I agree jettisoning someone ain't happening (AND that academics matter, or should). Here's my picks for invites:

Army
UMASS
Marshall

I agree that at present asking someone to leave is unthinkable. And I agree that academics is important. But who knows what the landscape will look like in 2030? 10 football members means we have fewer mouths to feed. And we can play a round robin and have a true champion. The Big XII seems to have a winning formula. Just thinking outside the box.

Temple, only because they are a bit of an odd duck geographically for sports other than football (and in football, Navy isn't in their division).

Temple, UConn, UMass, and Liberty would basically act as a defacto conference in football. Temple's othe sports go back to the A-10.

(04-06-2021 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a wild idea—if the AAC can’t get the 12th member they want, but the NCAA says they need a 12th to keep the CCG, offer Liberty a football only deal that includes 0 tv revenue.

Liberty doesn’t need the money but they want the exposure, so they’d probably take that deal.

Put them
On a 4 yr deal with the option to continue to renew for additional 4 year periods. If things aren’t working out, the Flames can be cut loose.

This is a classic case of “Think like a university president” in the opposite direction. As we have established here, university presidents LOVE schools like Tulane: top academics, large endowment, great location, etc. I shake my head whenever I see criticism of their addition to the AAC. They got to present to the Big 12 as a potential addition a few years ago over several other AAC schools that were better athletically.

In contrast, university presidents hate *everything* about Liberty: the political stances of their administration, heavy reliance on online students (e.g. their student composition and marketing practices look more like a for-profit school that’s effectively a non-profit in name only), the discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ honor code, etc. They’ll all play Liberty as a non-conference opponent (just like Pac-12 schools are fine with playing non-conference games with BYU), but they don’t want anything to do with a formal relationship with them. They didn’t get an invite to any FBS conference because of the issues that I’ve noted above and they’ve honestly looked worse on all of those issues even more over the past few years. (Whether or not people agree with Liberty’s stances is irrelevant here. The university president group is arguably the most progressive group of professionals that you’ll find anywhere, so a school with policy stances like Liberty is a non-starter.)

(04-07-2021 03:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-06-2021 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a wild idea—if the AAC can’t get the 12th member they want, but the NCAA says they need a 12th to keep the CCG, offer Liberty a football only deal that includes 0 tv revenue.

Liberty doesn’t need the money but they want the exposure, so they’d probably take that deal.

Put them
On a 4 yr deal with the option to continue to renew for additional 4 year periods. If things aren’t working out, the Flames can be cut loose.

This is a classic case of “Think like a university president” in the opposite direction. As we have established here, university presidents LOVE schools like Tulane: top academics, large endowment, great location, etc. I shake my head whenever I see criticism of their addition to the AAC. They got to present to the Big 12 as a potential addition a few years ago over several other AAC schools that were better athletically.

In contrast, university presidents hate *everything* about Liberty: the political stances of their administration, heavy reliance on online students (e.g. their student composition and marketing practices look more like a for-profit school that’s effectively a non-profit in name only), the discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ honor code, etc. They’ll all play Liberty as a non-conference opponent (just like Pac-12 schools are fine with playing non-conference games with BYU), but they don’t want anything to do with a formal relationship with them. They didn’t get an invite to any FBS conference because of the issues that I’ve noted above and they’ve honestly looked worse on all of those issues even more over the past few years. (Whether or not people agree with Liberty’s stances is irrelevant here. The university president group is arguably the most progressive group of professionals that you’ll find anywhere, so a school with policy stances like Liberty is a non-starter.)

For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

(04-06-2021 06:59 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I agree jettisoning someone ain't happening (AND that academics matter, or should). Here's my picks for invites:

Army
UMASS
Marshall

Unless something really crazy happens, we're not going to be invited.

(04-07-2021 08:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-06-2021 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a wild idea—if the AAC can’t get the 12th member they want, but the NCAA says they need a 12th to keep the CCG, offer Liberty a football only deal that includes 0 tv revenue.

Liberty doesn’t need the money but they want the exposure, so they’d probably take that deal.

Put them
On a 4 yr deal with the option to continue to renew for additional 4 year periods. If things aren’t working out, the Flames can be cut loose.

This is a classic case of “Think like a university president” in the opposite direction. As we have established here, university presidents LOVE schools like Tulane: top academics, large endowment, great location, etc. I shake my head whenever I see criticism of their addition to the AAC. They got to present to the Big 12 as a potential addition a few years ago over several other AAC schools that were better athletically.

In contrast, university presidents hate *everything* about Liberty: the political stances of their administration, heavy reliance on online students (e.g. their student composition and marketing practices look more like a for-profit school that’s effectively a non-profit in name only), the discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ honor code, etc. They’ll all play Liberty as a non-conference opponent (just like Pac-12 schools are fine with playing non-conference games with BYU), but they don’t want anything to do with a formal relationship with them. They didn’t get an invite to any FBS conference because of the issues that I’ve noted above and they’ve honestly looked worse on all of those issues even more over the past few years. (Whether or not people agree with Liberty’s stances is irrelevant here. The university president group is arguably the most progressive group of professionals that you’ll find anywhere, so a school with policy stances like Liberty is a non-starter.)

For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

(04-07-2021 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-06-2021 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a wild idea—if the AAC can’t get the 12th member they want, but the NCAA says they need a 12th to keep the CCG, offer Liberty a football only deal that includes 0 tv revenue.

Liberty doesn’t need the money but they want the exposure, so they’d probably take that deal.

Put them
On a 4 yr deal with the option to continue to renew for additional 4 year periods. If things aren’t working out, the Flames can be cut loose.

This is a classic case of “Think like a university president” in the opposite direction. As we have established here, university presidents LOVE schools like Tulane: top academics, large endowment, great location, etc. I shake my head whenever I see criticism of their addition to the AAC. They got to present to the Big 12 as a potential addition a few years ago over several other AAC schools that were better athletically.

In contrast, university presidents hate *everything* about Liberty: the political stances of their administration, heavy reliance on online students (e.g. their student composition and marketing practices look more like a for-profit school that’s effectively a non-profit in name only), the discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ honor code, etc. They’ll all play Liberty as a non-conference opponent (just like Pac-12 schools are fine with playing non-conference games with BYU), but they don’t want anything to do with a formal relationship with them. They didn’t get an invite to any FBS conference because of the issues that I’ve noted above and they’ve honestly looked worse on all of those issues even more over the past few years. (Whether or not people agree with Liberty’s stances is irrelevant here. The university president group is arguably the most progressive group of professionals that you’ll find anywhere, so a school with policy stances like Liberty is a non-starter.)

For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

(04-07-2021 10:30 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-06-2021 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a wild idea—if the AAC can’t get the 12th member they want, but the NCAA says they need a 12th to keep the CCG, offer Liberty a football only deal that includes 0 tv revenue.

Liberty doesn’t need the money but they want the exposure, so they’d probably take that deal.

Put them
On a 4 yr deal with the option to continue to renew for additional 4 year periods. If things aren’t working out, the Flames can be cut loose.

This is a classic case of “Think like a university president” in the opposite direction. As we have established here, university presidents LOVE schools like Tulane: top academics, large endowment, great location, etc. I shake my head whenever I see criticism of their addition to the AAC. They got to present to the Big 12 as a potential addition a few years ago over several other AAC schools that were better athletically.

In contrast, university presidents hate *everything* about Liberty: the political stances of their administration, heavy reliance on online students (e.g. their student composition and marketing practices look more like a for-profit school that’s effectively a non-profit in name only), the discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ honor code, etc. They’ll all play Liberty as a non-conference opponent (just like Pac-12 schools are fine with playing non-conference games with BYU), but they don’t want anything to do with a formal relationship with them. They didn’t get an invite to any FBS conference because of the issues that I’ve noted above and they’ve honestly looked worse on all of those issues even more over the past few years. (Whether or not people agree with Liberty’s stances is irrelevant here. The university president group is arguably the most progressive group of professionals that you’ll find anywhere, so a school with policy stances like Liberty is a non-starter.)

For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

They’re not discriminating against Liberty based on their religion. Look at Notre Dame, Baylor and most of the Big East. The issue is that Liberty has an open (not even veiled) discriminatory policy against LGBTQ+ students. This is something that places like ND and Baylor *don’t* have even though they still adhere to their religious teachings. That’s not about politics or religion, but rather straight up discrimination. That has no place on society and people can’t hide behind a “religious freedom” argument to justify it. LIBERTY is the school that has chosen to take this type of stance, NOT the other universities. It’s completely on them that other conferences don’t want to associate with them, just as people with discriminatory viewpoints shouldn’t expect companies and institutions to hire them in positions of authority (or any positions at all). The world has irreversibly moved into this issue and if they want to think like a dinosaur, then they’ll be treated like a dinosaur.

I agree with Frank. But also, (public) university presidents are inherently political. They have to sit in front of their state legislatures and ask for bonding money. How you can take the politics out of that is beyond me.

(04-07-2021 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 10:30 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is a classic case of “Think like a university president” in the opposite direction. As we have established here, university presidents LOVE schools like Tulane: top academics, large endowment, great location, etc. I shake my head whenever I see criticism of their addition to the AAC. They got to present to the Big 12 as a potential addition a few years ago over several other AAC schools that were better athletically.

In contrast, university presidents hate *everything* about Liberty: the political stances of their administration, heavy reliance on online students (e.g. their student composition and marketing practices look more like a for-profit school that’s effectively a non-profit in name only), the discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ honor code, etc. They’ll all play Liberty as a non-conference opponent (just like Pac-12 schools are fine with playing non-conference games with BYU), but they don’t want anything to do with a formal relationship with them. They didn’t get an invite to any FBS conference because of the issues that I’ve noted above and they’ve honestly looked worse on all of those issues even more over the past few years. (Whether or not people agree with Liberty’s stances is irrelevant here. The university president group is arguably the most progressive group of professionals that you’ll find anywhere, so a school with policy stances like Liberty is a non-starter.)

For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

They’re not discriminating against Liberty based on their religion. Look at Notre Dame, Baylor and most of the Big East. The issue is that Liberty has an open (not even veiled) discriminatory policy against LGBTQ+ students. This is something that places like ND and Baylor *don’t* have even though they still adhere to their religious teachings. That’s not about politics or religion, but rather straight up discrimination. That has no place on society and people can’t hide behind a “religious freedom” argument to justify it. LIBERTY is the school that has chosen to take this type of stance, NOT the other universities. It’s completely on them that other conferences don’t want to associate with them, just as people with discriminatory viewpoints shouldn’t expect companies and institutions to hire them in positions of authority (or any positions at all). The world has irreversibly moved into this issue and if they want to think like a dinosaur, then they’ll be treated like a dinosaur.

But the God's Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It has never changed, nor will it. Regardless of what today's "enlightened" generation say.

The AAC is down to 11 in FB and its very possible in 5 years time a couple more schools are leaving. Therefore you wouldn't want to kick anyone out.

I would think inviting Dayton and St. Louis could help to strengthen AAC basketball and build the conference together more.

(04-07-2021 11:42 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The AAC is down to 11 in FB and its very possible in 5 years time a couple more schools are leaving. Therefore you wouldn't want to kick anyone out.

I would think inviting Dayton and St. Louis could help to strengthen AAC basketball and build the conference together more.

100% on the first point. Indifferent on the second point, hybrid conferences don't work.

(04-07-2021 11:44 AM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:42 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The AAC is down to 11 in FB and its very possible in 5 years time a couple more schools are leaving. Therefore you wouldn't want to kick anyone out.

I would think inviting Dayton and St. Louis could help to strengthen AAC basketball and build the conference together more.

100% on the first point. Indifferent on the second point, hybrid conferences don't work.

Is there a specific reason why hybrid conferences can't work?

(04-07-2021 10:30 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-06-2021 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a wild idea—if the AAC can’t get the 12th member they want, but the NCAA says they need a 12th to keep the CCG, offer Liberty a football only deal that includes 0 tv revenue.

Liberty doesn’t need the money but they want the exposure, so they’d probably take that deal.

Put them
On a 4 yr deal with the option to continue to renew for additional 4 year periods. If things aren’t working out, the Flames can be cut loose.

This is a classic case of “Think like a university president” in the opposite direction. As we have established here, university presidents LOVE schools like Tulane: top academics, large endowment, great location, etc. I shake my head whenever I see criticism of their addition to the AAC. They got to present to the Big 12 as a potential addition a few years ago over several other AAC schools that were better athletically.

In contrast, university presidents hate *everything* about Liberty: the political stances of their administration, heavy reliance on online students (e.g. their student composition and marketing practices look more like a for-profit school that’s effectively a non-profit in name only), the discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ honor code, etc. They’ll all play Liberty as a non-conference opponent (just like Pac-12 schools are fine with playing non-conference games with BYU), but they don’t want anything to do with a formal relationship with them. They didn’t get an invite to any FBS conference because of the issues that I’ve noted above and they’ve honestly looked worse on all of those issues even more over the past few years. (Whether or not people agree with Liberty’s stances is irrelevant here. The university president group is arguably the most progressive group of professionals that you’ll find anywhere, so a school with policy stances like Liberty is a non-starter.)

For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

There's no University president that can hold a candle to participating in politics and being outspoken on political issues like Liberty's former President. Compound that with his personal scandals and the fact they are a diploma mill it's really no wonder no one wants to touch them. It might be discrimination but it's not anti-christian bigotry that lead to these views. There's a laundry list of reasons before you ever get to the fact that they are a Christian University. I'm rooting for Liberty to be able to reform their image now that Falwell is gone.

(04-07-2021 11:22 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 10:30 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

They’re not discriminating against Liberty based on their religion. Look at Notre Dame, Baylor and most of the Big East. The issue is that Liberty has an open (not even veiled) discriminatory policy against LGBTQ+ students. This is something that places like ND and Baylor *don’t* have even though they still adhere to their religious teachings. That’s not about politics or religion, but rather straight up discrimination. That has no place on society and people can’t hide behind a “religious freedom” argument to justify it. LIBERTY is the school that has chosen to take this type of stance, NOT the other universities. It’s completely on them that other conferences don’t want to associate with them, just as people with discriminatory viewpoints shouldn’t expect companies and institutions to hire them in positions of authority (or any positions at all). The world has irreversibly moved into this issue and if they want to think like a dinosaur, then they’ll be treated like a dinosaur.

But the God's Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It has never changed, nor will it. Regardless of what today's "enlightened" generation say.

I'm Catholic and fully agree with Frank's point and strongly disagree with yours (though I respect your right to hold your view).

(04-07-2021 11:22 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 10:30 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  For people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is his only son, the university president group’s stance is abhorrent.

You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

They’re not discriminating against Liberty based on their religion. Look at Notre Dame, Baylor and most of the Big East. The issue is that Liberty has an open (not even veiled) discriminatory policy against LGBTQ+ students. This is something that places like ND and Baylor *don’t* have even though they still adhere to their religious teachings. That’s not about politics or religion, but rather straight up discrimination. That has no place on society and people can’t hide behind a “religious freedom” argument to justify it. LIBERTY is the school that has chosen to take this type of stance, NOT the other universities. It’s completely on them that other conferences don’t want to associate with them, just as people with discriminatory viewpoints shouldn’t expect companies and institutions to hire them in positions of authority (or any positions at all). The world has irreversibly moved into this issue and if they want to think like a dinosaur, then they’ll be treated like a dinosaur.

But the God's Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It has never changed, nor will it. Regardless of what today's "enlightened" generation say.

What's the Bible have to say about Virginia Counties seceding to WV because Liberty's former President had a lot to say on the matter and a lot of other political issues not related to religious issues. He was also a cuckold who liked to sit in the corner and watch his wife with other men.

(04-07-2021 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:22 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 10:30 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You can still have a religious institution and not have outmoded discriminatory policies. Notre Dame and even Baylor are examples of this. If I’m a university president, I’m not associating my school with another institution that openly discriminates against a segment of my student population (including athletes). That’s 100% on Liberty.

I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

They’re not discriminating against Liberty based on their religion. Look at Notre Dame, Baylor and most of the Big East. The issue is that Liberty has an open (not even veiled) discriminatory policy against LGBTQ+ students. This is something that places like ND and Baylor *don’t* have even though they still adhere to their religious teachings. That’s not about politics or religion, but rather straight up discrimination. That has no place on society and people can’t hide behind a “religious freedom” argument to justify it. LIBERTY is the school that has chosen to take this type of stance, NOT the other universities. It’s completely on them that other conferences don’t want to associate with them, just as people with discriminatory viewpoints shouldn’t expect companies and institutions to hire them in positions of authority (or any positions at all). The world has irreversibly moved into this issue and if they want to think like a dinosaur, then they’ll be treated like a dinosaur.

But the God's Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It has never changed, nor will it. Regardless of what today's "enlightened" generation say.

I'm Catholic and fully agree with Frank's point and strongly disagree with yours (though I respect your right to hold your view).

And I respect yours, but I'd rather be right and live my life accordingly, than to be wrong and regret it for eternity.

(04-07-2021 12:59 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 12:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:22 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 10:30 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  I think sports (or university presidents) should stay out of politics and religion. And they have no business discriminating against an institution based on their religion. (The same goes for corporations too)

They’re not discriminating against Liberty based on their religion. Look at Notre Dame, Baylor and most of the Big East. The issue is that Liberty has an open (not even veiled) discriminatory policy against LGBTQ+ students. This is something that places like ND and Baylor *don’t* have even though they still adhere to their religious teachings. That’s not about politics or religion, but rather straight up discrimination. That has no place on society and people can’t hide behind a “religious freedom” argument to justify it. LIBERTY is the school that has chosen to take this type of stance, NOT the other universities. It’s completely on them that other conferences don’t want to associate with them, just as people with discriminatory viewpoints shouldn’t expect companies and institutions to hire them in positions of authority (or any positions at all). The world has irreversibly moved into this issue and if they want to think like a dinosaur, then they’ll be treated like a dinosaur.

But the God's Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It has never changed, nor will it. Regardless of what today's "enlightened" generation say.

I'm Catholic and fully agree with Frank's point and strongly disagree with yours (though I respect your right to hold your view).

And I respect yours, but I'd rather be right and live my life accordingly, than to be wrong and regret it for eternity.

Fair enough.

Y’all need to stop it with the narrative that Liberty and BYU are some how discriminatory because they are religious schools who stand by the tenets of their faith.

Private schools can set whatever rules and requirements they want. No one is forcing anyone to attend those schools and those who do choose to go there do so knowing what the rules and requirements are and in enrolling are consenting to follow those rules.

BYU could require students to where blue tube socks at all times if they wanted to—it’s not discrimination if it’s clearly stipulated in the code of conduct.

I know it’s disconcerting for some of you that their are people out there who want a religious education and want to attend a university that upholds their religious values. Forcing religious schools to violate the principle tenets of their faith is the act of religious discrimination here, not dismissing or refusing to admit a student who refuses to abide by the rules set forth by the institution.