Student Council discussed three resolutions last night, including a proposal to create a new Certified Independent Organization to coordinate neighborhood watches in off-Grounds areas where many students live.

College Rep. Ryan Taylor introduced a resolution to create the CIO which would work with other CIOs around Grounds, as well as local police, “to train and coordinate” neighborhood watches within the areas of Barracks-Rugby, Jefferson Park Avenue and Lewis Mountain.

According to Taylor, other neighborhood watches are coordinated by a neighborhood block captain who goes from house to house asking people to participate, but this program will be run by a CIO that will have officers and permanent members who keep the program going, even after the original members have left.

Taylor said because the program will be run through a CIO, it will have a better chance of lasting through time.

Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Longo said a neighborhood watch was a good idea, but worried about the ability of students to sustain the watch through different cycles of residents.

“Anytime you are able to pull a neighborhood together and make it into a community, be it within U.Va. or outside of it, it is a good thing,” Longo said.

According to Long one difficulty that arises with regard to these watches is volunteers’ ability to “sustain the momentum at the same level [in areas] where people are constantly matriculating in and out.”

He explained that while one group of students may be excited and motivated about such a project, it is often difficult to sustain the same level of excitement and motivation when new groups move into an area, replacing people who previously took part in the watch.

Taylor said the inspiration for the resolution came from the recent sexual assaults on 15th Street and Wertland Street.

“We wanted a more tangible response other then more blue phones and SafeRide,” Taylor said. “We wanted to do something that was most cost effective and provided the maximum deterrence.”

If the resolution passes, the resulting CIO will coordinate University CIOs and Charlottesville police to recruit and train volunteers to form the watches. According to Taylor, the watches will provide houses where there will “always be a light on outside, always be somewhere safe students know they can go and always have an extra pair of eyes on the road.”

Taylor said he hoped the program will deter criminals and provide better identification of those who choose to commit crimes.

Longo said the police department will be available to provide support for any program created.

Resolutions recommending that ITC add premium channels such as HBO to student cable services and that Dining Services suspend the use of trays at the Observatory Hill dining hall during the 2007-2008 school were also discussed.

Student Council President Darius Nabors proposed the ITC resolution and remarked that channels available to students living off Grounds should be available to students living on Grounds.

James Jokl, ITC communications and systems director, said ITC was willing to look into the matter, provided a substantial amount of student interest is shown.

Nabors also proposed a resolution to recommend the removal of trays from Observatory Hill Dining Hall for the 2007-2008 school year in an effort to phase out the use of trays in dining halls.

Nabors said the removal of trays will help conserve water and reduce the amount of wasted food dining halls produce.

“It is a minimal cost to create a better environmental consciousness” Nabors said.

Nabors said the proposed resolutions will be voted on at future meetings.

As the polls close at 6 p.m. today, students have begun to weigh in on the changes implemented during the spring elections.

Steve Yang, University Board of Election’s chair, said, “We’re working hard to enforce rules and regulations for all candidates.”

UBE has increased publicity this year and is encouraging students to vote using flyers, banners, e-mails sent to schools and class years and Facebook, Yang added.

“We’ve especially increased advertising on Facebook because we understand that’s where a lot of students spend time,” Yang said.

Despite the increase in publicity of the elections themselves, individual candidates seem to be campaigning less.

“I haven’t seen as many [fliers and chalk] as I have in past years, part of that might just be with the weather,” Yang said.

In addition to more election publicity, UBE has extended the period during which students can vote from six days to one week. The period was extended from three to six days three years ago for the spring 2005 elections and resulted in a 29 percent increase in voter turnout, according to a study released by UBE.

“It doesn’t hurt anyone and provides more opportunity for students to vote,” Yang said.

Students this year also had the option of filling out an anonymous survey after voting.

According to the responses the UBE has reviewed so far, many students said they voted in order to support student self-governance and to voice their opinion on the Honor sanction reform referendum.

UBE also implemented new rules for this year’s election, including a rule prohibiting candidates from setting up voting stations due to a possible bias.

“Even though candidates mean well, it’s inherently biased,” Yang said.

UBE also eliminated the use of line chalk, a type of chalk that is difficult to remove.

In addition to creating new rules, UBE clarified rules relating to electronic campaigning, Yang said.

According to the new rules, organizations endorsing candidates can only send e-mails to their members and not to the entire student body.

“There seems to be a lot of rules,” Minority Rights Coalition Chair Patrick Martinez said. “They all have a reason but some of them are annoying.”

Martinez cited the rules restricting endorsing organizations from sending mass e-mails announcing their endorsements as particularly frustrating.

“If it is public knowledge, which it is public knowledge, it should be freely distributed,” Martinez said.

Yang said the rule was created in response to students’ complaints that they had received too many e-mails from student organizations endorsing candidates.

Martinez said the MRC has used the e-mail lists of its member organizations to announce endorsements.

Endorsing organizations also discussed the new on-line scheduling system.

“It was a little difficult at first, but overall it made things a lot easier,” outgoing Inter-Sorority Council President Massie Payne said.

Martinez said he hopes in future years the online interview scheduling will be accessible to multiple members of an endorsing organization who will be interviewing candidates, while this year it was only accessible to one point person within the organization.

In an effort ot increase voter turnout, Fourth Year Trustees President Ross Baird said he sent out e-mails to the fourth-year class encouraging them to vote.

“Voter turnout is always a matter of relevance and the by the time the candidates who win take office, the fourth years will be gone,” Baird said.

According to last year’s UBE report, 1,222 fourth-year students voted in spring elections, the lowest turnout of the four undergraduate classes. The turnout made up 33 percent of the class, according to the report.

The Harry Bramhall Gilbert Charitable Trust of Virginia Beach announced Monday it will donate one million dollars to the University for fourth-year students who graduated from a public school in the Chesapeake district. This fund, to be used in paying for additional education, will benefit College students who have maintained a minimum 3.0 GPA and completed 90 credits in residence at the University during their first three years, according to Stuart Glasser, co-trustee of the fund.

Harry Murphy, chairman of the school board of Chesapeake Public Schools, said this will help qualified fourth-year students fund further education.

It “frees up funds so they can go ahead and work on post-graduate work,” he said.

The scholarship excludes transfer students, out-of-state students and students who have committed a felony or Honor offense, Glasser said.

Student Financial Services Director Yvonne Hubbard said the fund will provide at least $1,000 for each qualifying student.

“It is an effective mechanism to provide financial aid,” she said. “It’s very important for students to know how they are [paying for] school.”

She added that the scholarships for qualified fourth-year students will go into effect during the 2008-2009 school year.

According to Glasser, this scholarship is not based on financial need.

Mark Smith, director of Planned Giving at the University, said he spent over a year discussing the number of students from Chesapeake high schools at the University and how much money they would receive with the co-trustees of the trust

There are between 18 and 22 students from the Chesapeake school district in each class, according to Smith.

“Everything was treated in compliance with University policies,” Smith said.

Glasser said they chose the University for the funding because of how it shapes students.

Glasser added that he believes “that the University is one of the United States’ greatest educational institutions and I know how much it not only does for the education of its students but also how much it does for the character of its students primarily because of the honor code and the traditions of the University.”

A hearing was held yesterday at the Charlottesville Federal Court in the case of former University employee Dena Bowers, who brought suit against the University last June. Bowers claims that she was wrongfully fired in October of 2005.

Bowers claims she was dismissed for sending an e-mail with an attached report from the Albemarle-Charlottesville NAACP to a coworker from her University account. The report described the potential negative effects of the University’s proposed charter on University Medical Center employees.

Bowers’ electronic signature, which included her name as well as her position as a senior recruiter with the University’s Department of Human Resources, was also in the e-mail.

A recipient of Bower’s e-mail mistakenly forwarded it to the entire College faculty because he thought the e-mail was an official University Human Resources communication.

Bowers was then fired for the misrepresentation of the message and the source of the message, as well as her lack of cooperation in clarifying that the e-mail was not sent from her official capacity as a University employee, according to an October 2005 interview with Carol Wood.

Bowers sued the University because she claimed that administrators violated her First Amendment rights and due process.

Yesterday Bowers brought her case to court for a “hearing on motions of summary judgment,” in which the University Associate General Counsel argued the case should be dismissed.

The judge could decide that the case should continue to a jury trial, which would begin March 27.

Deborah Wyatt, Bowers’ attorney, contested the University’s reasons for her client’s dismissal.

“Whatever she said or whatever she did, if it had agreed with the University, she wouldn’t have been fired,” Wyatt said.

Judge Norman Moon, who is presiding over the case, will render his decision within the next few weeks.

Sunday the Honor Committee released its analysis of the faculty survey conducted in spring 2005 after choosing to interpret the data independent of the Center for Survey Research, which compiled the data.

The response addresses concerns of faculty understanding of the system, support for Honor, the role of Honor in the classroom, cheating at the University, faculty experiences with Honor, fair treatment of students and faculty interaction with the system.

Though the survey was conducted by the CSR, Committee members elected to interpret the data themselves in order to use the results to determine where improvements could be made.

“We weren’t looking for a response that would just interpret the data,” Vice Chair for Community Relations A-J Aronstein said. “We wanted to look at the data and say how the Honor Committee could respond.”

According to the response, there is a significant lack of understanding of the honor system among faculty members.

Though the Committee hosts a reception about Honor for new faculty members every fall, some of the information “may be lost after a couple of years,” Committee Chair Alison Tramba said. She added that many faculty members feel more comfortable going to their department chairs with questions about Honor rather than the Committee.

The Committee’s response states, “the strong majority of faculty members supporting the honor system ensures that, as long as issues of concern are addressed by the Committee, faculty will continue to take interest in the system.”

The survey organized a “classroom acknowledgement index” based on how faculty members address Honor in the classroom. Methods for doing this included explaining the honor code on a syllabus, discussing Honor with their classes, stating expectations about honor and asking students to sign Honor pledges. Faculty members earned a point for each of these methods they used. The mean score was 1.89.

According to the response, the Committee plans to provide suggested Honor policies to faculty members online.

Faculty members, when surveyed last year, reported low rates of observed cheating, according to the Committee’s response, suggesting “that the honor system has an impact on student behavior in the classroom.”

When faculty and teaching assistants were certain cheating had taken place, 16.4 percent reported the case to the Committee. Of teaching staff who suspected cheating, one percent reported the case to the Committee.

Regarding reasons for not reporting, “the biggest factor that was cited was lack of evidence,” Tramba said. “We would encourage faculty members to allow us to evaluate at the i-panel stage the merits of the evidence.”

Of those faculty members who had dealt with the Committee in the past two years, 88.2 percent of those surveyed reported that they were dissatisfied because Honor was “too lenient.”

“A negative experience one faculty member has can have an impact on other faculty members,” Tramba said.

In terms of the treatment that students received, 81.5 percent of faculty members who worked with Honor thought the accused student was treated fairly.

The Honor Committee response stated, “This key finding reflects the basic soundness of Honor processes.”

According to the survey, very few teaching staff members know their Honor representatives. Sixteen percent of faculty and 10 percent of teaching assistants know their representatives.

According to the response, “it is the Committee’s goal that, at a minimum, the Chair for the department has an established relationship with their Honor Committee representative.”

Overall, the Committee viewed the survey results positively.

“The Honor Committee is pleased to learn that faculty members and TAs support Honor in general,” the response stated. “The Committee recognizes its responsibility to reach out directly to the faculty and will continue to investigate new avenues of accomplishing this task.”

Outgoing Faculty Senate Chair Kenneth Schwartz said the Faculty Senate has yet to study the Committee’s response.

“Once we read the Honor Committee’s analysis we’ll be prepared to add our own ideas to the discussion,” Schwartz said.

– Maggie Thornton contributed to this article

The student member of the Board of Visitors is only as useful as students make him. Students ought to understand both the back-ground and the goals of Carey Mignerey, the recently-selected incoming member of the BOV, in order that they might better communicate their concerns to the individual chosen to represent them.

Prior to his appointment as the student member of the University’s Board of Visitors, Mignerey exemplified the sort of successful, ambitious student one might expect to take on such an important position as the one he’ll assume in April. As part of his promise to remain involved with the University community, Mignerey recently sat down with the Managing Board of The Cavalier Daily to discuss his plans for the future.

When he begins his term in April, he plans to focus much of his attention on four “areas of emphasis.” First, Mignerey said, the BOV must help the University grow in size and scope “without losing the benefits we have as a smaller institution.” Second, he stressed that the dialogue on diversity should continue, of course, “with an eye towards tolerance.” But diversity for Mignerey means more than fulfilling the hollow promises of tired talking points. “Students should know that there are schools particularly that often are forgotten and student groups… that often go unheard. These are the groups that would get my first priority.”

As an undergraduate, Mignerey was an active participant in several forms of student self-governance as chair of the Honor Committee and a member of Sigma Chi fraternity. Upon graduating in 2004, Mignerey worked for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. for two years before returning to the University to attend law school.

Each year, a committee comprised of the heads of certain student organizations and administrators select a single student who “serves as a soundboard for the Board of Visitors with regard to issues that affect students at the University,” to use Mignerey’s words. This position bridges the gap between the student body and the University’s corporate governing board with the intent of lending a voice to student concerns. Mignerey calls the position “one of the best jobs a student can have.”

Never discarding his background in business, his third area of emphasis concerned ensuring the University’s ability to finance its endeavors. Mignerey’s fourth and final point — arguably his most crucial responsibility — deals with devising new ways to make the University safer for students. “When I was an undergraduate,” Mignerey recalled, “student safety just wasn’t a concern. There didn’t seem to be a problem.” Bearing in mind the recent instances of sexual assault and vandalism, he reiterated the need to rethink how the University approaches safety.

Ultimately, students must view the student member of the BOV as a “conduit” for their questions and concerns. Of all his plans, what emerged most clearly from our conversation was Mignerey’s commitment to maintaining an open-door policy with students. “Students should be more than willing to come to me and express their views.” Well-intentioned though he may be, Mignerey’s ability to address student concerns depends entirely on students’ will to engage in fruitful conversation with the representative chosen to serve them.

Allegations of a possible relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings are rooted in a centuries-old rumor first spread in 1802 by James T. Callendar, a journalist who had been turned down by Jefferson for a political appointment. Callendar claimed Jefferson had kept a slave named Sally as his “concubine” and fathered her children. Debates over the validity of these claims have raged for years, but recent research has examined more closely the possibility that the allegations were unfounded.

Many researchers and members of the University community dedicate time and resources to shed more light on the topic and generate discussion about this issue.

Controversial Science

The Sally Hemings controversy erupted in 1998, when a DNA test conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster explored the paternity allegations. Foster tested descendents of Thomas Jefferson’s uncle and Eston Hemings, Sally Hemings son, whom many believe to have been fathered by Jefferson.

According to Monticello Director of Archaeology Fraser Neiman, while the tests showed a connection between Jefferson’s uncle and Eston Hemings, these results do not necessarily prove that Jefferson was Eston’s father.

“The [DNA] evidence really only shows us that one of Hemings’ kids was a carrier of the Jefferson line,” Neiman said.

Foster also tested descendents of Jefferson’s sister Martha Jefferson Carr’s family. Jefferson’s defenders claim the Carrs were the ones related to the Hemings children.

According to Annette Gordon-Reed, professor of law at New York University and author of “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,” the DNA tests showed no match between the Hemings and Carr families.

“The problem is that Jefferson’s family could not have known that there would one day come a time when you could differentiate between paternal and maternal relatives,” Gordon-Reed said. “On both sides, white and black, that’s the problem with oral history — it has to hook up with something from contemporary time.”

The DNA results led to a number of independent studies, including one conducted in 2000 by the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, run by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.

According to Lucia “Cinder” Stanton, Shannon Senior Historian at Monticello, the purpose of the committee was to survey relevant scientific and historical evidence and to draw a conclusion. The committee determined there was a high probability that Jefferson was the father of at least one of Sally Hemings’ children, and possibly the father of all of them.

Debate Continues

Several researchers, including Charlottesville genealogist Cynthia Burton and Robert Turner, an associate director at the Law School and a member of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission, have rejected allegations of a relationship between Jefferson and Hemings.

Turner, who is currently writing a book about the Jefferson-Hemings relationship, cited age difference between Jefferson and Hemings as one reason why these allegations are unfounded. According to Turner, Hemings was 14 years old when she went to Paris to work for Jefferson, and Jefferson was 64 years old during one of Hemings’ conception periods.

Burton, whose book “Jefferson Vindicated” was published in 2006, also noted Jefferson’s age.

“Jefferson’s health has been completely overlooked,” she said. “His fertility had been waning for over 30 years at this time.”

Burton noted the possibility that Hemings’ children were fathered by Randolph Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson’s brother.

“Other analyses that I had read, they kind of overlooked Randolph Jefferson”, she said. “That was kind of shocking to me.”

According to Turner, Randolph Jefferson fathered children by his own slaves, and reportedly spent time with slaves at Monticello.

Gordon-Reed disputed the theory that Randolph fathered Hemings’ children.

“It sounds desperate,” she said. “It’s really not a matter of them having evidence that it’s Randolph. It’s a matter of putting in the public mind that there could be someone out there” other than Jefferson.

According to Neiman, it has been established that Jefferson was at Monticello nine months before the births of all of Hemings’ children.

Neiman developed a statistical model to test the probability that this was a result of random chance. The results, he said, showed that the probability was about one to two percent.

“We’re left with the question of what exactly is the causal connection,” he said. “The simplest one is that he was the father of all her kids.”

David Douglas, accelerator physicist at the Jefferson Lab’s Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerator, who was hired to study the accuracy of Neiman’s simulation, said it contained technical problems.

“The simulation assumed that every conception occurred exactly 275 days before birth,” Douglas said. “We don’t know that the conception period was right and in fact we don’t know that the span of the pregnancy was correct at all.”

For some, the evidence for Jefferson’s paternity still outweighs evidence against it.

“I just can’t imagine why anyone would bother to deny it at this point,” said History Prof. Peter Onuf. “The argument is so overwhelming that we need to move on to other more fruitful sites of inquiry.”

Turner said he was initially hesitant to participate in the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission, composed of researchers focusing on the issue, because he was concerned about the responses he would receive from his colleagues.

“I didn’t want to do it because I assumed … I was going to be called a racist,” Turner said.

Burton said she has seen a range of reactions to her work.

“I have had a lot of feedback, positive and negative, and it’s just amazing the emotions it brings out in people,” Burton said.

A Man of Honor?

Researchers on both sides of this debate expressed admiration for Jefferson, although they disagreed on whether the allegations would indicate a serious character flaw.

Burton said she was troubled by the fact that Jefferson had denied allegations of a sexual relationship with Hemings.

“For me that reflected on his moral character,” she said.

Onuf said Jefferson can still be considered a respected historical figure even if the allegations are true.

“This is not the crucial test for Jefferson,” he said.

Gordon-Reed also questioned the weight put on the possibility of a relationship between Hemings and Jefferson, noting that records of his part in the slave trade are more troubling to her than what may have happened with Hemings.

“The [biggest] problem with Jefferson is that he was a slave owner,” she said.

For Turner, suggestions of a sexual relationship between Jefferson and Hemings are more serious than the fact that he owned slaves because of Jefferson’s relatively progressive politics and Hemings’ young age at the time the relationship would have occurred, as well as the fact that she did not have any legal protection governing her right to consent.

Researchers in support of both sides also emphasized that it is impossible to definitively know the truth about what happened.

“All hypotheses in science are open to revision,” Neiman said.

Turner echoed this sentiment, noting the lack of information available about Hemings herself.

“The irony is, we know almost nothing about Sally Hemings,” he said. “The biggest thing we know is that we don’t know much.”

Hemings’ Presence at the University

Several University student organizations have publicly addressed the controversy, as well as the presence of the history of slavery at the University.

One such group, the Committee on Jeffersonian Traditions, is a student-run organization that has posted flyers around Grounds that say “Tommy [heart] Sally” and “Virginia is for Lovers,” both including images of Jefferson and a representation of Hemings. According to the group’s public liaison, the organization’s goal is to promote discussion both in class and among students about the controversy.

According to Maggie Byrne, diversity chair of the University Guide Service, tour guides are open about the fact that Jefferson owned slaves.

She added that, while she does not introduce the subject of Hemings in her tours, she is willing to answer questions about the controversy. She noted, however, that each tour guide’s tour is different.

Byrne said a typical answer to a question about whether Jefferson and Hemings had a relationship might be “that it’s socially believed that, yes, there’s enough evidence to indicate that they had a relationship that produced at least one child but that tracing can never be entirely accurate.”

According to Byrne, tours adapt to new historical information as it is available.

“We want to be as historically accurate as we possibly can and also as honest and candid and sensitive as we possibly can,” she said.

The No. 9 Virginia women’s lacrosse team will take on No. 13 Richmond tonight.

The match will mark the 30th time the Cavaliers and Spiders have faced off against each other, while Virginia (1-0, 1-0 ACC) leads the all-time series with a record of 26-2-1.

Last year, however, Richmond handed the squad its first loss of the season in a 7-8 defeat.

“Richmond’s a really big game,” senior defender and co-captain Jessy Morgan said. “We’ve probably been looking forward to it since last year when we lost to them. That loss was huge. This year we really want to give a little payback for what happened last year.”

The 3-1 Spiders recently suffered a loss to the Duke Blue Devils, ranked No. 2, but that has not stained their reputation at all.

Not only did Richmond win the Atlantic 10 Championship for the second consecutive time last season, but two Spiders, and sisters, Mandy and Ashley Friend, were named pre-season All-Americans for this season.

“Obviously, we started with Virginia Tech and to limit a team to two goals over the course of 60 minutes I think is a great way to start a season, so we’re excited about that,” Virginia coach Julie Myers. “But we certainly know there’s a lot of work ahead of us. Richmond is a very good team, and is probably a couple steps better this year than they were last year, so they have our attention.”

One thing Virginia will need to concentrate on in the match is how to stop the Spiders’ offense.

“They’ve got three key attackers that a lot of their plays run through, and they love the one-on-one, and that’s really hard to stop for a defensive team,” Myers said. “We’re going to really have to be sure that we slow them down, force them into bad angles and outside shots. There’s going to be a lot of double teams and a lot of communication on the defensive part. From the offensive part, we’ll have to be pretty smart with our ball movement and times to go in and challenge. Their defense is going to collapse on the ball pretty quickly so we’re going to need to make sure we really move the ball before we really go in.”

What is going to fuel the fire inside the players though is not only the vengeance they want to take on Richmond, but also that need to get on the field and play the game. After having to postpone last week’s match against Temple, which is now rescheduled to be played March 7 in Philadelphia, the Cavaliers have only played one game so far this entire season whereas other teams have played as many as four or five.

“We’re all very much looking forward to the game,” senior midfielder and co-captain Jess Wasilewski said. “We’re excited, we’re anxious, we’re just really looking forward to going out, playing hard, and beating them. We just need to do everything within ourselves in order to win [tomorrow.]”

After defeating two top 20 teams this weekend, the No. 3 Virginia men’s tennis team will have little rest as it plays a doubleheader today against Old Dominion and Maryland.The Cavaliers look very strong after cruising past No. 9 Pepperdine 6-1 and No. 19 Boise State 7-0 this past weekend, but their endurance will again be tested today.

“I think our team continues to play well and improve with each match,” Virginia coach Brian Boland said.”I believe we’re playing with a lot of confidence at the moment and we just need to keep taking one match at a time and continue to improve each and every day.”

This morning, the Cavaliers (10-1) face Old Dominion (7-2).Although Old Dominion suffered two losses early in the season to No. 14 Duke and Wake Forest, they have just come off an upset of N.C. State. In addition, Old Dominion boasts highly ranked singles and doubles teams.No. 4 junior Somdev Devvarman will likely face No. 8 junior Harel Srugo, and junior Treat Huey will likely play senior Henrique Cancado.

“Even though these teams aren’t highly ranked they’re all really good, especially Old Dominion,” Devvarman said.”Their rankings really don’t justify how good they are. The guys I’m playing are going to be good regardless because I’m going to be playing the number one players.”

Following a tough match against Old Dominion, the team will play Maryland (5-0) in the second half of their day-night doubleheader which will start ACC play for Virginia.Although undefeated, Maryland has not yet been tested against teams in the top 30 in the nation.Traditionally, Maryland has not thrived in the ACC either, and last year only won one ACC match, against Boston College.The Cavaliers cannot expect an easy win, however, as Maryland is coming off a big upset of Virginia Tech.As of now, Maryland looks promising, and the team may prove a challenge for the Cavaliers.Virginia is the highest ranked team in the ACC conference followed by No. 10 FSU, but winning in-conference matches will be vital to staying on the top.After losing the ACC championship match last season, the Cavaliers feel confident and ready to prove themselves.

“It’ll be exciting. We start off with Maryland and Boston College, so it’s not the top of the ACC right there, but it’s a good way for us to start off,” Devarrman said.

One of the keys to victory for the Cavaliers will be the depth of the team.Devarrman and Huey have been playing strong of late, and both have won ACC Men’s Tennis Player of the Week twice already this season. Their competition, however, will be against other strong ranked players, so Virginia may also need to count on wins coming from other players.Unlike most teams, Virginia has a third-ranked player, freshman Dominic Inglot, who has proven his ability this past weekend by defeating both opponents in only two sets.In addition, since junior Ted Angelinos is out with an ankle injury, senior Marko Miklo and sophomore Nick Meros have stepped up and contributed big wins to the team. Virginia hopes to finish the home matches today successfully as they will be on the road for the next six matches, and the pressure of remaining one of the top teams in the country will be bearing down on them.

“We’ve been really successful so far this year and I feel that they’ve definitely been gunning for us,” Huey said.”We’re pretty much one of the few teams to beat in the country and I feel like every other team definitely wants to take us down.”

Writing this column was the last thing that I needed to do before my Spring Break could begin. Now that it is in print, I guess that I am free sailing (falling?) toward a Friday morning arrival in Punta Cana, which is located in the Dominican Republic. In case you couldn’t tell by the name, Punta Cana isn’t exactly a place you would call “classy.” I learned this when I tasted my first anti-malaria pill.

Waiting for that trip spurred some brainstorming about the next trip that many Cavalier fans plan to take — a journey to the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.

So here’s some NCAA Tournament seeding, travel and ticketing fodder, in question-and-answer format.

What is Virginia’s expected NCAA seeding?

Look for the Cavaliers to be seeded at No. 4, 5, 6 or 7 in the NCAA Tournament. Earning a first-round by in the ACC Tournament with Saturday’s win over Georgia Tech thankfully limited Virginia’s chances for a royal screw up.

ESPN “Bracketologist” Joe Lunardi has the Cavs as the No. 4 seed in the Midwest region, playing Holy Cross (the probable Patriot League auto-bid) in the first round. Years of experience tell us, however, that Lunardi tosses scenarios against the wall and waits to see what sticks. For that reason I prefer to disregard him more often than not.

My feeling is that if the Cavaliers win four or more ACC games by Selection Sunday (which would require advancing to the ACC championship), they could be as high as a No. 3 seed. It goes without saying that this scenario is highly unlikely.

A more plausible situation for Virginia is 2-3 wins to close the year, resulting in a seed somewhere between fourth and sixth.

One or fewer ACC wins for the Cavaliers before Selection Sunday puts them at No. 7 seed. This, however, is also unlikely.

Who will they play?

A logical picture for the selection committee pits a No. 3 Georgetown squad in the same region as a No. 6 Virginia team.

Another possibility is No. 5 or No. 6 Virginia paired with in-state mid-majors Old Dominion or Virginia Commonwealth University at No. 11 or No. 12. But first, one of these teams must get in.

An ideal scenario for the selection committee (but not for Virginia) combines these two possibilities. It would pit the No. 6 Cavaliers against an in-state mid-major rival in the first-round, with No. 3 Georgetown potentially waiting in the second.

Of course, knowing the committee, all of this logic could be thrown out in favor of matching the No. 4 Cavaliers with No. 13 Oral Roberts.

Where will they play?

The bottom line is that if the Cavaliers continue to play well and earn a No. 4 or No. 5 seed, they are headed to either Spokane, Wash. or Buffalo, N.Y. Every No. 4 and No. 5 seed in this year’s tournament will play its first- and second-round games at one of those sites.

If the Cavaliers struggle to end the year and end up at No. 6 or No. 7, however, the sites vary widely.

If Virginia struggles late and receives a No. 6 or No. 7 seed, it will likely play in either Columbus or New Orleans, LA. Other less likely No. 6 and No. 7 locations are Chicago, Winston-Salem, N.C., Lexington, Ky. and Sacramento, Calif.

How can I travel to the first and second rounds?

Several locations are within driving distance; others are not. Below is current travel information. The flights (from kayak.com) assume a departure Wednesday, March 14 and a return flight Sunday, March 18.

Cheapest flights from Charlottesville: Buffalo ($563) or Chicago ($592).

Cheapest flights from Richmond: Columbus ($200), Chicago ($247) and New Orleans ($399).

Cheapest flights from Washington, DC: Chicago ($119), Buffalo ($215) and Sacramento ($418).

Shortest driving times (from Google Maps): Winston Salem (3.5 hours), Columbus (6.5 hours), and Lexington (6.5 hours).

Longest driving times: Sacramento (40 hours), Spokane (38 hours), New Orleans (14 hours), and Chicago (12 hours).

Unless you are going to pay large amounts for flights or are ok driving endlessly, hope for a No. 4 or No. 5 seed in Buffalo, a No. 6 seed in Columbus, a No. 7 seed in Chicago or a No. 7 seed in Winston-Salem.

How can I actually get tickets?

That’s obviously the tough part. There will be very limited opportunities to get tickets from U.Va. Athletics. So unless you are pretty confident with your luck, a good option is to check with any season ticket holders at Virginia or any other school playing at the site. It is also worth it to check with collegiate and professional teams who play their regular seasons there.

A final, time-tested strategy is to just head wherever Virginia is playing and attempt to get a ticket there. The tickets are sold as two-day packages. If you’re lucky, you could very well catch a fan whose team has lost and wants to sell the remainder of his ticket.

Conclusion?

That’s about all we know right now. But the tournament is coming faster than you think, so if you intend to go, stay on it over the next week and a half.

Oh, and have a great Spring Break, everybody. Please wish me luck with this whole “malaria” thing. And the typhoid. And Hepatitis A.

Punta Cana sure sounds like a nice place, huh? The next trip should be much less nerve-wracking. Except while Virginia is playing, of course.