you said it perfectly 10th mountain.

theres nothing wrong with baylor and they certainly are not on the same level as LU, but the 4 cali schools are among the most left leaning of the p5 and they do seem to set the bar very high for what they believe are acceptable academic/religious standards.

(08-05-2013 03:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 02:34 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  There are many types of religious institutions. Duke, SMU & Syracuse are all technically Methodist (2 of them even educate pastors). The "Christian" in TCU's name is a very progressive church that is widely respected for its intellectual freedom. No one questions Notre Dame's or Georgetown's academic integrity, despite their being Roman Catholic.

I've heard that the PAC doesn't want any religious institutions, but there really isn't a viable candidate in their footprint other than BYU to test the theory. BYU comes with so much religious baggage that they're really the exception, not the rule. Like Texas, they have their own network. Unlike the LHN, however, the BYU network is devoted mostly to promoting a religion. Their teams won't play Sunday games. The players who belong to their church are usually older than the average college player (again, for religious reasons). So to put down the PAC for being anti-religious isn't fair. If Syracuse or Notre Dame was a possibility, would they have the same attitude? Probably not.

Liberty is another case altogether. It is a relatively young school, it is adamantly anti-scientific in the way it views certain sciences, and its political activities are pretty overt. No FBS conference should be criticized for not inviting them in. But by the same token, if an FBS conference wants them, then that's their decision. It doesn't mean that conference agrees with them on all the issues, it simply means it wants its teams to play them more frequently.

I think the lack of an historic commitment to a big-time sports program is as important as anything. Most of the schools that have moved up recently have decades of college sports behind them - sometimes a century. But a sectarian school that is still associated with its founding pastor to the degree that Liberty is might be considered a risk not worth taking. I'm not that old, and I still think of Liberty as being a small Bible college associated with Thomas Road Baptist Church and run (with an iron fist) by Jerry Falwell.

Granted, a (state) school like UCF isn't much older, but the dynamics are totally different, and UCF has the resources & diversity of one of the biggest and richest states in the union backing it up. Liberty's chancellor is Jerry Falwell's son.

Why do you assume that the word "progressive" is a positive word? What are we progressing towards?

It is a positive word. Progressing towards a better America :)

(08-05-2013 05:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you said it perfectly 10th mountain.

theres nothing wrong with baylor and they certainly are not on the same level as LU, but the 4 cali schools are among the most left leaning of the p5 and they do seem to set the bar very high for what they believe are acceptable academic/religious standards.

Calling it an Academic Freedom Issue is more politically correct than saying "we don't like your politics and think your religion is kooky". Stanford and the P12 tolerate ND just fine and ND operates within nearly the same parameters as Baylor - remember the flap over Obama speaking at ND?

We spent literally MONTHS going thru this over on the Sun Belt forum. For many of us, it was related to the following issues.

1) Liberty doesn't allow Gay people, or non-Christians to be employed at the University or to fully participate (if allowed to at all) as fans, students, staff, or athletes. When openly Gay people went to the campus two years ago, they were ARRESTED for trespassing. There's a legitimate question as to whether Gay fans of SBC schools would even be allowed on campus to watch their team play at Liberty. Liberty is not Notre Dame or TCU. Or even Baylor. They are far, far, more anti-gay.

2) Liberty doesn't appear to be interested in FBS football for the athletic completion, but to proselytize.

3) The Sun Belt is a collection of Public Universities open to the contributions of all. Private schools have some issues as well.

4) Liberty continues to employ, at the HIGHEST levels within the University (Law School Dean Mat Staver), persons that represent themselves with some of the most obscene and hateful rhetoric imaginable. Not 10 years ago, but recently and even during the Sun Belt evaluation process. It showed a staggering lack of respect for the institutions of the Sun Belt and the Conference as a whole and spoke volumes as to the lack of desire of Liberty to move beyond the "Gay Teletubbies" or "Gays caused 9-11" explosions that has helped Liberty earn its reputation.

5) Liberty engages in dynastic succession and has a on-line diploma/certificate model of education. There are serious fit questions (as well as the question as to whether Liberty is someone's private property - Jerry Falwell Jr became chancellor at the death of his father.

6) Liberty has massive questions as to its acceptance of science standards as well as its commitment to academic freedom.

7) Liberty's reputation is so toxic as to repel other schools in the future joining our conference. If we took Liberty, we'd probably have a lot of schools refuse to join us simply due to the association.

8) Liberty isn't really in our footprint. They didn't make their own conference (the Big South) prominent, even within FCS.

There are Liberty students and alumni who are rightly appalled by the actions of Liberty's administration. Unfortunately, the Belt had to consider the administration's views.

Liberty has the right to set its own standards. But so does the Sun Belt. And if you discriminate in hiring, admissions, benefits, or staffing, you really aren't a fit for the Sun Belt Conference.

The Sun Belt made the correct choice.

(08-05-2013 06:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 05:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you said it perfectly 10th mountain.

theres nothing wrong with baylor and they certainly are not on the same level as LU, but the 4 cali schools are among the most left leaning of the p5 and they do seem to set the bar very high for what they believe are acceptable academic/religious standards.

Calling it an Academic Freedom Issue is more politically correct than saying "we don't like your politics and think your religion is kooky". Stanford and the P12 tolerate ND just fine and ND operates within nearly the same parameters as Baylor - remember the flap over Obama speaking at ND?

Baylor's a private school in a small market. I'm not sure I'd read too much into the religious angle and I'm never heard anything about the PAC having AF issues with regards to Baylor.

BYU is a whole different situation and the issues there are well known.

USC just scheduled an OOC series with BYU. So I guess you could say the PAC tolerates BYU as much as it tolerates ND.

(08-05-2013 06:58 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 06:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 05:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you said it perfectly 10th mountain.

theres nothing wrong with baylor and they certainly are not on the same level as LU, but the 4 cali schools are among the most left leaning of the p5 and they do seem to set the bar very high for what they believe are acceptable academic/religious standards.

Calling it an Academic Freedom Issue is more politically correct than saying "we don't like your politics and think your religion is kooky". Stanford and the P12 tolerate ND just fine and ND operates within nearly the same parameters as Baylor - remember the flap over Obama speaking at ND?

Baylor's a private school in a small market. I'm not sure I'd read too much into the religious angle and I'm never heard anything about the PAC having AF issues with regards to Baylor.

BYU is a whole different situation and the issues there are well known.

USC just scheduled an OOC series with BYU. So I guess you could say the PAC tolerates BYU as much as it tolerates ND.

playing ooc against these schools is one thing, having them in the conference is different.

(08-05-2013 06:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 05:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you said it perfectly 10th mountain.

theres nothing wrong with baylor and they certainly are not on the same level as LU, but the 4 cali schools are among the most left leaning of the p5 and they do seem to set the bar very high for what they believe are acceptable academic/religious standards.

Calling it an Academic Freedom Issue is more politically correct than saying "we don't like your politics and think your religion is kooky". Stanford and the P12 tolerate ND just fine and ND operates within nearly the same parameters as Baylor - remember the flap over Obama speaking at ND?

I really don't believe at it's the politics or any concern over the specific beliefs. The problem with LU is that they are fundamentally anti-intellectual. Baylor is pretty hard core Baptist and Catholic beliefs include some "interesting" ideas, but Baylor, Catholic universities and other mainstream universities with Christian origins and ongoing missions (Duke, Wake, Vanderbilt, SMU,etc.) are supportive of academic freedom and intellectual honesty. The Jesuits and Methodists share an interesting heritage in seeking to create well educated minds capable of defending the faith against skilled adversaries. I recall one of the chaplains at Syracuse talking about the need for Religion to take its place at a university dedicated to teaching great ideas. Self delusion and denial are the enemy of a well trained mind and the antithesis of intellectual honesty.

the point about notre dame is how much does religion play a factor in their being independent. im sure the money they make with their current setup is certainly a factor. yes im well aware of the b10 trying to lure notre dame, but lets not forget that schools join conferences that are cultural fits for them as well.

-they will never truly fit in with the b10 due to their being the only religion driven school in the conference. plus their relationship with the CIC will be complicated because of stem cell research.

-besides geography blocking them from the pac 12, i wonder what the cali schools think of this. sure they like playing the school ooc, but to be in the same conference would most likely raise the same fuss that they have had with byu or baylor.

-the sec is a large state school, secular based conference, and notre dame would be as much of an outlier there culturally as they would be geographically.

(08-05-2013 07:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  -besides geography blocking them from the pac 12, i wonder what the cali schools think of this. sure they like playing the school ooc, but to be in the same conference would most likely raise the same fuss that they have had with byu or baylor.

ND just isn't geographically plausible for the PAC. If they were, I'd think any reservations would be overcome with the piles and piles of cash it would make for the conference. But then a ND playing a mostly PAC schedule really isn't the same ND anymore.

(08-05-2013 07:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the point about notre dame is how much does religion play a factor in their being independent. im sure the money they make with their current setup is certainly a factor. yes im well aware of the b10 trying to lure notre dame, but lets not forget that schools join conferences that are cultural fits for them as well.

-they will never truly fit in with the b10 due to their being the only religion driven school in the conference. plus their relationship with the CIC will be complicated because of stem cell research.

-besides geography blocking them from the pac 12, i wonder what the cali schools think of this. sure they like playing the school ooc, but to be in the same conference would most likely raise the same fuss that they have had with byu or baylor.

-the sec is a large state school, secular based conference, and notre dame would be as much of an outlier there culturally as they would be geographically.

With two exceptions. Notre Dame would be in the Bible Belt and would be welcomed in that regard and both Notre Dame and the SEC have a rebellious spirit and the desire to make a lot of money. That is just about all of the culture they would share. But it would make a great sit com. A new take on the odd couple.

(08-05-2013 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 08:07 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 06:02 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:but the Big 12 would take BYU in a heartbeat if they could work out the scheduling/TV issue.

No they wouldn't.

The B12 is all set today at 10, so there is no urgency to add anyone. However, when TAMU departed, BYU was very close to getting an invite, that fell apart in large part because bYU was insisting on retaining certain tv rights that were part of the conference package. Their need to avoid playing Sunday games also caused concern due to the likely difficulty in scheduling resulting from their distance from other members.

I don't think people understand why retaining TV rights is important to BYU. In order to keep congregations in other parts of the country connected with the HQ in Utah, every Mormon chapel back in the day had it's own satellite system for receiving broadcasts from the leadership over the church's network. BYU sporting events were included and served as a chance for fellowship among Mormons who where otherwise somewhat isolated in other parts of the country. This created a national fanbase who were attached to sports as an extension of the religion/culture rather than as primary fans of the sport. Joining the MWC with its network, where fans in other regions might not have access and where the majority of casual (and admittedly frugal) fans would have to pay for programming was not good for BYU's national fanbase, and they won't go back to that. Essentially, people need to realize that the independent model is a return to the formula that worked for BYU in the past in that the network is basically free and that the schedule can always be adjusted to create a winning product.

I don't disagree that this is BYU's motivation. But it was this, not questions of religion or academic independence, that kept BYU out of the B12.

Yes, I agree with you as well. I think some see it as a foregone conclusion that religion was a key factor keeping BYU out of the PAC. It wasn't that (although Prop 8 didn't help matters). It's more that BYU was a poor fit for the PAC business model. A "national" fanbase of 1-2% in the central and eastern US doesn't get the PAC network on basic cable in those regions. Utah was a better bet for getting, and more importantly maintaining, the SLC market as SLC is now ~30% Mormon and dropping. Because BYU does not generate support among non-Mormons in Utah or the region in general, it is not a grow-able brand as most other mid-major programs could be. Conversely, the BigXII business model does not rely on network distribution and as such BYU's regional and small national audience was a better fit for that conference.

(08-06-2013 01:32 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 08:07 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 06:02 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

Quote:No they wouldn't.

The B12 is all set today at 10, so there is no urgency to add anyone. However, when TAMU departed, BYU was very close to getting an invite, that fell apart in large part because bYU was insisting on retaining certain tv rights that were part of the conference package. Their need to avoid playing Sunday games also caused concern due to the likely difficulty in scheduling resulting from their distance from other members.

I don't think people understand why retaining TV rights is important to BYU. In order to keep congregations in other parts of the country connected with the HQ in Utah, every Mormon chapel back in the day had it's own satellite system for receiving broadcasts from the leadership over the church's network. BYU sporting events were included and served as a chance for fellowship among Mormons who where otherwise somewhat isolated in other parts of the country. This created a national fanbase who were attached to sports as an extension of the religion/culture rather than as primary fans of the sport. Joining the MWC with its network, where fans in other regions might not have access and where the majority of casual (and admittedly frugal) fans would have to pay for programming was not good for BYU's national fanbase, and they won't go back to that. Essentially, people need to realize that the independent model is a return to the formula that worked for BYU in the past in that the network is basically free and that the schedule can always be adjusted to create a winning product.

I don't disagree that this is BYU's motivation. But it was this, not questions of religion or academic independence, that kept BYU out of the B12.

Yes, I agree with you as well. I think some see it as a foregone conclusion that religion was a key factor keeping BYU out of the PAC. It wasn't that (although Prop 8 didn't help matters). It's more that BYU was a poor fit for the PAC business model. A "national" fanbase of 1-2% in the central and eastern US doesn't get the PAC network on basic cable in those regions. Utah was a better bet for getting, and more importantly maintaining, the SLC market as SLC is now ~30% Mormon and dropping. Because BYU does not generate support among non-Mormons in Utah or the region in general, it is not a grow-able brand as most other mid-major programs could be. Conversely, the BigXII business model does not rely on network distribution and as such BYU's regional and small national audience was a better fit for that conference.

In additional to the Pac 10's historic reservations about BYU relating to religion and cultural fit, the manner in which the 2010 expansion "went down" pretty much precluded BYU as a candidate. Utah was the backup plan to be number 12. With only one open slot, Utah was a more obvious fit for the reasons you describe, in particular it fit the flagship-style mold of most of the members of the P10.