IT IS A funny thing to see the retreat of the pro-single sanction camp. First, the single sanction was a grand deterrent that stopped lying, cheating and stealing dead in its tracks. Once that turned out to be untrue, the single sanction suddenly became the way that we tell the outside world that lying, cheating and stealing isn’t tolerated here, and that if you’re caught, you’re gone. Now, after the open honor trial of Nov. 13 proved even this untrue, the single sanction has become a symbol to show the world that we uphold an ideal. In his guest column on Nov. 18 (“Trusting first, sanctioning second”), Josh Hess declares that an optimally efficient penal system is not the honor system that generations of our predecessors at the University wanted. Now, if that quote doesn’t scare you, it should.

What the pro-single sanction side has resorted to in their desperate effort to save their outdated tradition is truly a frightening twist. They have gone from saying that no honor violation will be tolerated to arguing that it’s okay for us to be surrounded by people who lie, cheat and steal as long as we tell the outside world that the 20 to 30 every year who are unlucky enough to get caught will get kicked out.

This turn in the debate uncovers one of the central issues surrounding the single sanction debate. The two sides of the argument are no longer arguing about the single sanction itself, but rather the very purpose of the honor system. To single sanction supporters, the honor system is merely a symbol to hold up to the outside world that holds little meaning within our own community. This comes out of a cold disregard for the few students this system affects each year and a lack of caring over the constant presence if dishonor at our school. To those who oppose the single sanction, however, the honor system should be a system that actually promotes honor at the University itself. This system should be fair, so as not to build the resentment the system faces today; should be reasonable, so that students and professors will actually utilize it; and should still be firm, so that students do not take its existence lightly.

The only way to accomplish our goals, realistically, is the elimination of the single sanction and its replacement with a tiered multiple-sanction system. This system must be firm, must no longer have a seriousness clause and must include expulsion as an option; however, it must allow for multiple other options as well. 

Furthermore, the system of due process must be left intact. Hess blames low conviction rates on the requirement that four-fifths of jury members vote guilty on act and intent, yet its clear in reality this rate is because of the single sanction itself. Most American juries are required to reach a unanimous verdict, and yet they reach a conviction rate of about 90 percent. Finally, the new system would have to continue to utilize its educators to constantly promote honor as a high value at the University.

If you believe that all the honor system should be is a symbol, then my argument is not for you, and you will never turn against single sanction. However, if you believe the honor system should really be about ending dishonor at the University, this open trial should have shown you that you can now no longer support the single sanction. The single sanction serves both as a punishment unfairly strong for some offenses, and a shield against punishment for others — and, of course, eliminating the seriousness clause while keeping single sanction would be a disaster.

The open trial showed us that students can be found guilty of dishonor for act and intent, but still be openly allowed to stay at the University. However, the act these students committed was unworthy of expulsion, and they should be allowed to stay. It is the lack of any punishment for these students that bothers me, not their continued presence at the University. However, I must disagree with Hess’ assessment that nobody who earnestly cares about the tradition of honor at the University is excited that College third-years Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung, who were the defendants in the open trial, get to graduate with the rest of us. In fact, as one of McClung’s and Schlingbaum’s fellow third-years, I will be proud to walk across the Lawn with them, and as an Honor counsel I would say that I do earnestly care about the tradition of honor here.

The fact of the matter is that McClung and Schlingbaum are perfect examples of why a multiple sanction system would be better than what we have. These two did something wrong, they recognize it, they went through hell for it (an honor trial is not fun business) and will likely never cheat again because of it.

Hess presented a dangerous new twist in how the pro-single sanction camp sees honor at our University. It is time for us to recognize the failure that single sanction has presented to us, and be prepared to move on to a system that truly establishes honor at our University.

Sam Leven is a third year in the College and the communications director for Hoos Against the Single Sanction.

THE RECENT open honor trial was a great way for the University community to gain insight into the day-to-day process of the honor system. Although the first stages of the case process (the investigation and the investigation panel) were not open to the public, the trial sheds light on the final and most important part of the process.

Before discussing the specifics of the recent open trial, it is important to understand the three criteria for a guilty verdict in an Honor trial: act, intent and seriousness. The jury first discusses act, then intent, then votes on the two criteria in one vote. If four-fifths of the jury votes guilty on this standard, the panel discusses and votes on the seriousness criterion. In order to be found guilty on seriousness (and thus dismissed from the University), a simple majority of the jury must vote guilty.

The above criteria are the key factors discussed throughout the trial. Both counsel for the community and counsel for the accused work to prove or disprove act, intent and/or seriousness from the interpretation of the evidence provided to the jury.

For those of you unfamiliar with the specifics of the open trial, Joseph Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung were accused of collaborating on a number of homework response questions in their PLPT 302 class. A total of 30 assignments were collected, and 10 of these were graded for weight of 20 percent of the final grade.

The papers in question clearly involved some form of collaboration. There was no question that papers this similar could only be created by working together. In fact, this point was hardly argued in the trial. The primary defense of the students was that they did not know they could not collaborate. They claimed to be ignorant of the honor policy regarding the assignments in question, though the syllabus for the course did state: “The honor code applies to these assignments: you are to answer these questions without anyone’s help.” One of the students stated that he or she was unclear as to what “anyone” meant in the syllabus. The student had assumed that “anyone” did not include other students.

Even though the students presented the defense of not knowing that collaboration was against the honor policies of the course, the honor by-laws do not accept ignorance as an acceptable defense. A student is guilty on the intent criteria if “he or she knew, or should have known, that the act was or could have been considered lying, cheating, or stealing.”

Under this definition, the jury found Schlingbaum and McClung guilty on act and intent. The jury did not accept that a reasonable student should not know the honor policy for an assignment when it is so clearly laid out in the course syllabus.

After finding the students guilty on the act and intent criteria, the jury considered the seriousness criterion. The standard under this criterion is whether the open toleration of the act would be inconsistent with the community of trust. After some discussion, less than half of the jury voted guilty on seriousness, rendering a not guilty verdict for the trial.

Many of the jury members believed that the two students should have known that the act was an honor offense but did not actually know that it was an offense. Thus, the students were still guilty on act and intent, but the jury did not feel that the students’ failure to understand the honor policy would lead to the dissolution of the community of trust.The particular act in question, under these specific circumstances, did not warrant a guilty verdict.

The verdict in this trial is by no means a signal that all students think cheating on homework response questions is not serious. It is also not a signal that a student could not be dismissed from the University for ignorance of the honor code. The decision simply means that the jurors in this case did not have enough evidence to find the students guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the students are not guilty and continue as members of our community.

The single sanction did not affect the outcome of the trial. Never in the course of deliberations did a juror say they thought the students were guilty but their guilt did not warrant dismissal. No one who goes through the Honor process is found guilty of an offense he or she did not commit. No punishment, no matter how large or small, should come to a student who has not committed an offense. Even if we changed the sanction, we would still need to be absolutely positive that we were only punishing students who had committed an offense. I would not feel comfortable with a system that unjustly suspended students for something they did not do simply because we have a lesser sanction and a weaker process.

The single sanction works because students who are definitely guilty are dismissed. Students who are not proven guilty stay at our University. Schlingbaum and McClung made a mistake by not understanding the Honor policy, but the jury did not find that they committed an honor offense. Thus, these students are not guilty and remain in our community having learned a lesson about the importance of understanding and respecting the honor policy for each class.

David Hobbs is a Cavalier Daily Contributor and the Chair of the Honor Counsel.

“ARE YOU graduating this year?” “Yes.” “What are you going to do with the rest of your life?” It is the dreaded question fourth years are faced with by peers, professors and those prying relatives we all saw over Thanksgiving break. For many who have pursued liberal arts degrees for the past four years, the thought of actually finding a job in a professional career field even slightly relevant to your major can be quite daunting.

However, this task doesn’t have to be a Herculean feat. One of the primary ways to lessen the burden of deciding on your career path for the next 40 or so years is to try out a few different jobs before choosing one; that is, through internships. Internships are one of the most valuable activities you can participate in during your time in college, yet they are not as widely promoted by the University as they could be and should be.

University Career Services does a superb job of assisting students who seek help in finding and securing internships, but many students simply aren’t aware of related fields that offer internships or even the opportunities and benefits that internships afford. According to Catherine Gillespie, the assistant director for experiential learning and the pre-law advisor at University Career Services, UCS had approximately 1,190 interactions with students seeking out internships during the 2004 – 2005 academic year, of which an estimated three-quarters were from the College of Arts and Sciences. This is a relatively small percentage in terms of the total undergraduate student body of about 13,400. The solution to this problem involves more than UCS; professors and others in the University community should play a substantial part as well.

Internships are worthwhile because they give students a whole different perspective than they receive in a classroom setting. Internship programs allow students to witness first-hand the application of the knowledge imparted to them by their professors. You can read books about the intricacies and processes of government, for example, but your understanding of this is not truly comprehensive until you actually work on Capitol Hill for a few months.

This is not to say that internships should be placed above a liberal arts education; rather, they are both key components to a well-rounded education and a guiding compass in making crucial post-college career decisions.As the philosopher Michael Oakeshott argued in some of his works about the elements of knowledge, true mastery of a subject consists of technical knowledge, learned by reading great works, but also practical knowledge, which is only acquired by experience.

Professors should recognize this and do their share to advise students of ways to gain this type of knowledge, which greatly enriches students’ perception of a subject while providing them with a glimpse of various careers to help narrow down their interests. Some progress has been made to inform students of internship positions through academic channels. UCS hands out flyers about career possibilities by major during the annual majors fair. UCS has also appointed liaisons to the different departments in order to relay career related information. Some departments forward these notices to their students.

However, much more could be done to expose students to a world of career options. While liberal arts classes generally aren’t focused on specific career paths, professors could hand out a list of suggested career fields and internship opportunities relevant to the class and encourage interested students to discuss it further in office hours. Professors could also invite a guest speaker involved in work associated with the course curriculum. The advantage to the students would be two-fold: students would be more informed of various opportunities and they would have a better understanding of why the material they are studying is germane to their future.

Gillespie noted in a phone interview, “As a career counselor, I would love to see more emphasis placed on valuable experience.” She said that UCS would welcome the “idea of professors in the classroom spending time on how this [class material] relates to the world of work.” The vast majority of lectures obviously should be devoted entirely to studying the subject in depth, but one lecture or even half of a lecture that touches on career paths to explore would be a tremendous service to students. College should be an institution designed principally for students to treasure and expand their knowledge base for its intrinsic value, but thinking ahead to the future every now and then doesn’t hurt.

Another practical way to promote internships is to grant academic credit for programs. Currently, the University provides credit in the psychology and sociology departments primarily to rising fourth-years through the University Internship Program. But, younger students applying for internships requiring academic credit sometimes encounter difficulty in finding a way to earn credit. Additionally, few majors offer academic credit for internships outside of the University Internship Program.

Bridging the gap between technical knowledge and practical knowledge is something that the University should strive to achieve. A solid liberal arts education coupled with a firm grasp of career options is a combination that will prove to be wholly beneficial to University students.

Whitney Blake is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.

The Nov. 29 comic Schizophrenic Bosnian depicted a character calling the crane the “gayest-looking of all birds.” The Cavalier Daily regrets printing this comic and deeply apologizes to those who were offended.

As the saga of Dena Bowers — the University employee who was fired after sending a critical e-mail with her official electronic signature and declining to rectify the situation — plays out, one thing is clear: People are confused. Many still cling to the seemingly misled notion that Bowers was terminated for her dissenting views, and this undoubtedly creates consternation for staff and faculty who send e-mail every single day. In order to clear the air and prevent further instances of miscommunication, the University should proactively make its policies on e-mail usage better known to everyone who works here.

Faculty and staff regularly use their e-mail to send personal and sometimes controversial messages. Yet there are only the vaguest of guidelines about what is acceptable and what precautions should be taken to avoid a predicament such as Bowers’. One of, if not the only, place the e-mail policies are spelled out, ITC’s “Responsible Computing at U.Va.: A Handbook for Faculty and Staff,” merely states that “University policies prohibit certain … kinds of e-mail messages. For example, e-mail, University computers, and the University network cannot be used by individuals for commercial purposes or for personal gain.” Short of these guidelines and those prohibiting threats, there is no mention of boundaries.

In many ways, the absence of proscriptions is reflective of the broad latitude faculty and staff members have with regards to the content of their outgoing messages. It would alleviate confusion to note this as official policy and periodically remind employees. The University seemingly has little desire to stifle the speech of its employees, so it would be unfortunate if someone did not express him or herself out of fear of a retribution which does not exist.

Moreover, a clear, transparent policy can avoid the trouble caused when employees either don’t know what is and is not acceptable or don’t know what precautions to take to avoid finding themselves facing disciplinary action. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to remind students of their rights and responsibilities now and then, either. It doesn’t take an elaborate set-up to convey information about these policies — ironically, e-mail may be the best bet.

Something as simple as e-mail policy seems straightforward, but across the nation there have been a litany of problems stemming from messages sent by people unclear on their particular organization’s guidelines. As one of the dominant forms of modern communication and also one that leaves a permanent record, it is important to minimize conflict and instead allow the free exchange of messages to flow within those guidelines.

No one at the University should have to wonder if hitting the “send” button will result in a meeting with their supervisor. Even though the Bowers situation was far more complex and apparently revolved around her refusal to send a clarifying e-mail, this is the impression that some employees have been errantly given. The University should take this opportunity, then, to openly rearticulate its policies on e-mail and end the confusion for good.

Losing a game 5-0 in a single-elimination tournament is certainly not the way any team wants to end its season. Last Friday, however, that is exactly what happened to the Virginia women’s soccer team when it was defeated by UCLA in the quarterfinals of the NCAA Tournament.

“Obviously we’re very disappointed with the result,” Virginia coach Steve Swanson said. “I thought UCLA deserved to win — there’s no question about that — but we certainly didn’t feel we played our best, and at that stage of the Tournament, it’s difficult to win if you don’t play your best.”

The last game however, is hardly indicative of the season the Cavaliers have had. Virginia’s success this season should not be measured by its end but rather by the progress the team made throughout the year.

The first two weeks of the season, the Cavaliers went 3-2-1. For the rest of the regular season, they were 10-2. In the postseason, the team competed in the ACC Championship and made it to the quarterfinals of the NCAA Tournament — something that has only happened three times in the history of the program. The Cavaliers finished the season 18-6-1, tying the school record for most wins. While the final result was not what it may have wished for, the team was happy to have made it as far in the tournament as it did.

“The way we played, I don’t think we would have beaten many teams that day,” Swanson said. “But that’s just a game, it is not indicative of our season, and I feel very proud of the kids for the way they’ve improved all season.”

A large part of this improvement can be attributed to the youth of the team. At the beginning of the season, Virginia had not only the incoming freshmen but also had a handful of sophomores who redshirted their freshman year to compete with the U-19 team in Thailand. At times, half of the team playing on the field was new. Since then, many of the freshmen have become key players on the team. Three of the freshmen — Nikki Krysik, Kelly Quinn and Jess Rostedt — were named to the ACC All Freshmen team, and Rostedt, who could not play in the final game because of a lacerated liver, was named ACC Freshman of the Year.

“At the beginning of the year, it was hard to know exactly how the year was going to play out,” senior Sarah Huffman said. “Our preseason games didn’t go exactly how we wanted them to go, but if you look over the year, we’ve progressed a tremendous amount. While it’s the same group of players, it’s a completely different team.”

A lot of the credit for the maturing of the freshmen, however, can be given to the older players on the team. In the back, junior Becky Sauerbrunn helped an almost completely new backline learn the ropes, while senior midfielders Noelle Keselica, Kelly Hammond and Huffman led the offense.

“This year was a real challenge in a lot of way because we had so many new faces,” Swanson said. “I think we were fortunate to have such great leadership from our seniors. I think they were the catalyst that pulled the team together.”

The progress the Cavaliers made throughout the year, as well as the relative youth of the team, bode well for the future of the program. Virginia has not made a quarterfinal since 2001, so to make it this year shows just how far the team can go in the future.

“I definitely think they are headed to a National Championship in the near future,” Huffman said. “We came close to the Final Four this year, and hopefully they can reach that goal next year. There are outstanding players on the team, the coaches will hopefully be bringing in good freshmen next year, so I definitely think the Final Four and a National Championship are within grasp.”

The United States ended first round play at the 1998 World Cup horribly, losing all three matches in Group F play against Iran, Yugoslavia and Germany.

As a result, then-D.C. United head coach Bruce Arena was brought in to save the disappointing state of national men’s soccer.

From that point on, not only did the former Virginia men’s soccer head coach renew pride, talent and success to the national team, but his spark brought U.S. soccer briefly to the forefront around the world in the 2002 World Cup.

“To accomplish what we did was fantastic,” Arena said.

With the United States’ close quarterfinal loss to Germany, people began to pay attention to the coach from Brooklyn, N.Y., who brought success everywhere he went, including Charlottesville.

Arena, who graduated from Cornell University, played both soccer and lacrosse successfully in college as an All-American but soon decided he wanted to try coaching.

“I was around a lot of good coaches, and they had a real impact on me,” Arena said. “I thought it was a really neat thing to do –- impact other people’s lives. I found that real interesting and challenging.”

As an assistant coach at Cornell and later a head coach at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Wash., Arena was contacted and given the opportunity to pursue a coaching career in both soccer and lacrosse at Virginia.

By 1985, however, Arena had already enjoyed seven winning soccer seasons and relinquished the lacrosse position to further his focus on soccer.

In his 18 years at Virginia, Arena endured only one losing season, his third, and enjoyed a winning record unrivaled by few in the collegiate ranks: 295-58-32.

Under stars such as current national captain Claudio Reyna as well as Jeff Agoos, John Harkes, Tony Meola and Richie Williams, Virginia enjoyed five national titles, including four consecutive, and five ACC tournament titles.

Yet to Arena, the enjoyment of winning was not all he remembers about Virginia, but also the dynamic among friends.

“On the collegiate level, it is not all about winning but about the relationships that you form with players and parents,” Arena said. “I really enjoyed working at U.Va.”

With rising national success and acclaim for developing endless talent at Virginia, Arena became a prized coaching commodity in 1996, the first year of Major League Soccer.

“D.C. United recruited me my last year [at Virginia],” Arena said. “I was not as interested in D.C. United as much as I was interested in coaching the Olympic team. I had to take both positions.”

During his three-year stint as head coach for United, Arena won two MLS Cup titles. Enjoying success at an even higher, more competitive level, Arena was proving himself once again.

“The opportunity with D.C. United was a great one for me,” he said. “It opened up a lot of doors; notably, it put me in position to coach the national team [in 1998].”

Entering his eighth year as national team coach, Arena has become the country’s all-time winningest soccer coach. With a reliance on young talent from the MLS, Arena has led the national team to new heights, including this year’s No. 6 international FIFA ranking, the highest-ever for the United States, and its fifth-straight World Cup berth.

“I do enjoy it,” Arena said. “To this day, I have never taken enough time to respect what I have done. Maybe one day, when I retire, I will be able to.”

As the world awaits the start of the 2006 World Cup in Germany, the United States and Virginia will be watching Arena, hoping he pushes his team to his ultimate goal.

“We have the same goals, and we respect each other,” Reyna said. “He wants to win. He wants the team to be successful.”

The Virginia men’s basketball team (2-1) looks to rebound after a tough loss to No. 9 Arizona Sunday night when it hosts Northwestern tonight as part of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge. The Cavaliers defeated Northwestern last year 48-44 in Evanston, Ill and hope to have the same success tonight, only this time on their home court in University Hall.

Virginia comes into tonight’s game with very little room for error. The Cavaliers are playing with a short bench, as injuries have sidelined junior guard T.J. Bannister and junior forward/center Donte Minter.

“We don’t have a very large margin of error,” head coach Dave Leitao said. “Essentially, we played seven guys [against Richmond], and I wanted to get more full court pressure in, but I didn’t want to wear them out.”

To help this problem, certain players, including junior forward Jason Cain, need to step up.

“Hopefully, he has responded,” Leitao said. “The other Saturday [after the Liberty win], we were watching tape to point out some of his mistakes. He’s been conscious to work on some of those, and as a result, I think he had a little more energy in his body and was a little more conscious of what he was doing. He took a step, but we need everybody to play a good level.”

Virginia also will need to see improvement from freshmen Mamadi Diane and Lauryna Mikalauskus, as they will likely play for the majority of the game. Mikalauskus did not score in the 81-51 loss to Arizona, and Diane only posted four points.

“I told him that I don’t have time for him to go through freshmen learning curves,” Leitao said of Diane. “We’re going to need him to be pretty good, and we are going to need everybody.”

The relative inexperience of such a young team showed against Arizona as 24 Cavalier turnovers were converted into 32 opposing points. Virginia also did not score in the second half until about seven and a half minutes into play.

“We’re growing, hopefully,” Leitao said. “I think I see that in practice, which to me is much more of a determinant that we can get more consistent, especially on defense.”

Before the Arizona loss, Virginia held its last two opponents to under 30 percent shooting. This included Richmond shooting 28.8 percent at home.

“We’re a young team, and I think we played well against adversity [at Richmond],” sophomore guard Sean Singletary said. “I think we’re going to have to get more experience to help with that.”

Northwestern is coming off a 59-49 loss to DePaul and enters tonight’s game with a 3-2 record. Last season, the Wildcats finished with a 15-16 overall record and a 6-10 record in the Big Ten. Their leading scorer is senior forward Vedran Vukusic. Vukusic has averaged 25 points per game and has .589 field foal percentage. Virginia’s offense is lead by Singletary, who is averaging 17.7 points per game.

Tonight, Virginia looks to cut down on errors and have a complete and solid team performance. These factors, along with the return of Virginia’s shutdown defense from its first two games, are key focal points to leading the Cavaliers and the ACC to a win.

The month of November is when a college football team looks within and reveals its true colors. Thanksgiving time marks the end of a long season for the fans and an even longer one for the players and coaches — what seemingly starts in August really begins in January if you pay attention to the action behind the scenes.

Off-season weights and conditioning, rehabbing from injuries, staying fresh with spring practice and learning the playbook for the upcoming season are all things that do not make the front page between the New Year and the dog days of summer.

But whether you watch from the stands or call in plays from the sidelines, the regular season culminates in November. How a team plays at the end is going to determine whether all the hard work will pay off. Virginia football coach Al Groh’s players understand this well — their coach pounds the importance of this month into their heads at every step of the way.

For this year’s team, November was a microcosm of the entire season. As would be expected from a team that finished with a 6-5 overall record, Virginia went 2-2 in the last four games.

In the final month — and on the season as a whole — a strong start made way for a struggle to the finish line.

During the final stretch, the Cavaliers played well at times and horribly at others. They showed flashes of brilliance against Temple and Georgia Tech but lost the two games everyone counted on them to lose against Virginia Tech and at Miami.

But after the embarrassment of being blown away by the Hokies in front of its home fans, Virginia somewhat saved face by not giving in at Coral Gables.

“I feel like after last week’s demonstration in front of our fans, we just felt like this week we had to come out and prove ourselves,” junior wideout Deyon Williams said after Saturday’s 25-17 loss to Miami. “We didn’t want the nation or our fans to think that we’re that kind of a team.”

Exactly what kind of team Virginia was in 2005 is up for debate.

If going to a bowl game is the definition of success, then this season could be considered just that.

The Cavaliers needed two victories in the final month to qualify for the postseason. They knew their two most difficult games of the year would come in a double dose to close it out. So they took care of business early — easily brushing aside winless Temple before locking up a bowl berth against Georgia Tech.

But if you’re Al Groh, going 6-5 to barely qualify for another bowl game may not be reason for celebration. Not in your fifth season as coach at your alma mater; not after being handed a multi-million dollar contract in the offseason despite never having made it to the BCS.

For Groh, success this season may be measured in his players’ will to keep fighting when all they have to play for is keeping their final record above .500.

“Our challenge now is to have the same sense of purpose, the same sense of passion going into the next game as we had in this one,” Groh said after the Miami game. “We’re looking forward to moving on.”

Many thought the Hurricanes would pick up against Virginia where Virginia Tech had left off, which was in a 52-14 rout just a week before. After all, the Hokies’ only loss all season came in a 27-7 reality check against Miami Nov. 5.

Virginia regrouped for the regular season finale and hung in for most of the game. But a loss is still a loss, and any team that drops its final three would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would label its season a success.

Where the Cavaliers go from here will say a lot about the makeup of this team.

This week-long Thanksgiving Break has really thrown me off my groove. Coming back to school after a very relaxing break, my body and mind are telling me that it’s time for a new semester, not exams –- which is not good for the most brain-busting time of the year. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining; it’s just that I still don’t have turkey and Thanksgiving off my mind.

And since you asked, I thought I’d get you caught up on my thoughts on the sports world from Thanksgiving Break.

The NBA:

It’s faaaaaaaaaaan-tastic! The League is having another stellar start that no one in my two respective homes -– Charlottesville or Charlotte -– is noticing. Call it an image problem, call it whatever. People are missing out.

Over the break, I took in two Bobcats games, and I have to say: I’m back. Last year, I followed the expansion team from afar, checking scores in the local paper and the like. But this year, I have become more committed. Friday night, my friends and I took over a sports bar and immediately demanded several TVs to switch to the Bobcats’ road game, which of course they lost by giving up a last-second lay-up. While I was upset, my faith was not diminished, as the next night I had tickets to catch a game in the Bobcats’ ridiculously nice, shiny, new arena in the heart of downtown Charlotte. The home team won by 26, playing a healthy brand of basketball, using high energy players like Gerald Wallace, Raymond Felton and Emeka Okafor to dominate the Wizards. Yes, it’s a fun time to be an NBA fan again.

Hockey:

This might be a surprise to those who aren’t Canadians or Northeasterners, but the NHL is back. And it’s good. Real good. I am certainly no hockey expert or huge fan, but I can still appreciate the return of the NHL.

I could talk about the dirtiness of new hotshot Sidney Crosby, the 18-year-old from Nova Scotia who’s performing despite the NHL’s hype equivalent of a LeBron James. I could gush over the return of Canadian commentator Barry Melrose and his timeless mullet. It brings joy and stability the way watching “The Sandlot” does. I could also point out all the rule changes that have made the game more fluid and increased scoring, where 11 teams this season average more goals than the leading team did in the last full NHL season in 2003-2004.

But I won’t. My main reason for appreciating hockey is that true hockey fans are not unlike Momma –- when they’re happy, everybody’s happy. One of my good friends from home is a true Canuck (in fact, that’s what everyone calls him) and the return of his beloved Maple Leafs has brought back his good humor and Canadian-ness. It’s good to have you back, Canuck.

Virginia sports:

Because this is about the time my editors are wondering why I still have a column, let me see if I can throw out some articulate thoughts about our school’s teams.

Men’s Soccer -– another very respectable finish. Battling back after a disappointing ACC Tournament to make it to the soccer Sweet Sixteen shows character and integrity. Bravo.

Men’s Basketball –- Coach Leitao, I like what I’m seeing from your tough, hard-nosed attitude. Defense has returned to Charlottesville, and there are nice opportunities to take down a solid Big Ten opponent with Northwestern in town today and get an early ACC win Sunday at Georgia Tech. Go get ‘em.

As for football -– arg, yeech, harrumph, yeesh, blah. Well, hey, I tried.

Thanksgiving dinner:

While not officially recognized as a sport – yet — there were still quite a number of feats from that fateful dinner that are worth mentioning. First, you can really tell what my family’s priorities are from this meal. When invited to Thanksgiving dinner at a friend’s house, all we brought were three bottles of wine and three pies. Nary has a family moment brought me more pride and satisfaction.

And secondly … well, that was really it. We love our wine and desserts.

And with that, I hope y’all had a delicious Thanksgiving break and have a safe and happy holiday.