The AAC is an outstanding conference with great universities.

As a part time Louisville Cardinal fan and fulltime diehard Liberty fan, I’ve continued to follow the AAC with an appreciation for their teams. I was surprised to see the direction this thread took. But, I won’t complain about all the LU talk going around.

CFN-College Football News
They ranked the top combined Football/Basketball teams this season.
1. Alabama
2. Ohio St.
3. Baylor
4. Liberty

(04-08-2021 03:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 12:44 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, because to me a non-biased administrator would know that the accreditation process is the process that evaluates every aspect of the university, including whatever it "full throats" on its website. All of the strengths and weaknesses of a university gets folded in to that process and an overall evaluation is made which reflects the academic worthiness of the school.

So IMO only someone with a bias is likely to allow one thing, like support for creationism, to override that accreditation evaluation and make them think the school is academically unworthy. And since in this case the "one thing" is something strong liberals are often known to be averse to, creationism and the form of Christianity it reflects, it stands to reason the bias being displayed would be liberal bias, as opposed to say conservative bias.

It's a bias towards actual science, that's not a liberal stance. Here's a statement from Baylor's biology department that references their religious background and evolution. This stance allows Baylor to be taken seriously as a University and attract top notch faculty, whereas Liberty attracts fringe quacks to their science departments. You're being naive.

https://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=961818

Contrast that to this statement from Liberty.

https://www.liberty.edu/arts-sciences/creation-studies/

As has already been discussed, Liberty is in fact taken seriously by accrediting agencies, which are the formal mechanisms for determining the academic worthiness of an institution.

Beyond that, since (a) democrats far more than republicans tend to believe in human evolution**, and (b) when "creationism" is at issue, it tends to be conservatives who try to enact laws that allow the teaching of creationism in public schools whereas it is liberal groups who tend to be the ones filing lawsuits opposing this and calling it a violation of church/state separation, I think it is fair to call any focus by an administrator on Liberty's creationism, holding it against them over the results of the accreditation process, a "liberal" bias. IMO it is clear that liberals are just far more likely get worked up about creationism and actively oppose it than are conservatives.


** A 2014 Pew Research Poll found that 67% of democrats believe humans evolved, whereas only 43% of republicans believe this.

As has already been discussed, for profit online diploma mills are taken seriously by accrediting agencies. That means jack squat.

Populist beliefs have nothing to do with science unless you're discussing political science. That means jack squat as well and a weak sauce argument. So no, your assumptions are far from "fair".

And has been discussed, unbiased administrators take what accrediting agencies do very seriously, as that is the objective, independent process for determining the academic adequacy of an institution. Other things like ranking systems often matter as well, for making distinctions among accredited institutions.

As for the part about populist beliefs, I have no idea why you think I think they have anything to do with science. But they do have to do with helping us identify liberal and conservative points of view on things - an aspect of political science, btw. Along those lines, you have pounded (uselessly, IMO) about creationism, whereas Frank the Tank mentioned LBGTQ rights, a huge issue among liberals and one that liberals have criticized Liberty for its stance on. That's likely a huge issue for liberals administrators at other campuses, one for them to be averse to Liberty about.

Sorry, but Liberal ideology seems like an obvious explanation for animus among other university presidents and conferences towards Liberty.

And you've pounded uselessly on the idea that academics aren't going to have legitimate opinions about institutions that go beyond accreditation and US News rankings. That's pretty naive thinking IMO. Sure if you a school is not accredited then they're not likely to be taken seriously but accreditation itself is a bare minimum. The idea of creationism infiltrating the halls of higher learning repelling other academics doesn't point to a political bias but a professional opinion regardless of who believes what. I'm not saying that Liberty being a conservative religious firebrand isn't a factor but they're positioning themselves outside of mainstream academia that other religious and traditionally conservative institutions are a part of.

Do you also think it's liberal bias if natural history museums look down on the Creation Museum? I mean stats are stats and liberals are more likely to be highly educated thus associated with museums and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism so it's the only logical conclusion. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the piles of evidence from fossil records to gene sequencing that makes them look at that sideshow as a joke trying to gain legitimacy by calling itself a museum. Again, call it elitism if you want but it's not political. It's a matter of professional pride.

(04-08-2021 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 12:44 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  It's a bias towards actual science, that's not a liberal stance. Here's a statement from Baylor's biology department that references their religious background and evolution. This stance allows Baylor to be taken seriously as a University and attract top notch faculty, whereas Liberty attracts fringe quacks to their science departments. You're being naive.

https://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=961818

Contrast that to this statement from Liberty.

https://www.liberty.edu/arts-sciences/creation-studies/

As has already been discussed, Liberty is in fact taken seriously by accrediting agencies, which are the formal mechanisms for determining the academic worthiness of an institution.

Beyond that, since (a) democrats far more than republicans tend to believe in human evolution**, and (b) when "creationism" is at issue, it tends to be conservatives who try to enact laws that allow the teaching of creationism in public schools whereas it is liberal groups who tend to be the ones filing lawsuits opposing this and calling it a violation of church/state separation, I think it is fair to call any focus by an administrator on Liberty's creationism, holding it against them over the results of the accreditation process, a "liberal" bias. IMO it is clear that liberals are just far more likely get worked up about creationism and actively oppose it than are conservatives.


** A 2014 Pew Research Poll found that 67% of democrats believe humans evolved, whereas only 43% of republicans believe this.

As has already been discussed, for profit online diploma mills are taken seriously by accrediting agencies. That means jack squat.

Populist beliefs have nothing to do with science unless you're discussing political science. That means jack squat as well and a weak sauce argument. So no, your assumptions are far from "fair".

And has been discussed, unbiased administrators take what accrediting agencies do very seriously, as that is the objective, independent process for determining the academic adequacy of an institution. Other things like ranking systems often matter as well, for making distinctions among accredited institutions.

As for the part about populist beliefs, I have no idea why you think I think they have anything to do with science. But they do have to do with helping us identify liberal and conservative points of view on things - an aspect of political science, btw. Along those lines, you have pounded (uselessly, IMO) about creationism, whereas Frank the Tank mentioned LBGTQ rights, a huge issue among liberals and one that liberals have criticized Liberty for its stance on. That's likely a huge issue for liberals administrators at other campuses, one for them to be averse to Liberty about.

Sorry, but Liberal ideology seems like an obvious explanation for animus among other university presidents and conferences towards Liberty.

And you've pounded uselessly on the idea that academics aren't going to have legitimate opinions about institutions that go beyond accreditation and US News rankings. That's pretty naive thinking IMO. Sure if you a school is not accredited then they're not likely to be taken seriously but accreditation itself is a bare minimum. The idea of creationism infiltrating the halls of higher learning repelling other academics doesn't point to a political bias but a professional opinion regardless of who believes what. I'm not saying that Liberty being a conservative religious firebrand isn't a factor but they're positioning themselves outside of mainstream academia that other religious and traditionally conservative institutions are a part of.

Do you also think it's liberal bias if natural history museums look down on the Creation Museum? I mean stats are stats and liberals are more likely to be highly educated thus associated with museums and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism so it's the only logical conclusion. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the piles of evidence from fossil records to gene sequencing that makes them look at that sideshow as a joke trying to gain legitimacy by calling itself a museum. Again, call it elitism if you want but it's not political. It's a matter of professional pride.

No, I don't think I've said that. The reason I've emphasized these things is because presumably, the non-biased reason for objecting to creationism at Liberty is that it makes the institution as a whole academically deficient. But since accreditation is the formal process for determining academic fitness, that rationale is invalid, which suggests bias. But if you've gotten that impression, I'll say that in evaluating Liberty as a potential conference mate, a president could legitimately have an opinion on things such as Liberty's commitment to spending money on athletics. Or the size of its fan base. These things go beyond its overall accreditation and rankings, and yet are validly linked to its ability to perform as a conference member. Those would be free of political ideological bias, because they have no such content.

But if an administrator were to reject Liberty on the basis of its creationism, allowing that to override its accreditation then yes, for the reasons given, that would be a stance based on Liberal bias.

Clear now?

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

(04-08-2021 06:33 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Only in the minds of liberals. And that's a strange mindscape, LOL.

(04-08-2021 06:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As has already been discussed, Liberty is in fact taken seriously by accrediting agencies, which are the formal mechanisms for determining the academic worthiness of an institution.

Beyond that, since (a) democrats far more than republicans tend to believe in human evolution**, and (b) when "creationism" is at issue, it tends to be conservatives who try to enact laws that allow the teaching of creationism in public schools whereas it is liberal groups who tend to be the ones filing lawsuits opposing this and calling it a violation of church/state separation, I think it is fair to call any focus by an administrator on Liberty's creationism, holding it against them over the results of the accreditation process, a "liberal" bias. IMO it is clear that liberals are just far more likely get worked up about creationism and actively oppose it than are conservatives.


** A 2014 Pew Research Poll found that 67% of democrats believe humans evolved, whereas only 43% of republicans believe this.

As has already been discussed, for profit online diploma mills are taken seriously by accrediting agencies. That means jack squat.

Populist beliefs have nothing to do with science unless you're discussing political science. That means jack squat as well and a weak sauce argument. So no, your assumptions are far from "fair".

And has been discussed, unbiased administrators take what accrediting agencies do very seriously, as that is the objective, independent process for determining the academic adequacy of an institution. Other things like ranking systems often matter as well, for making distinctions among accredited institutions.

As for the part about populist beliefs, I have no idea why you think I think they have anything to do with science. But they do have to do with helping us identify liberal and conservative points of view on things - an aspect of political science, btw. Along those lines, you have pounded (uselessly, IMO) about creationism, whereas Frank the Tank mentioned LBGTQ rights, a huge issue among liberals and one that liberals have criticized Liberty for its stance on. That's likely a huge issue for liberals administrators at other campuses, one for them to be averse to Liberty about.

Sorry, but Liberal ideology seems like an obvious explanation for animus among other university presidents and conferences towards Liberty.

And you've pounded uselessly on the idea that academics aren't going to have legitimate opinions about institutions that go beyond accreditation and US News rankings. That's pretty naive thinking IMO. Sure if you a school is not accredited then they're not likely to be taken seriously but accreditation itself is a bare minimum. The idea of creationism infiltrating the halls of higher learning repelling other academics doesn't point to a political bias but a professional opinion regardless of who believes what. I'm not saying that Liberty being a conservative religious firebrand isn't a factor but they're positioning themselves outside of mainstream academia that other religious and traditionally conservative institutions are a part of.

Do you also think it's liberal bias if natural history museums look down on the Creation Museum? I mean stats are stats and liberals are more likely to be highly educated thus associated with museums and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism so it's the only logical conclusion. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the piles of evidence from fossil records to gene sequencing that makes them look at that sideshow as a joke trying to gain legitimacy by calling itself a museum. Again, call it elitism if you want but it's not political. It's a matter of professional pride.

No, I don't think I've said that. The reason I've emphasized these things is because presumably, the non-biased reason for objecting to creationism at Liberty is that it makes the institution as a whole academically deficient. But since accreditation is the formal process for determining academic fitness, that rationale is invalid, which suggests bias. But if you've gotten that impression, I'll say that in evaluating Liberty as a potential conference mate, a president could legitimately have an opinion on things such as Liberty's commitment to spending money on athletics. Or the size of its fan base. These things go beyond its overall accreditation and rankings, and yet are validly linked to its ability to perform as a conference member. Those would be free of political ideological bias, because they have no such content.

But if an administrator were to reject Liberty on the basis of its creationism, allowing that to override its accreditation then yes, for the reasons given, that would be a stance based on Liberal bias.

Clear now?

I don't think we have to argue over the fact that academic reputation is an important consideration in University Presidents minds when looking at conference mates, some more than others. You've reduced this consideration to basically two factors: accreditation and US News rankings. So in your mind liberal arts colleges wanting to be associated with the same or large metro research Universities wanting to associate with the same or publics with publics or privates with privates are all just beyond the grasp of decision makers. "Are they accredited? Yep. OK with me then." And that's as far as the thought process needs to go. Ridiculous. I happen to think the fact that a University that has a reputation for embracing and teaching pseudoscience might rub the Presidents of some research universities the wrong way.

I think we're pretty clear.

#1 The AAC will not drop a school although East Carolina looks like an outsider. The AAC is urban private and public schools and ECU is the only one that’s outside a metro area over 500k.

#2 The AAC will not add Liberty. They’ll look at 20 schools before Liberty. Is it fair? Probably not but as Frank the Tank often writes “think like a school president” and this applies to Liberty more than any other school. Do the presidents or chancellors of Tulane, Temple, SMU and Cincinnati just to mention four want to be associated with Liberty? The biggest obstacle Liberty faces is the Falwells. For better or worse, Liberty will be forever linked to that family even if the university publicly severs ties with them. The best Liberty can aspire is to be an East Coast BYU.....schedule regional schools and sort of dominate the A-Sun in basketball and Olympic sports. Liberty will never be invited to the ACC or Big Ten no matter how good their football and basketball teams are and how much money and fan support they have.

quo vadis must have amazing socio-political skills to not get canceled working in academia at a school where he might be the only conservative

As many have said we're not going to be kicking anyone out however if any school voluntarily leaves due to an inability or unwillingness to continue the growth of their athletics departments that the conference wants I could see it being Tulsa due to their size (smallest UG enrollment in the FBS), fan support (lowest avg attendance in the AAC) and budgetary concerns (the university was running a at a significant deficit prior to covid). I'll reiterate that the AAC wont be kicking anyone out and if they left it'd be their decision. All that said Tulsa still manages to put together winning seasons like '16 (10-3) & '20 (6-3 playing in the CCG).

(04-08-2021 07:19 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  quo vadis must have amazing socio-political skills to not get canceled working in academia at a school where he might be the only conservative

I assume his sole duty is responding to US News’ annual survey.

(04-08-2021 07:14 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  #1 The AAC will not drop a school although East Carolina looks like an outsider. The AAC is urban private and public schools and ECU is the only one that’s outside a metro area over 500k.

#2 The AAC will not add Liberty. They’ll look at 20 schools before Liberty. Is it fair? Probably not but as Frank the Tank often writes “think like a school president” and this applies to Liberty more than any other school. Do the presidents or chancellors of Tulane, Temple, SMU and Cincinnati just to mention four want to be associated with Liberty? The biggest obstacle Liberty faces is the Falwells. For better or worse, Liberty will be forever linked to that family even if the university publicly severs ties with them. The best Liberty can aspire is to be an East Coast BYU.....schedule regional schools and sort of dominate the A-Sun in basketball and Olympic sports. Liberty will never be invited to the ACC or Big Ten no matter how good their football and basketball teams are and how much money and fan support they have.

Liberty is a joke on all fronts and will never transcend its misogynistic, racist, theocratic origins. Period. Stop talking about them as if any right minded university or conference would willingly associate itself with a school that hired Ian McCaw or Hugh Freeze after their public, egregious involvement in sexual misconduct and sweeping the same under the rug. Freedom of religion is not freedom from consequences, and an obvious consequence of running a profiteering, unscientific diploma mill is that schools with a scintilla of academic integrity will avoid you like you’ve got the diseases which Jerry Jr. and Mrs. Falwell share with their pool boy.

(04-08-2021 02:28 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  In fairness, how many other major Evangelical universities are there? There are reasons why Liberty and BYU have so much in common in spite of the fact that both have fundamental disagreements in theology. When you take a stand based on your worldview, it results in disenfranchisement. We get it. Frankly far too often we have revelled in it over our history.

Depends on how you define it. There are strains of evangelicalism which would probably reject the SBC as being part of the movement, too. On the other hand, Steubenville and Ave Maria have traditions of evangelism in them but are probably not welcome as evangelicals.

(04-08-2021 02:28 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  As for Baylor, they can be considered Evangelical in their theology departments. But as a connected Baptist living in Texas, I can attest to the fact that few consider Baylor to be Baptist in much more than heritage and when they can squeeze some funds out of a state organization. And that is just fine. They are a good school. At Liberty we just have zero interest in becoming Baylor.

Sounds like how people in NC view Wake Forest.

(04-08-2021 07:07 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 06:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  As has already been discussed, for profit online diploma mills are taken seriously by accrediting agencies. That means jack squat.

Populist beliefs have nothing to do with science unless you're discussing political science. That means jack squat as well and a weak sauce argument. So no, your assumptions are far from "fair".

And has been discussed, unbiased administrators take what accrediting agencies do very seriously, as that is the objective, independent process for determining the academic adequacy of an institution. Other things like ranking systems often matter as well, for making distinctions among accredited institutions.

As for the part about populist beliefs, I have no idea why you think I think they have anything to do with science. But they do have to do with helping us identify liberal and conservative points of view on things - an aspect of political science, btw. Along those lines, you have pounded (uselessly, IMO) about creationism, whereas Frank the Tank mentioned LBGTQ rights, a huge issue among liberals and one that liberals have criticized Liberty for its stance on. That's likely a huge issue for liberals administrators at other campuses, one for them to be averse to Liberty about.

Sorry, but Liberal ideology seems like an obvious explanation for animus among other university presidents and conferences towards Liberty.

And you've pounded uselessly on the idea that academics aren't going to have legitimate opinions about institutions that go beyond accreditation and US News rankings. That's pretty naive thinking IMO. Sure if you a school is not accredited then they're not likely to be taken seriously but accreditation itself is a bare minimum. The idea of creationism infiltrating the halls of higher learning repelling other academics doesn't point to a political bias but a professional opinion regardless of who believes what. I'm not saying that Liberty being a conservative religious firebrand isn't a factor but they're positioning themselves outside of mainstream academia that other religious and traditionally conservative institutions are a part of.

Do you also think it's liberal bias if natural history museums look down on the Creation Museum? I mean stats are stats and liberals are more likely to be highly educated thus associated with museums and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism so it's the only logical conclusion. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the piles of evidence from fossil records to gene sequencing that makes them look at that sideshow as a joke trying to gain legitimacy by calling itself a museum. Again, call it elitism if you want but it's not political. It's a matter of professional pride.

No, I don't think I've said that. The reason I've emphasized these things is because presumably, the non-biased reason for objecting to creationism at Liberty is that it makes the institution as a whole academically deficient. But since accreditation is the formal process for determining academic fitness, that rationale is invalid, which suggests bias. But if you've gotten that impression, I'll say that in evaluating Liberty as a potential conference mate, a president could legitimately have an opinion on things such as Liberty's commitment to spending money on athletics. Or the size of its fan base. These things go beyond its overall accreditation and rankings, and yet are validly linked to its ability to perform as a conference member. Those would be free of political ideological bias, because they have no such content.

But if an administrator were to reject Liberty on the basis of its creationism, allowing that to override its accreditation then yes, for the reasons given, that would be a stance based on Liberal bias.

Clear now?

I don't think we have to argue over the fact that academic reputation is an important consideration in University Presidents minds when looking at conference mates, some more than others. You've reduced this consideration to basically two factors: accreditation and US News rankings. So in your mind liberal arts colleges wanting to be associated with the same or large metro research Universities wanting to associate with the same or publics with publics or privates with privates are all just beyond the grasp of decision makers. "Are they accredited? Yep. OK with me then." And that's as far as the thought process needs to go. Ridiculous. I happen to think the fact that a University that has a reputation for embracing and teaching pseudoscience might rub the Presidents of some research universities the wrong way.

I think we're pretty clear.

Regarding academic reputation, I would expect that some presidents of universities might allow Liberty's endorsement of creationism to "rub them the wrong way" to the extent of overriding their accreditation and their rankings, independent holistic indicators of their academic worthiness - if they have a strong liberal ideology. Others without a liberal bent will in my view likely recognize that creationism is just one aspect of their academic profile that was taken in to account during the accreditation and rankings processes and not give it any weight.

Of course, academic reputation isn't the only possible relevant factor for conference membership, other pertinent factors of the kind mentioned in my last post could be legitimately in play as well. And some of the kind you mention above could be relevant too - like large publics wanting to be associated with other large publics or small privates wanting to be associated with other small privates. A conference or a given university president at a school in a conference might decide that its foremost criteria for a new member is a strong basketball program. So yes, other factors beyond accreditation and rankings can and do validly factor in to an appraisal of a potential conference mate. And the preferences mentioned in this paragraph are not rooted in political bias. But those have nothing to do with the issue of creationism.

To me, creationism, and other stances that Liberty takes of a conservative nature, such as on LBGTQ, and the Falwell connection, a name long despised by many liberals, likely mean that a strong liberal ideological posture by university presidents is likely to be a significant barrier to entry for Liberty in to a conference. Administrators without a strong liberal bent are unlikely to find Liberty objectionable. Unfortunately for Liberty, and as others have pointed out, liberalism is rampant among university presidents.

(04-08-2021 10:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 07:14 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  #1 The AAC will not drop a school although East Carolina looks like an outsider. The AAC is urban private and public schools and ECU is the only one that’s outside a metro area over 500k.

#2 The AAC will not add Liberty. They’ll look at 20 schools before Liberty. Is it fair? Probably not but as Frank the Tank often writes “think like a school president” and this applies to Liberty more than any other school. Do the presidents or chancellors of Tulane, Temple, SMU and Cincinnati just to mention four want to be associated with Liberty? The biggest obstacle Liberty faces is the Falwells. For better or worse, Liberty will be forever linked to that family even if the university publicly severs ties with them. The best Liberty can aspire is to be an East Coast BYU.....schedule regional schools and sort of dominate the A-Sun in basketball and Olympic sports. Liberty will never be invited to the ACC or Big Ten no matter how good their football and basketball teams are and how much money and fan support they have.

Liberty is a joke on all fronts and will never transcend its misogynistic, racist, theocratic origins. Period. Stop talking about them as if any right minded university or conference would willingly associate itself with a school that hired Ian McCaw or Hugh Freeze after their public, egregious involvement in sexual misconduct and sweeping the same under the rug. Freedom of religion is not freedom from consequences, and an obvious consequence of running a profiteering, unscientific diploma mill is that schools with a scintilla of academic integrity will avoid you like you’ve got the diseases which Jerry Jr. and Mrs. Falwell share with their pool boy.

And where did I state that?

Liberty will always be under the Falwells shadow and have a perception issue The only thing they can do is deal with the cards they have: FBS independence and the A-Sun for other sports since no FBS conference or conferences like the Big East, A-10 and MVC would associate with them.

(04-08-2021 10:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 07:14 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  #1 The AAC will not drop a school although East Carolina looks like an outsider. The AAC is urban private and public schools and ECU is the only one that’s outside a metro area over 500k.

#2 The AAC will not add Liberty. They’ll look at 20 schools before Liberty. Is it fair? Probably not but as Frank the Tank often writes “think like a school president” and this applies to Liberty more than any other school. Do the presidents or chancellors of Tulane, Temple, SMU and Cincinnati just to mention four want to be associated with Liberty? The biggest obstacle Liberty faces is the Falwells. For better or worse, Liberty will be forever linked to that family even if the university publicly severs ties with them. The best Liberty can aspire is to be an East Coast BYU.....schedule regional schools and sort of dominate the A-Sun in basketball and Olympic sports. Liberty will never be invited to the ACC or Big Ten no matter how good their football and basketball teams are and how much money and fan support they have.

Liberty is a joke on all fronts and will never transcend its misogynistic, racist, theocratic origins. Period. Stop talking about them as if any right minded university or conference would willingly associate itself with a school that hired Ian McCaw or Hugh Freeze after their public, egregious involvement in sexual misconduct and sweeping the same under the rug. Freedom of religion is not freedom from consequences, and an obvious consequence of running a profiteering, unscientific diploma mill is that schools with a scintilla of academic integrity will avoid you like you’ve got the diseases which Jerry Jr. and Mrs. Falwell share with their pool boy.

Buzzwords aside, isn't that how the most prestigious colleges started? The earliest colleges certainly began as religious institutions with ministers as their first presidents. And haven't colleges all pretty much become diploma mills these days (when they're not inventing new ways to call people racist)?

(04-08-2021 08:40 AM)SlyFox Wrote:  I 100% agree with your sentiment, Foreverandever. That is what true liberty is all about. From the Liberty camp, we are all in on the freedom of choice.

Where I disagree with you is in regard to the suggestion in your third sentence that Liberty uses "'religion' to exclude and promote the persecution of others." That is not a fair representation of Liberty's position even though it is a common misconception. I will grant you some argument on exclusion as it relates to faculty but promotion of the persecution of others is hyperbole and flat out inaccurate. But I respect your take even if I disagree.

Many students at Liberty's campus would disagree with you and I don't mean the ones who violate the "honor code" but the ones who gleefully sign up for it because it excludes those people and positions them as less than.

That's why Liberty will never be invited. Perhaps you're right and that's not what Liberty is about, but their are a lot of families who send their children there because they believe that is what the university is about.

Mathew 25:40

(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.

Based upon that University Presidents are also very intolerant.

(04-08-2021 11:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Liberty will always be under the Falwells shadow and have a perception issue The only thing they can do is deal with the cards they have: FBS independence and the A-Sun for other sports since no FBS conference or conferences like the Big East, A-10 and MVC would associate with them.

You do realize that Liberty is already a member of the Big East in one sport don’t you? Though we don’t have full membership in other conferences, we certainly don’t have an issue associating with other conferences. We regularly schedule with the ACC and SEC with no problem. We have multi-year home/away visits from many ACC teams. Independence works well for us. I don’t believe you will hear a fan or administration complain otherwise. Sure if the right conference situation came along we’d listen, but for now, we are content and thriving where we are. Independence/ASUN are a great place for us.

(04-08-2021 07:19 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  quo vadis must have amazing socio-political skills to not get canceled working in academia at a school where he might be the only conservative

Nicely played.

Reading such threads can be a challenge. We all (myself included) need to do a better job of acknowledging that there are both liberal and conservative views that are legitimate — and helpful to society. Our country works best when we compromise and we are tolerant, when we look at somebody who holds socio-political views very different than our own and ask, "Maybe I need to listen to that person."

In short, we all need to be more like Dr. Cornel West and Dr. Robert George — progressive and conservative professors, respectively, and strong friends.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/firing-line/vid...ge-crixuk/