One of the best events in sports is happening this weekend, but I’d be surprised if many of you know about it because I’m not talking about a marquee college football matchup or the Yankees-Red Sox series. Instead, I’m talking about the Ryder Cup.

The Ryder Cup is a match between the best golfers in Europe and the United States, held over three days every other September. The location alternates between Europe and the U.S., with this year’s being played at Oakland Hills in Michigan.

I recognize that I’m talking about golf, which is extremely boring to watch (even for me, despite being an avid golfer). But this is different. Even I have trouble watching the majors at times, but the Ryder Cup is magical.

After seeing these stoic golfers stay emotionless for the entire year, the Ryder Cup gives way to camaraderie, emotion, passion and pride. It offers three things rarely seen in the golfing world: team play, match play and patriotism.

For those of you who don’t know about the Cup (and somehow are still reading), here’s a brief synopsis:

On each team, 10 players earn automatic spots based on their performance over the last two years, with two captain’s choices completing the squad. On Friday and Saturday, two-man teams selected by the captain square off in match-play format, playing both best ball and alternate shot, with four matches played in each of the twice-daily sessions. Sunday, all 12 players play singles matches to decide the Cup. One point is awarded in each of the 28 matches, with a tie meaning the teams each earn half a point. A 14-14 tie for the event means the previous winner, in this case Europe, retains the Cup.

The weird thing about the Ryder Cup is that on paper, the United States should always win. Ten of the U.S.’s 12 players rank in the top 23 in the world. Only four of Europe’s players rank in that same tier, while four more are not even in the world’s top 50.

For some reason, however, the rankings have gone out the window. Europe has taken three of the last four and six of the last nine cups back to the Continent, with the latest U.S. victory coming in 1999 after one of the greatest comebacks in sporting history.

In that match, played at The Brookline in Massachusetts, the U.S. trailed 10-6 entering the final day but won an unbelievable 8.5 of the 12 points on Sunday. Justin Leonard rolled in a 45-foot birdie putt on the 17th green that would prove to win his match after Jose Maria Olazabal missed his birdie try.

After Leonard’s putt, the Americans erupted, prancing, cheering and jumping all over the green to the ire of the prissy Europeans. They claimed the Americans (and their rowdy crowd) had destroyed the decorum and tradition of the Cup. In reality, it upped the ante, making a storied rivalry even fiercer.

This competition originally started in 1927 between the U.S. and Great Britain, with the Americans winning 20 of the first 22 cups. In an effort to level the playing field, the British started to invite players from the rest of the Europe in 1979. They have continued to do exactly that, and the teams have evenly split the Cup since. Originally played in odd-numbered years, the Cup was moved to even years after Sept. 11 postponed the 2001 match.

Looking ahead to tomorrow, the U.S. has the clear advantage on paper. The tree-lined, U.S. Open-style course benefits the American style of play, and the rankings tip heavily in their favor. No European has won a major championship, nor do they play for massive pots under bright lights every week.

But the unheralded Europeans have the passion and will to always compete. And they treasure the Cup. I had always thought the Cup was meaningless to the U.S. players, almost like the Olympics to NBA players. The events in 1999 proved me wrong, but it still means more across the pond.

All of the pressure remains on the Americans to win because of their superior talent — shouldn’t Tiger Woods always beat some guy named Paul McGinley? Yet the U.S. struggles traditionally in the team matches, and this year should be no different.

Only Tiger can recover from the woods, bushes and other non-golf hole areas where his errant drives end up, leaving open the possibility that he could be benched by captain Hal Sutton. The Europeans have simply over time found a way to hit fairways and make clutch putts down the stretch, regardless of where the Cup is being held.

Starting tomorrow, take some time to tune in, either for the day or even just during NFL commercial breaks. You’ll find that there’s something magical in seeing Tiger and Phil Mickelson buddy up, put on their rally caps and cheer each other on. You’ll see how refreshing it is for players not to be walking billboards, as they wear flags on their hats and a team shirt every day. And, most importantly, you’ll be supporting your country while watching one of the greatest events in sports.

If you’re looking for exquisite and colorful costuming as well as artful cinematography featuring beautiful scenery and pretty people, director Mira Nair’s “Vanity Fair” fits the bill. With respect to the storyline, which deviates slightly but rather destructively to the allure of the tale, the film had little to be vain about.

Set in 19th century London, the film is centered on young, beautiful, impoverished-but-witty Becky Sharp (Reese Witherspoon), whose sole desire is to break into the snobby high society by whatever means possible. She becomes friends with the wealthy Amelia Sedley (Romola Garai), a sweet girl who is affianced to the handsome but self-centered George Osbourne (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers).

Becky takes a job as governess for the dirty and disheveled Sir Pitt Crawley (Bob Hoskins) and manages to make friends with his unconventional sister Aunt Matilda (Eileen Atkins). Aunt Matilda praises Becky for her sharp wit and cleverness and invites Becky to live with her in London. Unfortunately, Becky falls out of favor with the wealthy woman when she elopes with Aunt Matilda’s nephew, and Sir Pitt’s son, Rawdon Crawley (James Purefoy).

Garai plays the role of stupid-but-sweet good girl Amelia (opposite clever-but-ruthless Becky) very well. Rhys-Meyers is believably hateful as the snobby merchant’s son, Hoskins and Atkins provide the entirety of the film’s comedic capabilities, and Purefoy is wonderful as the dashing soldier who represents the inability to tame Becky’s lust for societal status. Unfortunately, even with their great acting abilities, the stellar cast is not quite able to save this film.

Nair makes a valiant effort, tantalizing the audience with lavishly magnificent costumes, exquisite set-designs and generally sumptuous cinematography that capitalize on the seductive allure of India (supervising artistic director Nick Palmer deserves a raise). Even the actual scripting the bickering banter, the clever witticisms are impressive and quite charismatic, keeping the audience’s attention even throughout the tediousness that corresponds to two and a half hour movies.

However, the way in which film Becky differs from book Becky is quite unsatisfying. Becky is not meant to be understood or sympathized with. Thackeray’s Becky is amoral, fierce and egocentric. Nair and Witherspoon’s Becky isn’t half the woman — she simply “finds herself” in horrid positions. Thackeray’s “Vanity Fair” is subtitled “A Novel Without a Hero” for a reason — we aren’t supposed to love Becky or relate to her — so for the novel everything that happens makes sense. After the film however, you’re not sure what type of character Becky is and are left with the unsatisfied feeling that something went wrong somewhere, not to mention a bit confused since the movie jumps disconnectedly through a 30-year span in which no one really ages except the children.

Witherspoon, for her part, does a good job of portraying “movie Becky” — the one who is disappointingly good “beneath it all.” She is beautifully beguiling and at rare times in the film becomes every bit the vixen that Thackeray portrays in his novel. Unfortunately, these incidents are all too few and loveable, movie Becky loses some of the irresistible charm that makes her all the more fascinating to the audience.

All in all, if you don’t think you’ll be able to read through 680 pages of flowery English, “Vanity Fair” is the typical period film, not quite as good as “Emma” perhaps, but worth sitting through if you’d like a little more culture in your life. The cast and exquisite cinematography make it quite pleasing aesthetically. And as long as you don’t mind that the main character can’t quite find herself, the time and money you invest at the theater won’t be in vain.

Movies depicting the illegal drug industry in the Americas have had a considerable impact on the film world over the past few decades. But these grandiose films — think of “Blow,” “Traffic” and “Scarface” — have focused primarily on the heady, opulent experiences of up-and-coming drug lords’ lives, or on the complex bureaucratic web of drug wars and not on the experiences of those who work at the rock bottom of the drug-trafficking food chain.

In his feature debut, Joshua Marston takes the smuggling of illegal drugs back to its deepest roots. “Maria Full of Grace,” a movie in Spanish with English subtitles, is neither flashy nor smart, and its heroine is a far cry from the familiar drug cartel boss. Nevertheless it packs a troubling and poignant wallop into an hour and a half.

The story’s heroine is 17-year-old Colombian native, Maria Alvarez, who supports her family working long hours in a flower plantation de-thorning long-stemmed roses for American export. Fed up with her job and her passionless relationship with an ambitionless boyfriend, Maria learns that she is pregnant and decides to leave town. Her ticket out is a new job which, she is told, “involves traveling” — from Bogotá to New York City, with a stomach full of cocaine, that is.

Maria, though aware of the physical and legal risks involved with becoming a cocaine mule, never so much as flinches as she prepares for her trip. Instead, she confers with her best friend Blanca, who has also signed on the job, practices swallowing techniques with a bowl of grapes and gets tips from her new confidante Lucy, who has completed two round trips as a mule. When Maria asks how her previous two trips went, Lucy replies with a tiny, sad smile, “I’m still here, aren’t I?”

So, hidden behind a shady pharmaceutical storefront in Bogotá, Maria methodically swallows 62 latex-wrapped pellets of cocaine. It is surely a horrific experiment in human self-discipline and control, but Marston’s camera never judges the scene. Rather, the film’s direction is remarkably organic, its cinematography reserved and non-intrusive. The result is a documentary-esque story, quietly spellbinding and as unflinching as Maria herself.

Maria’s maiden airplane voyage is a harrowing experience, and just as tense and real for the audience as it is for her. First, she must keep an eye on her bumbling friend Blanca. Then Lucy starts feeling sick halfway to New York: a pellet has burst inside her stomach and she is in danger of overdosing.

The situation worsens at Kennedy Airport, where a fourth mule is apprehended and Maria, who fits the U.S. customs officials’ profile of drug-smuggling suspects, is pulled aside for questioning. During this tense sequence, the audience begins to realize how much they sympathize with this young girl who is, in fact, an illegal drug-smuggler.

Unlike in modern movies today, there are no one-dimensional characters in this film. Maria, certainly, is an economic victim but she is also taking on an actively criminal role. What is remarkable, however, is that “Maria Full of Grace” in no way preaches to its audience. None of the film’s characters pity themselves, and each of the story’s ugly happenings is simply a fact of life. Each player realizes that, whether they participate or not, drugs will find their way from Colombia to the United States.

For Maria and the other mules, the dilemma is not the moral one typically presented by drug films, rather, it is whether or not seven million pesos outweigh the physical danger to themselves and the threat hanging over their families’ heads should so much as one pellet be missing at the final transaction.

Because the morality presented onscreen is extremely subtle, it is entirely up to the audience to decipher the ethical issues in the film. Is “Maria Full of Grace” a story of morality and choice or a documentary of risk and necessity? Is Maria, played with a combination of severe vulnerability and heartbreaking tenacity by first-time actress Catalina Sandino Moreno, (who shared the best actress award with Charlize Theron at the 2004 Berlin Film Festival) truly “full of grace” — in the spiritual or literal sense — or is she merely the helpless product of her surroundings?

The film, which won the Audience Award at this year’s Sundance film festival, also stirs the waters of the “American dream” complex. Regardless, Marston injects the brutal experience of cocaine mules with poignant humanity and thereby manages to draw in completely an audience for whom this world of drug-smuggling is completely foreign.

To be sure, “Maria Full of Grace” is a far cry from the up and down, rags-to-riches-to-ruin drug lord life cycles depicted by so many drug movies. Indeed, drug usage is never even depicted in the film. Unlike these larger than life, mythological cinematic legends however, Maria’s story is, as the film’s tag line reads “based on 1,000 true stories.”

This film has its last showing at Vinegar Hill Theater tonight; it runs at 7 p.m. and at 9:05 p.m. If you have been fascinated by past drug movies, then this is a film that will show you the side that you have not been introduced to yet. It will open your eyes to a sad new world.

The story line is predictable, the direction about average and the actors either have past, or are yet to reach their peak. To make a movie like this good is a challenge, but somehow, the cast and crew of “Cellular” managed to make a semi-decent movie out of it.

Let’s start with the plot. A man in his early twenties receives a phone call from a woman who claims to be kidnapped. It takes this man a little while to actually believe her, but when he does, he goes all out to try and save this woman, her husband and her child. Along the way, the young man, Ryan (Chris Evans), finds himself in the middle of a huge conspiracy that has nothing to do with him.

If you think about it, this plot could be the start of a very good movie. If only the plot hadn’t been used before. Think back not too long ago to “Phone Booth.” Colin Farrell picks up a random phone call to find himself in a lot of trouble. Sure, Colin Farrell was in a booth and was trying to save himself, not someone else, but in any case, the phone thing has been done before.

Now, in order to get away with a used premise of a plot, director David R. Ellis had to come up with new ways to put this plot into action. Let’s say that he did an okay job. There is nothing new about “Cellular,” but it is interesting just the same. In a way, you have seen it all before, but this is a different movie.

Now that we have the average stuff out of the way, let’s move to the one major thing that was sub-average — the acting. You would expect that a veteran actress like Kim Basinger could deliver a better performance than she did here. Basinger plays the kidnapped mother, wife and science teacher, Jessica Martin. Through her science knowledge, she puts together a smashed telephone and calls Ryan. Her family is being attacked and she is helpless. You would think that this woman would be hysterical. She makes the character sound wimpy, whiny and just not frantic enough. At times, she seems a little too composed for her son to be in grave danger.

In her defense, I can see how it is hard to act out all this in only a voice. She is, after all, on the phone for a little more than half the movie. When she is acting in the flesh, she is okay. Notice how I say “okay” and not “good.” But in spite of everything, this is Academy Award Winning (1998 Best Supporting Actress) Kim Basinger — I expected better.

Chris Evans is still a fairly unknown actor with only 10 films under his belt. Notable credits include genius movies like “Not Another Teen Movie” and “The Perfect Score.” These things considered, I think he did pretty well in one of his first serious roles. If his character had failed, this movie would be getting way fewer stars than it is receiving now. Although Basinger may be the best-known actor in this film, Evans is in the spotlight. He is the one who must execute the tasks. He is the hero. Nothing special, but he did well.

One actor who did do a very good job is William H. Macy, who plays Officer Mooney, the cop. Unlike Basinger, Macy’s veteran acting status shows as he plays a cop close to retirement. He is tired and slightly disappointed with his job, wanting to spend the rest of his working life helping his wife run a day spa. This makes for some very funny scenes, which are made even better by Mooney’s dry, tired personality.

Acting points drop immensely with the performances of the bad guys played by Jason Statham, Eddie Driscoll and Eric Etebari. Since their rolls require little talk, their facial expressions do all the talking for them. But these are hard to read since their expressions remain forever constant and don’t ever change. It is a shame because with a little work, these bad guys could have been very interesting people, because, believe it or not, the characters actually have interesting backgrounds. Actually, it may have been harder to portray these characters badly, because they were given background to work with. Either way, the evil parts in “Cellular” are not worth the excitement.

The very worst part of the movie comes with the credits. True, this is a slightly unimportant part of the movie, but it is nevertheless the way audiences leave the theater and they inevitably affect the way we see the movie. When the credits roll you think they are going to show bloopers or something of the sort since they start replaying scenes from the film. Instead, they replay the scene, only to cut to the phone and roll credits. If this sounds bad to you, double it. I believe that if you are going to make a credit sequence that audiences are going to watch, you need to make it good. This one was horrible.

All in all, this movie is okay. There are better things to see out there and so I wouldn’t recommend this being your movie of choice. If you want to see a telephone related action movie, go and rent “Phone Booth.” Nevertheless, if for any reason, you are stuck seeing this movie, as I was, it won’t be a total waste of your time. There are a couple of nice twists and turns and a couple of good looking people to distract you from the bad acting. There are some thrilling moments and some funny scenes that may make your time slightly worthwhile.

For those readers familiar with author Louis de Bernieres’ successful novel, “Corelli’s Mandolin,” his latest work of fiction, “Birds Without Wings,” appears at first glance to chart the same familiar territory.

“Mandolin,” published in 1994, presented us with a community in the throes of World War II and explored the near futility of individual relationships in a world where the country you served was of more importance than the person you were. The young love between the Greek girl Pelagia and her Italian mandolin -playing Romeo Corelli was doomed from the start. Rarely does love remain unscathed in novels of war.

In “Birds Without Wings,” de Bernieres’ story revolves around the same themes, albeit with a different community and a different war. The community is that of Eskibace, a coastal village in the Ottoman Empire of both Muslims and Orthodox Christians. Perhaps what makes this community so special (and some would argue unbelievable in these cynical, contemporary times) is that the two cultures live in relative harmony.

While there are no doubt small punctuated instances of conflict, this pre-WWI community lives in relative peace. It is a peace best exemplified in the relationship between the community’s two religious leaders, Abdulhamid Hodja, the imam, and Father Kristoforos, the priest. As de Bernieres writes: “the two men had for many years enjoyed greeting each other as Infidel Efendi,” the one in Turkish and the other in Greek, and had struck up a cordial relationship based on mutual respect, somewhat tempered by an awareness that there were many of both faiths who would look askance at such a friendship. They visited each other’s houses only when it was dark, and were much inclined to waste entire nights in long and occasionally heated theological discussions that always ended with one or the other of them saying: “Well, after all, we are both peoples of the Book.”

Of course, any alert reader of war-novels knows that such peace and harmony are not going to last for more than 100 pages. And soon enough this microcosm of religious and cultural tolerance is ripped asunder with the onslaught of World War I.

But de Bernieres is quick to point out that it is always the children who suffer worst in these situations. The lifelong friendship between two village children, the Muslim Karatavuk and the Christian Mehmetcik, is all but lost once the former is recruited into the Turkish army and the latter forced into work detail. Friendships are destroyed, childhood loves are lost and lives everywhere, regardless of religion or culture, are ruined.

Yet what sets “Birds Without Wings” apart from its predecessor is that the real threat is not just war but the ideas of imperialism and nationalism. As we read about the blooming children of Eskibace, so too are we privy to the history of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. In alternating chapters we witness his rise to power in the Ottoman Empire and his role in the foundation of a modern, secular Turkey. His dream is one suffused with nationalism, the idea of a Turkish state within secure borders, with the accretions of empire permanently removed. Amid the cries of “Greece for the Greeks” (Jews and Turks out) and “Bulgaria for the Bulgarians” (Jews and Turks out) it is hardly surprising that sooner or later someone will begin to say “Turkey for the Turks?”

And if there is anywhere de Bernieres excels in this novel, it is with his descriptions of the horrors of both war and countries consumed by nationalist desires. As the Ottoman Empire dies and a secular Turkey arises at the expense of countless lives on both sides of the equation, he gives us rotting battlefields suffused with the buzzing and stinging of flies, nightmarish exoduses from homes and families, murders and executions. Toward the end of the novel, the harmony we were presented with in the beginning seems irrevocably lost. And again, a familiarity with de Bernieres’ literature clues us in that not all is lost forever. But the damage, as they say, is done.

Though the scattershot perspectives can be overwhelming at times, they aid in creating a sense of community and interconnectedness that is part and parcel of any anti-nationalist text. But de Bernieres is a storyteller first and foremost, and the tales he weaves allow for some memorable episodes and some amazing writing.

The best of this involves the rant of a dying Greek during the famous hazing of the port at Smyrna. As George P. Theodorou sinks into the murky depths he observes: “Not far off I can see someone else sinking to the bottom, but her skirts have floated up around her face, and I wonder if she is concerned about dying in a state of immodesty.” It is a disturbing episode, yet it retains the humor and grand emotion one expects from a talented storyteller.

Perhaps a good blurb on the back jacket of this novel would have been Rodney King’s famous lament: “Why can’t we all just get along?” Despite how promising that idea seems, “Birds Without Wings” argues that in an era of nationalist pride, we cannot “just get along.” We can interact, sure, but eventually the time comes when we have to say our goodbyes and march, however unwillingly, back to our own camps.

Zak Sahil can be reached at bookmarks@cavalierdaily.com

Led by sophomore Rachel Smith, the Virginia women’s golf team produced a strong showing at this week’s Cougar Classic tournament in Hanahan, S.C.

The Cavaliers finished fourth in the 16-team contest won by Louisiana State University and placed highest among the six ACC schools that participated.

Smith shot a career-low score of 68 (-4) in the competition’s final round. Her overall mark of 212 (-4) was the best in the tournament, making her the first player in Virginia women’s golf history to win an individual title.

Smith’s teammate, sophomore Leah Wigger, compiled the third-best individual score, a 2-under-par 214.

The Cavaliers will next compete at the Mason Rudolph Classic in Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 1-3.

The Virginia football team will receive a dose of national coverage this week on ESPN’s “The Season: ACC Football,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported yesterday. The program will document the activity of the Cavaliers in the week leading up to last Saturday’s victory over North Carolina.

ESPN was permitted to chronicle the Virginia players and coaches both at Scott Stadium and away from the field. Tailback Alvin Pearman, tight end Heath Miller and offensive guard Brian Barthelmes, who all live together, opened up their home to the cameras.

The show will air Friday at 1 a.m. on ESPN2.

Three shutouts and 10 goals in only six games suggest that the Virginia men’s soccer team is definitely moving in a positive direction. Entering the new season ranked No. 8 in Soccer America’s Preseason top-25 poll, a casual observer would think the defending ACC tournament champions would stick to the same old formula to replicate the huge successes of last year.

New seasons, though, represent new challenges, and recent results around the ACC suggest the likes of Maryland may be serious contenders for Virginia’s crown. To be able to stay on top this season, Virginia is looking to its offense to complement a defense that virtually carried the team through the end of last season, recording crucial shutouts when it mattered and stifling ACC powerhouse Wake Forest three times.

An important part of Virginia’s offense will be sophomore Adam Cristman. Cristman scored a team-high eight goals last season and was named to the All-ACC freshman team. He already has three goals in six games this season. He cites experience as the reason for this season’s improved start.

“We have a year on our belt, and we are a little sharper,” Cristman said. “We have all adapted to the college game.”

Virginia coach George Gelnovatch was also full of praise for his star center forward.

“He is a very good college forward and is one of the fittest players in the country in terms of stamina,” he said.

Virginia also has depth on offense with freshmen like midfielder Nico Colacula, who will likely contribute to a midfield group that chipped in more than its fair share of goals last season.

Despite their impressive start to the season, members of the team believe they should be doing even better considering the number of scoring opportunities they have created each game.

“We should be scoring more goals,” senior midfielder Mike Littlefield said. “Hopefully we will put in more as the season progresses”.

Virginia can’t do it all on offense and will be looking to an experienced backline that recorded seven shutouts last season to do the same this year.

“Our attitude and focus is stronger than it was last year,” senior All-American defender Matt Oliver.

Gelnovatch was quick to point out that stability at some positions has made the team better overall.

“We gave away a lot of soft goals last season, and a lot of it had to do with goalkeeping,” he said. “Our back four also had something to do with it, and they are all now juniors and seniors and are now an experienced group.”

Gelnovatch is certainly keeping his cards close concerning the team’s prospects in the ACC.

“From top to bottom I believe the conference is excellent and anything can happen on a given day.”

Already the team has experienced firsthand how tough the season could be. Virginia, now No. 20, suffered its first loss last week against No. 8 Saint Louis, 2-1, in a game in which the defense gave up two goals in five minutes and the offense sputtered in the first half.

“It was very surprising,” Oliver said. “What was good was we never gave up and kept plugging away.”

Virginia gets to test its newfound resolve Friday in its first ACC contest at Wake Forest, a team the Cavaliers beat on all three occasions they met last season.

Two years ago, the Cavaliers played an undistinguished homecoming game against the Akron Zips. While Cavalier fans may remember Virginia quarterback Matt Schaub’s breakout for five touchdowns in that game, they may have forgotten the quarterback on the other sideline, a young sophomore named Charlie Frye.

Frye almost pulled out an upset for the Zips, torching Virginia’s secondary for 337 yards and scoring three touchdowns. As the Cavaliers play host to Akron this Saturday, Frye, now a senior, will again be the star of the Zips’ offense. Virginia linebacker Darryl Blackstock remembers Frye.

“He really knew how to get rid of the ball — where it had to go,” Blackstock said. “He had good confidence out there.”

The holder of 49 Akron passing records after just three seasons, the 6-foot-4-inch, 228-pound Frye enters this week’s game with a 64.3 career completion percentage, a 138.24 career passing efficiency, 48 career touchdowns and 9,048 career yards. This season, after a slow game against Penn State, he bounced back last week against Middle Tennessee State, throwing for a whopping 399 yards.

Following in the tradition of recent Mid-American Conference quarterbacks Chad Pennington, Byron Leftwich, Josh Harris and Ben Roethisberger, Frye has the NFL in his sights. He is only 2,855 yards away from overtaking MAC career passing leader Byron Leftwich, and like the ex-Marshall quarterback, Frye is fleet-footed too. With a 4.6-second 40-yard dash and a good arm, Frye has what it takes to make coaches and NFL scouts drool.

“He’s another big, tall quarterback,” Virginia coach Al Groh said. “He can see the field. He’s very versatile in how he plays. They move him out of the pocket quite a bit… He’s got a versatile arm. He can throw at all different levels. He doesn’t have to be set to throw the ball. He’s very versatile in doing that, and he’s accurate in making all the throws.”

When asked about the comparisons to NFL quarterbacks and his statistical success, Frye just shrugs off the hype and attributes his achievements to his drive.

“Just to be mentioned along with those guys is an honor,” Frye said. “It makes you feel good. Seeing all that hard work pay off, this being my fifth year now, is great. I put in all that work to see how I ended up. And still there’s a lot of room for improvement.”

After last season when his old coach, Lee Owens, left the school, Frye thought about leaving for the NFL. As all four of Akron’s top leaders in receptions graduated, Frye would have to play with a whole group of new wideouts. NFL scouts pegged him as a third- or fourth-round pick, and Frye could have easily left. Despite it all, Frye said his dedication to his fellow teammates dragged him back for one more year.

“I wanted to finish off my senior year with the guys I came in with,” Frye said. “All of us guys, we red-shirted together. We’re all good friends and very close, and I wanted to win some games with them.”

Frye’s new head coach J.D. Brookhart has helped him improve, especially on the little things. Frye says Brookhart has focused his dedication to help his team win.

“You have to dive for the first down,” Frye said. “I try to play every down like it will be my last down. I need to work on sliding. Coach tells me I have to slide more.”

As the Cavaliers play Akron this weekend, Scott Stadium fans should get their second chance to see Charlie Frye in action. But weeks after this college football season ends, NFL coaches will probably play close attention to this one Zip.

RICHMOND, Va. — The No. 10 Virginia field hockey team traveled to face in-state rival Richmond yesterday, but the lifeless Cavaliers were defeated as a substitute freshman scored the winning goal in Richmond’s 2-1 victory.

The score in the contest came with just under five minutes remaining when Richmond midfielder Shannon Taylor moved up the left baseline toward the Cavalier cage. Taylor fired off a shot just ahead of Virginia goalkeeper Logan Carr, and the ball pounded against the opposite right corner to lead the Spiders to the win.

“I know that [Virginia] has become a rivalry for us,” Richmond coach Ange Bradley said. “It was an important game for us to win.”

The only Virginia goal came with 21:36 remaining in the contest. On the left side of the cage, freshman midfielder Megan Ponessa lifted the ball toward junior forward Lindsey Selfridge, who centered the ball in the circle. Selfridge then dished the ball to sophomore Mia Link, who weaved around the right of Richmond goalkeeper Michelle Swartz for the goal.

Link’s goal was the only shot for the Cavaliers in the final 35 minutes of play.

Richmond pounded the Cavalier defense through the evening, but Virginia goalkeeper Logan Carr stepped up to the task, allowing just two goals while registering 14 saves.

“I thought [Logan] had a great game,” Virginia coach Jessica Wilk said. “I thought she kept us in it, particularly in the first half when we really played pretty poorly. She kept us in the ballgame and gave us a chance to compete and try to win it in the second half.”

But other Cavalier defenders struggled individually, allowing too much space between themselves and the Spider offense, giving their opponents the advantage.

“[Logan] did a good job today,” senior back Katie Jo Gerfen said. “But the ball should have never gotten back that far — our individual defense just broke down today.”

For the first 20 minutes of play, the Cavalier tandem of Gerfen and junior midfielder Dana Anderson shut down Richmond’s leading scorers Whitney Wells and Holly Cram. But with 14 minutes remaining in the first half, Anderson was injured on a Richmond penalty corner and spent the rest of the afternoon with her left shin covered in ice and resting on a water cooler.

“Experience wise, we missed [Dana],” Gerfen said. “But we are pretty deep on the bench, and I think that we did what we could.”

Overall, the Virginia offense totaled just seven shots and three penalty corners. In comparison, Richmond had 28 shots, with 16 on the goal.

The game was Virginia’s third major challenge of the season. The Cavaliers lost to No. 1 Michigan State earlier in the season. Last weekend, Virginia succeeded in its second attempt against a ranked opponent by beating No. 12 Boston College. With a loss against the Spiders, Virginia dropped under .500 against ranked opponents and will certainly fall from their top-10 national ranking.

“Clearly this is a big in-state rivalry,” coach Wilk said. “But we are just coming up on the wrong end of it, and that is tremendously disappointing.”

The Cavaliers travel to North Carolina Sunday to face the No. 3 Tar Heels, the fourth in a seemingly endless lineup of ranked opponents.