|
|
|
|
|
Wow.....a billion dollar endowment and their own TV network......with a built in audience of fans. Nice.
Yeah, visit their campus and lots of new buildings (my son graduates in May) are everywhere and more being built. They only have about 12-14K students or so on campus.
Give them credit, they have a very ambitious plan, money to fund it, and incredible drive to achive it. In short, they get it.
I guess you could say they have a "higher purpose" and it definitely shows.
I'm rather surprised to be saying this, but I think the Sun Belt should bite the bullet and offer them an invite. Get to twelve, have a championship game that will have some people actually watching a conference game. Liberty looks better than I would have guessed to fill that twelfth slot.
Incidentally, the Bill Carr quoted in the article is our former AD. He was the guy who ushered our transition from the SWC to C*USA. There are basically two narratives: Bill Carr the forward-looking AD who saw that our future was with the Metro Conference, and Bill Carr who was caught flat-footed with a seachange that everybody and his brother could see coming and failed to even initiate contact with the WAC while our SWC brethren were collecting invites.
University of Houston '01. Any references to "we" or "us" likely refer to UH. Cheers!
No one wants these religious zealots in their conference - the same way the PAC12 will never take BYU. Okay, so maybe the Sunbelt will take them or the old WAC to pair with Grand Canyon. Not worth the trouble.
The MWC would take back BYU in a minute.
Any conference would take the religious zealots at ND.
The religious zealots at Baylor, SMU, Tulsa, TCU, Wake, Duke, BC, etc seem to be doing well enough in their conferences.
Yep -Originally Posted by Champ967
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Those are all academically respected universities that have been around a long time, and schools like TCU have distanced themselves from the church. Liberty is essentially an upstart online school that puts their mission (politics and religion) and making money ahead of academics, which makes them more similar to Grand Canyon than those schools you mentioned. I think that's the biggest part of the equation why university presidents don't want to be associated with Liberty.
A quick search on their website tells me Liberty was founded in 1971 and gained full accreditation in 1985. There are 12,000 students on campus with 90,000 total including on line students.
They have the money and structure in place to be very successful...
They have already experienced some success on the hardwood
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Exactly. That's the main reason why university presidents have a problem with it. Liberty being an activist for politics and religion just doesn't help their campaign to move up, especially to a conference with almost all public schools.
They do have the money and structure in place to be very successful, but what does it tell you when conferences as desperate as the Sun Belt, CAA, and SoCon refuse to invite Liberty?
I'd submit that faith, politics and money were the impetus, in some measure or fashion, for the creation of each of those institutions I noted above. The founders of Liberty started their school for more or less the same reasons as the founders of BYU, ND, Baylor, et al.
The real reason to shut out Liberty (or Grand Canyon, for that matter) is to protect the status quo. Online classes, for-profit ownership, and alleged zealotry are weak excuses offered to protect the establishment.
Cause they are scared of them...
It's as simple as that -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
