When we moved to this area the SBC church we found was the only church nearby that focused on the Bible. We're a little disappointed with the movement in our church to "modernize" the presentation and the preaching isn't up to our expectations (not trying to criticize the pastor). But we're unwilling to leave at the moment. Like you, I do agree with them more than I disagree and I can "generally" bite my Calvinistic tongue. But we suppliment ourselves with John MacArthur tape sermons so that helps.
On a national level, the split away from the other Baptists was a move in the right direction. But SBs don't have a systematic theology and within the SB community this is creating problems. (I posted something on this a long while ago.) They have some creeds and so forth but when pressed about defining their theology a little more, the administration generally throws up their hands and say, "Can't we focus on missions?". In trying to appease the Arminian SBers, it is allienating the Calvinist SBers.
It is commendable the SBs broke away from the liberal Baptists. However, eventually they're not going to be able to ignore the Arminian/Calvinist split within the church for long. It's not surprising this article says the same thing.
The liberal would throw up his hands and say "soul competency", which is really just a cover for not believing the Bible.
Doctrinal error has generational consequences. It's no accident that mainstream Protestanism is a shell of its former self.
In my experience, there just aren't that many Calvinists in the SBC period, or in modern evangelicalism at all. America is an Arminian country, for better or worse.