cast shade against any SBC program. UNCC hasn't done anything since 2005. Except mouth off with nothing to back it up. For the record, that was 8 long years ago.

USM or Marshall have some recent results that would allow them to credibly talk smack about value (although I'd dispute that). UNCC? You got nothing.

Good luck in CUSA. You couldn't compete in the A-10. And there's no evidence you'll compete in football anytime soon. Feel free to continue to talk smack about the Belt. We'll just concentrate on continuing to be a better football conference, partly because UNCC is in CUSA.

Rice beat Air Force 33-14 in the Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth.

I stand corrected, 2 of the 12 teams slated to play in CUSA in 2014-5 played in bowl games last year. Congrats to Rice on beating a 6-6 Air Force Team to finish 7-6. Meanwhile ULL soundly beat ECU (who finished 7-1 in CUSA), and stAte beat a ranked Kent State team in its bowl game. Meanwhile WKU (who is moving to CUSA) lost to a 6-6 CMU team.

It's just one bowl season. If the trend continues in 5 years then your point will have more merit. C-USA still has Southern Miss, Marshall should be solid in the next few years. Louisiana Tech should be decent and C-USA should give one of the F_U schools the platform to become the next UCF. North Texas might surprise some people and Rice should be in contention to win the West Division this year. UTEP is still a big unknown because we have a new coach and system so I can't really tell you what to expect from the Miners. Football will be a long term project but basketball might surprise more people right away with a more balanced league instead of being Memphis and the rest. A basketball conference that has UTEP, UAB, Charlotte, Old Dominion and Western Kentucky is a good foundation to begin with considering all the basketball losses C-USA has had in the last 10 years.

(05-23-2013 01:49 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Some LU posters indicated they may put their hopes on getting a MAC bid now.

The Sun Belt is probably more likely.

(05-24-2013 11:24 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

I don't believe in many of the beliefs that Liberty supports. But, they should be free to express them without discrimination. However, while you spout off about as being for free speech and anti-discrimination, your views are are clearly discriminatory towards Liberty and their beliefs. That's the problem with most free speech advocates, they only support free speech if agrees with their point of view. Say something anti-Islam and you are a bigot. Say something anti-Christian or Mormon and no one pays attention. We can have anti-Mormon or Catholic plays on Broadway and they are critically acclaimed. Imagine the reaction from an anti-Islam play? Would you be just as accepting or would you find it offensive?

The criteria for admitting Liberty or any other school in a conference should depend on whether their athletic department is a good fit for the conference. If their Christian beliefs, e.g. not playing on Sunday, renders the school incompatible, so be it. But to advocate rejecting a school simply because their administration maintains certain religious beliefs that conflict with your accepted view of what Christians should believe, in my opinion, also conflicts with beliefs you are advocating on so many levels.

If Liberty has the right to discriminate as it allegedly does, then other universities have a right to decide whom to associate with.

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

(05-24-2013 08:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:55 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 07:06 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  The SBC teams have a right to not want Liberty. Just like I have a right to not want any SBC teams in C-USA. Their issue is social & mine is no SBC team adds any value to C-USA.

And yet the SBC was a better conference last year than CUSA. In football. Exactly one of the 12 programs continuing in CUSA went bowling last year (and that team will be playing in the Sun Belt next year - and has never won a bowl game - ever - WKU). And here's a news flash for CUSA.....next year isn't looking much better for them either. Every single continuing program in the Belt has been to a bowl game in the last 5 years.

You have a 'market'. Well at least you are located in a market. Big whoop. Good luck delivering it. UNCC brings nothing but bad basketball, non-existant football, and entitlement.

And the A-10 is also welcome to be glad to be rid of an RPI drag at UNCC. As far as the shade against SBC teams, South Alabama has more at large bids in basketball than UNCC has over the last 8 years. All Sun Belt teams, except UTA and UALR (neither of whom play football) including Georgia State have better football programs than UNCC does at present. UNCC's record in men's basketball and football doesn't give them any reason to cast shade against any SBC program. UNCC hasn't done anything since 2005. Except mouth off with nothing to back it up. For the record, that was 8 long years ago.

USM or Marshall have some recent results that would allow them to credibly talk smack about value (although I'd dispute that). UNCC? You got nothing.

Good luck in CUSA. You couldn't compete in the A-10. And there's no evidence you'll compete in football anytime soon. Feel free to continue to talk smack about the Belt. We'll just concentrate on continuing to be a better football conference, partly because UNCC is in CUSA.

Rice beat Air Force 33-14 in the Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth.

I stand corrected, 2 of the 12 teams slated to play in CUSA in 2014-5 played in bowl games last year. Congrats to Rice on beating a 6-6 Air Force Team to finish 7-6. Meanwhile ULL soundly beat ECU (who finished 7-1 in CUSA), and stAte beat a ranked Kent State team in its bowl game. Meanwhile WKU (who is moving to CUSA) lost to a 6-6 CMU team.

It's just one bowl season. If the trend continues in 5 years then your point will have more merit. C-USA still has Southern Miss, Marshall should be solid in the next few years. Louisiana Tech should be decent and C-USA should give one of the F_U schools the platform to become the next UCF. North Texas might surprise some people and Rice should be in contention to win the West Division this year. UTEP is still a big unknown because we have a new coach and system so I can't really tell you what to expect from the Miners. Football will be a long term project but basketball might surprise more people right away with a more balanced league instead of being Memphis and the rest. A basketball conference that has UTEP, UAB, Charlotte, Old Dominion and Western Kentucky is a good foundation to begin with considering all the basketball losses C-USA has had in the last 10 years.

Obviously, someone has to win half the conference games in CUSA and since most of the conference wins left the conference (unlike the departures from the Belt), someone else will have a better record, but lets look at CUSA next year.

1) UNT - Hasn't had a winning record in a long time. Even though they played in the Belt. Barring some massive turnaround, they're not going to put distance between CUSA and the Belt

2) FAU - Program has been awful the last couple of years. In 2011, they had one win (against a CUSA team - UAB) and had zero Sun Belt Conference wins. In 2012, they lost to South Alabama and nearly got beat by a 'pretend' FCS program Wagner.

3) FIU - Program fell apart last year, and they finished 2-6. They also appear to be rebuilding next year, with a lot of key players to replace and a new coach.

4) UAB - Hasn't had a winning season in ages.

5) UTSA - Won 8 games last year (including games with USA and Texas State), but they went 2-4 against FBS competition not playing in their first year.

6) ODU - FCS moveup. A good one, but there's no reason to think they'll be successful initially, or even more successful than they Belt's FCS moveups (Appy and Ga Southern).

7) USM - What happened? I don't know if they'll turn it around next year.

8) La Tech - Had a good (but not great) season last year, but apparently has been decimated by graduation

9) MTSU - had a good season last year (which would have been better had they not had lost to a FCS team last year). They were competitive in the Belt, but hardly dominated (they won - ok shared - the SBC crown with Troy in 2006).

10) Marshall - Good team, but they haven't finished higher than 7-6 in TEN years.

11) UAB - I'm not seeing UAB helping CUSA compete with the Belt. I guess it could happen.

12) Rice - Actually one of the better CUSA programs remaining. They have finished with a winning record three times out of the last 10 years. One of those years was a legitimate good year.

13) UTEP - Last winning record was in 2005.

14) Tulsa - Historically, the class of this bunch. They're leaving after this year though.

Someone will have to win the games previously won by Houston, UCF, SMU and ECU (and someone will have to lose those by Memphis and Tulane). But I have no idea who is gonna be the beneficiary of it. Maybe UTEP or Marshall. At any rate, next year doesn't look terribly promising for CUSA at this point.

The Belt has teams with problems (e.g., new programs like South Alabama, Texas State, and Georgia State - two of whom could actually perform decently next year). But all the other programs look to be equal or better than they were last year.

Obviously, things change once we get into the season, but for now, I'd be very cautious about predicting that CUSA will be better than the Belt next year. I actually see the Belt being better than CUSA again next year.