Member for

12 years 11 months
Points
35.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
It's the "clear path to the… It's the "clear path to the basket" aspect. It's an automatic Flagrant 1, which means two free throws and the ball. So far this year, every time I've seen a guard stripped deep in the back court, if he flails and so much as touches the dribbler as he heads upcourt, this is the call being made. It's a touch foul, but the refs seem to be pretty consistent in calling it.
A couple of caveats. First,… A couple of caveats. First, that $500+ number is based on current television revenues. If the television revenues go up, they still go to the ACC instead of the exiting school. WRT to Notre Dame, the situation is a bit more murky. The contracts aren't public and so aren't subject to scrutiny. However... In order to find a home for their non-football programs after leaving the Big East, they made some concessions. As I understand it, there is a clause in their contract which states that if Notre Dame is to become a full time member of a conference, it has to be the ACC. Presumably, there are equally draconian sanctions associated with them going elsewhere. Oh, and to add one more bit for you to discuss: FWIW, UVa, UNC, and Duke are essentially joined at the hip. Whatever decisions are made, whenever they are made, those three will go lock step in unison to the same destination. The histories between UNC and UVa, and between UNC and Duke will be determining factors. That said, no one really cares what happens to VT.
I just heard that it would… I just heard that it would take north of $500 mil to get out of the GoR clause based on current media revenues.
Among other things, with the… Among other things, with the ACC's GOR (Grant of Rights) clause in effect until 2036, no teams are likely to be leaving soon. Essentially, every school has given their television rights to the conference until the current agreement expires. So, it's unlikely any other conference would want an ACC school if they don't bring those rights with them, and it's a bit unlikely that any school wants to leave without them. It's been a pretty effective, if not draconian, way of preserving some stability within the membership of the conference.
Perhaps you have it right, perhaps you have it backwards...

I remember reading, years ago, an account of some well-intentioned folks that tried to teach the kids at an Hopi Native American school to play soccer.  The kids evidently enjoyed the game, however there was one difficulty.  Both teams would work together to score the ball into one of the nets.  Cooperation was the paramount concern.  Kids games are going to reflect society more than society is going to reflect the game.  With respect to a lot of these societal values, sports do not necessarily teach them to kids as much as kids bring them to sports.  They are already in place.  Kids aren't getting anything out of U4 soccer that they don't already have. 

And there's the rub...

We should have a much better team, also.  Among other things, hopefully,  we won't be forced to start any true frosh as we did last year.  We might actually be healthy for the game, which we weren't last year.  (For the MInnesota game, we were missing the 1st string PG and lost a starting forward midway through.)  We still don't have a full roster, but six returning players have starting experience, a seventh member saw plenty of game time, we finally add a highly touted kid who redshirted last year, and we add some nice recruits to the mix.  And we are at home.  Life should be good in Charlottesville this season!  Slainte!

If I am not mistaken, the folks at Minnesota were...

of a similar opinion prior to our trip there last fall.