What’s with the warm weather?

According to Environmental Science Prof. Robert Davis, the jet stream is to blame for the balmy temperatures.

Without getting too technical, the jet stream essentially separates cold arctic air from warm tropical air.

During most winters a jet stream trough, or southward bulge in the jet stream that meanders across the northern hemisphere, settles in over Virginia, keeping the warm southern air at bay while Canadian air masses invade from the North.

But “this winter, the jet stream has mostly resided much farther north, over New England or even southern Canada, than its typical summertime position,” Davis said.

This ridge in the jet stream, or northward bulge, allows warm air to creep up the eastern seaboard. This year the ridge brought record-breaking high temperatures to Virginia and much of the East Coast.

Lest anyone pronounce Old Man Winter dead, Virginia has experienced warm spells before, only to see the cold weather return the following year.

In the winter of 1932, temperatures between December and February exceeded long-term averages by more than nine degrees, reaching a sultry 87 degrees in Roanoke.

University climatologist Patrick Michaels cautions those seeking to attribute the soaring mercury to global warming. Although rare, these temperature oscillations are perfectly normal, and should not spark alarm.

“There are no trends in Virginia climatology records to support global warming. We have shown that the largest warming has occurred in the coldest air masses, such as in Eurasia, but we have not noticed any warming trends in the Southeast. It just does this,” Michaels said.

How is artificial snow made?

Actually, snow making is pretty simple. Nature’s variety consists of water vapor that condenses at cold temperatures on tiny dust-like particles called nucleators.

Although most precipitation begins as snow, only cold ground temperatures can ensure that it ever reaches the slopes.

Thus, ski resorts turn to snow making machines to make up for winter’s neglect.

“Without artificial snow, we wouldn’t have a ski season around here. Our average of 35 inches of snow a year just isn’t enough to make a good base,” Massanutten ski manager Steve Showalter said.

Snow making machines, or snow guns as they commonly are called, basically duplicate Mother Nature’s work using sophisticated technology.

The guns produce snow by taking nucleator-treated water and spraying it onto the ground with highly compressed air.

Water is fed via a hose into the rear of the snow gun, where it is combined with pressurized air from a compressor.

There the compressed air atomizes, or mixes, the water so that it breaks into many smaller droplets. Upon release, these droplets condense as ice crystals on the nucleators and fall to the ground as snowflakes.

The result? A great day on the slopes – at least in theory. Though the process sounds simple enough, getting the snow to form can be quite complicated.

Only temperatures well below freezing guarantee a decent blanket of snow. Otherwise, ski resorts must consider the air’s relative humidity before flipping the switch on their machines.

Water vapor condenses more readily in low humidity. This allows snow to form at higher temperatures.

In higher humidity, however, the air already is saturated with water vapor, so the additional water has trouble condensing.

In other words, unless the mercury drops well below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, humidity can thwart even modern science’s best efforts and spoil a day of skiing.

- Compiled by Mike Layfield

STUDENT self-governance is a concept that often is touted as one of the University’s strongest and most unique assets. Students at this institution stand out because of their dedication to the service of their peers. Examples on grounds are plentiful: the Honor and Judiciary Committees, a Student Council that enjoys the trust of the administration, several hundred CIOs and cultural organizations, and the first-ever Commonwealth-approved student member of the University’s governing body: the Board of Visitors. Yet, here the symbolism breaks down. Despite enjoying a voice at the Board table, the student member does not have a vote. This must be changed.

In the 1980s, the University’s Student Council succeeded in convincing the General Assembly that they needed representation on the Board. Two years ago, this was followed by legislation that extended the privilege to all public universities and colleges. The language in each bill was quite clear: the students could enjoy representation, but it was to be strictly controlled. The student member is chosen by the Board itself, not the student body or their representatives on Student Council. The student member may participate in both general and committee meetings of the Board, but may be excluded from sensitive conversation in executive session, which is held behind closed doors. These limitations constrict the ability of students to effectively voice their concerns to the Board.

Even as recently as last semester, events illustrate the severe limitations in effective representation offered by this system. It took Council the better part of a year to present the Burma Divestment Resolution to the Board, despite the efforts of some within the body. While it is unlikely that any Board member intentionally harbored malice toward Council by refusing divestment a place on the meeting agenda, the conflict that developed between students and the body reflects a deficiency in communication between the members and the students. The students felt that the problem was worth the Board’s time, and the Board, in initially misunderstanding Council’s claims, disagreed.

The student member, as the position currently exists, is little more than an advisor to the Board. She can hardly be considered a member” of the Board if she does not share the ability to vote, or even participate should the BOV move into executive session — thereby excluding the student.

If the Board truly cares about their relationship with student leaders, the student member should be extended the privilege of a vote. She becomes a specific representative of a constituency who some characterize as the consumer of the University’s services. In addition to having a voice in the affairs of the University, students actively should be able to exert their will within the Board.

Some claim that giving the student member a vote is futile. Should an issue become contentious, the student undoubtedly would find herself outnumbered. However, any time a vote is unanimous, it symbolizes a strong mandate for the given initiative. The student vote would be important in trying to ensure that student opinion is best represented in any decision, unanimous or otherwise.

A vote symbolizes more than just a voice on the Board. The current structure of the Board ensures that students may be asked for their opinion on certain issues, but if there were a case when the student opinion was not desired, the Board has the ability to proceed while excluding the student member. This does not reflect representation on the University’s governing body. It only demonstrates a commitment to convenience when the student opinion might be desired.

This is not to demonize the Board. One must assume that the group has the best interest of the University, and by extension the students, at heart when they make each and every decision. However, as demonstrated by the Burma divestment issue, there are times when students have a specific grievance they want the Board to address. This demands a stronger connection between the organization and student leaders: more than a Board-appointed member who happens to be a student.

If student self-governance is to remain a real priority at the University, the Board should make the symbolic gesture of offering the student member a vote. Though it may not make a large difference in the outcome of many votes, it makes a stronger statement to the close relationship between the highest levels of the administration and the students whose welfare they protect.

(Preston Lloyd is the Chair of the Legislative Affairs Committee for Student Council and a Cavalier Daily columnist whose columns appear Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)

PRESIDENT George W. Bush’s recent rhetoric concerning the “axis of evil” may only provide definitive proof that choking on a pretzel and passing out has had a lasting effect on his judgment. Since his State of the Union address, Bush steadily has increased pressure on adding Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s removal to the list of imperative actions in the campaign against terror. However, Hussein has shown no initiative to attack the United States in recent years and there is no need to remove him at this time.

Why the sense of immediacy to oust a dictator who has done little in the ten years since the Gulf War? It would appear that Bush has overstepped his bounds and expanded the war on terrorism to wipe out anybody who dislikes America — drawing the United States into a potentially lethal situation without provocation.

Bush doesn’t want to underestimate Hussein like the intelligence community did with Osama bin Laden. After Sept. 11, the intelligence community has been scratching its head over how an attack could be coordinated and performed on American soil. Bush cannot afford to be caught with his pants down again if he wants to win reelection. And of course, Bush would love to wipe out the enemy his father never could and avoid the obstacles that held Bush Sr. back from a second term. With unprecedented approval ratings, the president is making not-so-subtle threats toward Hussein. He is making a critical mistake in extending the war on terrorism into a war on all enemies.

The most disturbing example of the Bush administration’s overstepping its bounds is the proposed dissemination of false information to foreign journalists. Word leaked last week to the New York Times that the new Office of Strategic Influence might use the Internet and secret operations to provide false and misleading information to enemies. Strategic deception is a necessary element in combating an enemy, but lying to the foreign press requires lying to the American press and public. Whether this plan is initiated or not, it is clear that Bush is throwing caution out the window.

This militant posturing by Bush may only serve to incite war when war is avoidable. Since former President George W. Bush forced Hussein out of Kuwait more than ten years ago, many stories have emerged about Hussein’s storage and attempted acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, but he has taken no direct action against America. Hussein’s loathing of America is well documented and worthy of monitoring, but it is unlikely that he would attack and risk U.S. military reprisals that would decimate his country. Hussein’s abhorrence for America runs deep, but he knows that a war would be just as one-sided now as it was in 1991. He may be cruel, ruthless and violent, but he’s not stupid, suicidal or fanatical enough to attack America without dealing a fatal blow. Like another American enemy, Fidel Castro, he will keep his hatred in check, run his country as he likes, and avoid the United States.

Hussein is not a clear and present danger to the United States, but Bush’s deterrence method may push him to action. By pressuring Hussein, Bush is forcing the Iraqi leader into a situation in which he might be forced to attack the United States. Hussein is not a fanatic willing to play the martyr, but if he sees American troops coming, he will launch whatever chemical and nuclear weapons he may have. The United Nations. should be critical this Spring when it attempts to inspect Hussein’s weapons, but it should not assume that his buildup is part of an aggressive plan for assault.

This frontal assault on Hussein is a perfect example of why there is such anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Bin Laden and others despise America and resent its interference with other Arab countries. Bush thinks that he is going to eliminate an enemy, but attacking Iraq only will infuriate more people. If Bush wants to kill Hussein, he can expect three more enemies to arise in defiance of his arrogance.

Bush is making a costly mistake in pursuing the “axis of evil.” At a time when the public feels vulnerable and bin Laden remains at large, there is no reason to bring more danger upon the nation. It doesn’t matter if he wants to appear tough to his adversaries or if he wants to clean up his father’s blunder; his actions will provoke a response which this nation can avoid. Bush may not like Hussein, but the fact remains that Hussein is far more concerned about his own safety than attacking the United States. Hussein may threaten America in the future, but a preemptive strike is unwarranted at this time. Bush hasn’t reached the point of no return yet and he still can back down without looking weak. Perhaps he should focus his time working on a career in the Olympic sport of curling, because if he continues along this path, he’s more likely to be an Olympic athlete than the American President by the time of the next Olympics.

(Brad Cohen’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at bcohen@cavalierdaily.com.)

Yesterday’s election results brought an end to months of debate on the informed retraction, though the results suggest the issues it addressed will live on.

Students cast 3,346 votes against and 2,223 votes in favor of the amendment, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

“The most important thing is that students had the opportunity to voice their opinions,” said College Honor Rep. Michelle Jones, who started the petition to put the proposal on the ballot. “The high voter turn-out shows that lots of people cared.”

Voter turnout climbed to 35.4 percent as 6,153 total students voted. On the informed retraction, 5,569 of the voters cast ballots.

The percentage of students voting was .1 percent higher than last year when four honor referenda were on the ballot.

“Turn-out is most important,” Honor Committee Chairman Thomas Hall said. “The Honor Committee is thrilled that so many voiced their opinion on the single sanction.”

Newly elected Honor Representatives also expressed excitement for the high turnout.

“I’m very glad everyone got to vote,” newly elected College Honor Rep. Duncan Brook said. “Though I am opposed to the informed retraction, I think the votes show that we need to keep the issue on the table and if there were problems that this proposal tried to address we will have to look for other solutions.”

Brook was not alone in his concern that the issues targeted by the informed retraction need to continue to be examined.

“I am glad the students voted to maintain the single sanction, the original cornerstone of the honor system for the past 160 years,” Hall said. “However the issues raised by the informed retraction are rational issues, we do need to work on bringing the faculty back into the system and making students feel it is a just system.”

Jones agreed and hoped the incoming Committee would find a way to deal with the issues.

“The problems that exist will have to be dealt with some way or another,” Jones said. “Future Committees or student bodies will have to find a solution.”

The informed retraction would have allowed students accused of an honor offense to confess and accept reparations along with a suspension of three full academic semesters from the University.

Students would not be allowed to transfer credits taken at other universities during this period of “reflection and rehabilitation.”

Drafted by Architecture Rep. Brian Winterhalter last year, the proposal was considered and modified by the Committee for months. Last month in a Committee vote, the proposal failed to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to put it before the student body, missing the margin by only two votes.

Jones and others collected over 2,000 signatures in order to put the amendment before the students in the vote this week.

Charlottesville police currently are conducting a search for a suspect involved in a robbery Tuesday night at the Barracks Road Shopping Center.

According to Charlottesville police, the theft occurred in the Barnes & Noble Bookstore at approximately 10 p.m.

The incident was reported as an armed robbery.

The suspect in the Barnes and Noble bookstore robbery reportedly lifted his jacket and displayed a small, dark handgun during the theft, Charlottesville police Sgt. M.G. Davis said.

“No one was injured,” Charlottesville communications director Maurice Jones said. But “an undisclosed amount of money was stolen.”

The suspect is described as a white male, 6-foot-tall, between 25 and 30 years old. The suspect has light brown or blond eyebrows.

At the time of the robbery, he was wearing a purple and blue waist-length jacket with writing in the right chest area. His hair was covered by a purple fleece cap.

The robbery marks the second burglary at the shopping center in the past week.

The first theft occurred at Ben and Jerry’s, Davis said.

“I’m surprised,” Davis added. “Robberies are unusual for that area.”

A number of students also said they were taken off-guard by the robbery at Barracks.

“I think it’s shocking,” third-year College student Kristin Frost said. “From my experiences, it’s always been pretty safe there.”

Frost said security issues no longer can be limited to downtown Charlottesville.

“We saw things happen at Rugby too,” she added. “There are no definite safe or unsafe places anymore.”

First-year College student Matt Park said he agreed the threat of crime cannot be overlooked in areas assumed to be safe.

“You wouldn’t think Barracks would be the type of place for a robbery, but bad things can happen anywhere,” he said.

“It would be one thing if it were at 2 in the morning,” said first-year College student Rebecca White. “But at 10 o’clock, that definitely makes it more surprising.”

Management at the Barnes and Noble bookstore declined to comment on the incident.

Anyone with information on this case is encouraged to contact Detective S.L. Dillon at 970-3280.

The results are in. Almost. With echoes of the 2000 presidential campaign ringing in the air, the elections committee announced last night that there will be a run-off for Student Council president.

Third-year College students Steven Reinemund and Micah Schwartz will run-off for Council’s most coveted position.

Schwartz garnered 2,039 votes to Reinemund’s 1,860, but according to Council by-laws, a run-off is required because Schwartz did not secure a plurality.

“There is not a 5 percent gap between the vote totals of the top two candidates, so we have to have a run-off,” Council elections committee chairman Adam Trusner said.

Online voting for the election will begin Monday at 8 a.m. and conclude Tuesday at 8 p.m.

Campaigning for the run-off already has begun.

“I am glad that we are having a run-off election because I don’t feel the students have clearly expressed who they want to be their president,” Schwartz said. “I am hoping that this campaign will bring out more of the issues and differences between the candidates.”

Both candidates expressed excitement and confidence in the campaign ahead.

“I am very pleased with how things turned out,” Reinemund said. “Look for more rhinos coming to an area near you.”

The election pleased outgoing Council President Abby Fifer.

“Both candidates have given a lot to Student Council and the University community and the University will be fortunate to have either one as its leader,” Fifer said.

Third-year College student Ronnie Mayhew will serve as Council’s next executive vice president.

“It’s a great honor to be elected unopposed as the EVP because it shows that the representative body and the student body in general trust you in this leadership position,” Mayhew said.

Third-year College student Kelly Polk was chosen as the next Council vice president for organizations. In this role, she will oversee the appropriations process for University CIOs.

Students elected third-year College student Atima Omara-Alwala to serve as the 2002-2003 Council vice president for administration. She will oversee the Escort Service, as well as fundraising and the daily operations in the Council office.

This year’s elections saw one of the highest voter turnouts in some time with 35.54 percent of the entire student body voting. The College had 46.11 percent of students voting, while 47.83 percent of Engineering students went to the polls. Low turn-out numbers were registered in graduate and professional schools, which brought down the overall percentage.

Still, “this is the largest turn-out we have seen since voting moved online,” Fifer said.

Students also elected two class presidents last night. Third-year students chose Kemper Steele to be their fourth-year class president.

“The class of 2003 voted me class president, so whatever they want accomplished, I am going to try my best to bring them,” Steele said.

Third-year Katherine Montgomery will be the fourth-year class vice president. Until this year, the candidate who received the second highest number of votes in the race for president was appointed vice president. This is the first year the class president and vice president were elected separately.

Students elected second-year College students Howard Yuan and Julia Thies to be third-year president and vice president respectively in uncontested races.

Another run-off is required for the office of second-year president. First-year College students Bryan Shin and Robin Short tied with 348 votes each.

First years chose Devon Knudsen as their second-year vice president.

In response to the recent assaults on University students, community activists, church members and University administrators gathered at the Mount Zion Baptist Church last night to discuss race relations and the lack of interaction between the University and Charlottesville at large.

Last night’s meeting was one in a series of meetings that began three weeks ago when Rev. AlvinEdwards invited church members and parents of the high school assailants to come together to discuss their reactions to the assaults.

The first of the assaults that the groups are confronting took place last September and the latest occurred Jan. 25. The victims all are white or Asian. The 10 high school students arrested are black, nine of whom are minors.

The meeting marks the first time the three committees that Edwards created – the youth in the community, race in the community and Charlottesville youth defense support – came together. Each announced its preliminary ideas to address race relations in Charlottesville.

Each committee had been discussing its reaction to the assaults in meetings this past week.

Ron Wiley, chair of the Charlottesville youth defense support committee, said that its goals are to keep information about the high school assailants and their victims confidential, and to provide qualified attorneys for the students, in preparation for the upcoming trial April 16.

According to Commonwealth Attorney David Chapman, charges against the nine students include malicious wounding, robbery as well as assault and battery.

“We are still determining who is criminally involved and what additional charges, if any, should be brought against them,” he said.

The charged high school students now are being held at an Alternate Education center indefinitely.

The students should be allowed to return to their classes at Charlottesville High School as soon as possible, Wiley said.

Counseling has been provided for all the students involved, and Wiley’s committee is interested in “initiating lines of communication with the victims themselves,” he added.

Katrina Thraves, co-facilitator of the youth in the community committee, cited the lack of interaction between races and social classes, and the prohibitive cost of cultural programs as key problems.

The committee feels “there is nothing to do in this town,” she said.

The group also emphasized that social events like church functions, hip-hop gospel events and open basketball could be opportunities to expose all students to different cultures and social environments.

“If that many of us can come together to hit the same nail on the same head, you know we’re going in the right direction and coming together,” she added.

Many in the community assume the University “has this ‘stay away from the townies’ attitude,” said Robert Jordan, co-facilitator of the youth in community committee.

The community’s perception of the University often is negative.

“People assume that U.Va. is a wealthy money maker that looks down upon everyone else,” Jordan said.

The race in community group, chaired by Edwards, reported that there are concerns about racial profiling, and disparate achievement scores between whites and minorities.

The group also is worried about University intrusion into Charlottesville neighborhoods.

Gail Wiley, the volunteer media coordinator, said the committees’ primary goal is to facilitate communications between the University and the community.

The meetings have been effective in alleviating the community shock about the attacks, she said.

“The high school kids who did the assaults are not the kind of kids you’d expect to be involved in this,” Wiley said. “They are solid, middle-class, church-going kids in two parent homes.”

University students already are trying to get involved.

“A lot of people in the town feel negatively toward U.Va., that it is expanding and taking up space, but that it is not welcoming,” said third-year College student Davin Rosbourough, who has been attending meetings for the youth committee.

Solutions to University and community relations are being discussed.

“We need to build relationships to fight these negative perceptions, because some of the stereotypes against us are true,” he added.

Patricia Lampkin, interim vice president for student affairs, also hopes the University will work to fight its negative perceptions.

“Students here care about the community, but their first job is to be students,” she said. “The community may perceive that differently, but we can’t ignore that perception.”

The meeting was an opportunity for the administration to voice its commitment to discussion of this issue.

“The University wants to be full partners in helping to make sense of all this,” Lampkin said.

“We want to bring our resources to the table, and hold up our end of being part of the community,” she added.

The next meeting will take place at Mount Zion Baptist Church on March 17 at 6 p.m.

In an effort to preserve the cultural diversity of the South Atlantic region, Virginia Tech and the University have set aside their usual competitiveness to join with the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.

The three groups came together to form the South Atlantic Regional Humanities Center, which opened in Charlottesville on Tuesday.

The National Endowment for the Humanities, an independent grant-making agency of the U.S. government, designed and funded the project.

“The National Endowment for the Humanities used juries to judge all presentations, and eventually identified the Virginia Foundation’s proposal as the best in the group,” President John T. Casteen III said.

A total of 12 applicants applied for the grant. There were many joint applications, however, the University, Virginia Tech and VFH created the only three-way partnership to submit an application, said Andrew Chancey, planning project coordinator of SARHC.

The trio came together because of the complimentary nature of their resources.

“None of us could have hoped to do this alone,” Casteen said. “The Foundation is able to be more entrepreneurial and less place-bound than either Virginia Tech or U.Va is, but it lacks the libraries, scholarly strengths and range of activities that the two universities bring.”

Planning for the new center began three years ago, when the NEH divided the country into 10 regions of culture. Competitions then were held to identify a site for a cultural center to be built within each region.

In general, the regional centers are meant to identify, recognize and promote regional distinctiveness, Chancey said.

The center that is based in Charlottesville will begin by forming a network of scholars and cultural experts through academic research and publications, exhibits, film, radio and Internet technologies, said Anita Puckett, professor of interdisciplinary studies at Virginia Tech, who aided in bringing the center from paper proposal to real-life construction.

SARHC eventually plans to reach out to include transatlantic partners as well, she said.

The center also is expected to have many positive benefits for Charlottesville.

“It will attract visiting scholars and the general public to Charlottesville,” Casteen said. “Its programs and presentations will create tourism and visitation possibilities.”

The center also will afford faculty and students the opportunity to lead and participate in the programs.

SARHC will be focusing on six specific areas of study, ranging from historical patterns in culture to race identity.

“We’ve made commitments to create a new model of communication regionally,” Puckett said.

In order to help fuel this development, the center plans to make use of the many media tools and resources that the collaboration will provide, such as Virginia Tech’s digital library project and Alderman Library’s collection of manuscripts and rare books.

Overall SARHC has created a rush of excitement and enthusiasm in hopes that it will enable people to better understand what the United States is all about, Puckett said.

“In a country that is increasingly homogeneous, it’s important to identify, recognize and promote regional distinctiveness,” Chasey added.

Charlottesville may restrict water use

Fearing water shortages, the Charlottesville Department of Public Works says it may be within 60 days of imposing mandatory restrictions on water use.

The Albemarle County service authority and the Charlottesville department of public works currently are asking water-users to reduce their consumption by 10 percent.

An ongoing, three-year drought has caused the area’s three reservoirs to drop to 76.8 percent of capacity.

Some authorities are saying that the water deficit is not completely due to the drought but rather the reservoirs’ water capacity.

Silt from neighboring woods has slipped into South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, one of the area’s three reservoirs thus causing a major water-storing loss.

Expansion of this reservoir could help avoid severe repercussions from the drought, said Larry Tropea, executive director of the Rivanna water and sewer authority, in a Daily Progress article.

Tropea presented his proposal for expansion to Rivanna’s board of directors this week.
Rivanna hopes to present a proposal in April to

Charlottesville City Council and the county Board of Supervisors outlining their plans for a reservoir growth, Tropea added.

Rivanna water and sewer authority oversees the area’s reservoirs. The water is sold to the City’s department of public works and the service authority who then sells the water to the public.

- Compiled by Deirdre Murphy

Gregg Doyel on espn.com: “Right now, the Cavaliers are having trouble beating teams. Good teams, bad teams, it makes no matter. Virginia can’t beat anyone – the best explanation for why it is headed to the National Invitation Tournament barring the unexpected. Something unexpected like, say, the Cavaliers beating Duke or Maryland this week.”

Beat them.

Doyel: “Has a team ever been ranked No. 5 in the country in February – and not made the NCAA Tournament a month later? We don’t know and we’re not looking it up, but the Cavaliers could do it.”

Don’t do it.

Roger Mason Jr. (after the GT loss): “We didn’t do our job, I didn’t do my job, and that’s how I’m looking at it. We as players have to play, and we didn’t execute and we didn’t make free throws at the end.”

You will.

Espn.com’s “Bubble Watch”: “The Cavaliers’ problems last week are multiplied by games this week against Duke and Maryland to close out the regular season.”

Forget last week.

Andy Katz’s “Games to Watch”: “Duke at Virginia: Virginia needs something good to happen before the ACC tournament.”

Make it happen.

Katz: “Virginia at Maryland: This is the final game at Cole Field House. No way does Virginia win. If the Cavs do then it would be one of the biggest upsets of the season.”

Upset them.

HokieProud on thesabre.com: “I’ll be watching on ESPN. God I really hope you knock them off. I hate Duke.”

So do we.

Cavsontherise: “I’m starting to believe we are gonna beat Duke. I really am.”

So are we.

WAHOOJMU: “Jason Williams even said that U-Hall was the toughest place to play last year.”

It will be again today.

Dick Vitale: “It’s a huge game for coach Pete Gillen’s Cavaliers, baby! The Cavs have their backs against the NCAA Tournament wall.”

Break through it.

Vitale: “Virginia played Duke tough for a while in the first meeting this season, but it wasn’t enough.”

It will be this time.

Virginiasports.com: “Prior to last season’s victory, the Cavaliers’ last win over Duke was a 77-66 triumph in Charlottesville on January 13, 1996.”

The next one will be today.

Joe Lunardi: “A month or less ago, Virginia fans probably thought their team was still a Final Four contender, whereas I thought the Cavs would struggle to even reach the NCAA Tournament.”

Prove him wrong.