Chalk.

To a child, the word represents nothing more than the powdery substance he or she uses to draw useless but entertaining pictures on the sidewalk. To a first-year student (or “freshman” as he or she would be called at other institutions of “higher learning”), it’s still just what high school teachers used to write on the board. But, for the rest of us, it is so much more.

Whether it’s a club seeking new members, a sorority declaring is interest in the girl who lives on the third floor or someone running for office, chalk is a preferred medium of communication. This is why rain is so much fun.

With our beautiful Grounds covered by the many different pastel colors in which chalk is available, it’s hard for an average student to feel involved.

“Who is Dan Dooley and why is he so determined to be Student Council president? What am I doing with my life? Maybe I should join the Fencing Club.”

That’s just a hypothetical example, of course. Obviously, everyone knows who Dan Dooley is. And if you don’t, then you clearly do not read the Life section as often as you should.

Another example of how some students might react to being surrounded by ambition is, “Holy crap, I’m totally useless! I’m going to end up mopping floors for the rest of my life.” [Curls up in fetal position.]

That, unlike the first example, is not just hypothetical.

As one of the top public schools, the University will not have any shortage of determined and ambitious undergraduates. They will wake up early, read the paper, drink some coffee and engage in countless other forms of adult behavior. After that, they’ll go to class and silently kill the curve in all of their classes.

There’s no doubt that these exemplary undergrads will go on to lives of upper-class glory, but what about the rest of us? I like waking up at noon, don’t care about what’s going on in the world and hate coffee. What am I supposed to do?

That question used to keep me up at night. Then I realized I’m still a kid and don’t need to worry about it for at least another year or two. Sure, I’m allowed to drive, vote and smoke, but which part of that means I’m an adult?

I still go to Chuck E. Cheese’s to win prizes and definitely giggle every time someone says “boobies.” I’m not ready to be self-sufficient and successful. Yet I hope I will gain those qualities sometime during my fourth year here, but that’s just not for me right now. I really hope I’ll stop giggling at things and develop a real laugh, too.

If there’s anything I’ve learned in my experience here at Mr. Jefferson’s University, it is this: “What am I going to do with my life?” is one of those questions a college student will never be able to answer. It’s right up there with:

–”How did this guy get a PhD?”

–”Who is that old guy in the back of my calculus class?”

–”What does Dean do to his hair to keep it so nice and shiny?”

and, my personal favorite

–”Why would anyone go to William & Mary?”

So the next time you start worrying about your future, just remind yourself that your life is still way out in front of you and there’s no hurry to go live all of it right away. Go out, get drunk and make a fool of yourself. That’s the part of your life that you’re supposed to be living right now.

OK, maybe I shouldn’t condone underage drinking, so forget that part. But still, go out, stay sober and find even better ways to make a fool of yourself. Hook up with someone you don’t know, hook up with someone you do know, get that tattoo you’ve always wanted, tell that unbelievably annoying guy you met on Move-In Day that you hate him and call everyone you knew in high school and tell them what you really thought of them. Trust me, you’ll feel better. And when that’s all over, you can graduate knowing you spent your college years doing what you loved, which had nothing to do with the major you picked.

Just promise me one thing: When you get out there in the real world, let me know how it is. I don’t think the Fencing Club will be taking new members forever.

Ed’s column runs biweekly on Fridays. He can be reched at cao@cavalierdaily.com

DEPRESSION and suicide are two issues many students do not think about on a daily basis. Others, however, cannot stop thinking about them and their effects on their lives. Whether it is the pressure of doing well in classes, making the right friends, or finding a good job, students often feel overwhelmed during their college years.

Recently, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine signed a bill requiring colleges to develop a plan for how to deal with students who demonstrate self-destructive or suicidal tendencies. This bill will require public colleges and universities to create protocols to identify, address, and help such students. In addition, it will require something that should be common sense to any school administration: that they create policies that do not penalize or expel students for attempting to commit suicide or seeking psychological treatment. This bill is a step in the right direction in the treatment of mental health issues in this country, and I hope other states will follow suit.

Since students are often afraid to seek help from their school’s counseling and psychological services, penalizing students in any way for suffering from suicidal thoughts or actions only perpetuates a cycle of intolerance and ignorance about mental health in our society. As Sarah Lyons, the President of Students for Mental Health Awareness notes, “Students should be able to feel comfortable with the idea of seeking help from their school’s counseling and psychological services, not fear suspension because their mental health problems have become an ‘undue burden.’” We, as students, should be able to rely on our community of trust for support in times of trouble, not fear expulsion in addition to our other burdens.

According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control website, suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24. In 2001, 3,971 suicides were reported in this group. The website also notes that, “Few schools and communities have suicide prevention plans that include screening, referral, and crisis intervention programs for youth.” The University, however, offers several services to students suffering from mental health issues, such as CAPS and the HELPline. These services, which range from online assessment tests to actual therapy sessions, can save students on the brink of self-destruction and change their lives forever.

Our University is ahead of the curve in the treatment of students who suffer from depression or other issues. Most schools do not have these services available to students. It is a sad reality that many people in this country do not acknowledge or admit to suffering from mental health issues, due to a stigma attached to them. When the topic of depression is mentioned, images of ink-blot tests, anti-depressant pills, and a therapist, asking, “How does that make you feel?” come to mind. This perception of mental health as something silly and over-diagnosed forces individuals who suffer from such issues to remain quiet. Many people would rather suffer for years than be labeled as mentally unstable or dangerous.

Professor Pat Wilkie believes, “While the ‘wall of silence’ about depression and similar brain disorders is slowly cracking, there is much that we can do as members of the university community to increase awareness and provide help to those in need.” Suicidal students should never be considered a burden to our administration, nor should they be looked down upon as “abnormal” or “dangerous.” Gov. Kaine’s bill will help students feel comfortable seeking the help that they need.

The All About Depression Web site notes that two-thirds of those who are depressed never seek treatment. If more states would sign bills providing assistance and support to students who suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts, fewer students would commit suicide each year. This is an obvious correlation, and there is no reason for schools to deny this logic. The fact that a bill such as this must even be written in the year 2007 is appalling. Not all individuals who suffer from mental health issues live in a padded cell with a strait-jacket. Students who suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts are all around us, sitting in class, living down the hall, even partying on Rugby Road.

Lyons and Wilkie both discovered recently that students are most likely to talk to their friends when experiencing trouble. This observation is a troubling one, which reveals that students are attempting to provide the aid that only a mental health care professional can provide. Luckily, Students for Mental Health Awareness is beginning to initiate training for all Commerce School students in order to teach them to Question, Persuade, and Refer (QPR) individuals who may be struggling with depression. This step, along with Kaine’s bill, finally acknowledges an issue that desperately needed to be addressed, and I applaud these efforts in our community.

Lindsay Huggins’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at lhuggins@cavalierdaily.com.

ON MONDAY, Maryland joined a growing number of states in a decision to ban smoking in restaurants and bars across the state. The decision prompts an interesting debate: On one side, restaurant or bar owners feel they have a right to allow an otherwise legal activity on their property. Opposing this view, some individuals feel they have a right to not be exposed to the dangers of secondhand smoke. In this situation, that right is not being violated and demand must come from the consumer rather than the government for a smoke-free environment.

The restaurant and bar owners have the most convincing argument based on the protection of rights. The owner’s establishment is the owner’s property, which is why restaurant owners can establish codes of conduct such as dress codes for their patrons. Since cigarette smoking is only illegal for minors, it stands to reason that a restaurant can allow any degree of smoking except for minors. Government regulation should only come into play if the rights of other individuals are being trounced upon by restaurant policy.

The primary motivation for regulation through state legislation is the concern for public health. In public areas, smoking is often banned to prevent the potential health risks associated with secondhand smoke. Since nonsmokers did not make the decision to expose themselves to secondhand smoke in a public situation, they should not be put at risk. The nonsmoker has the right to not suffer a threat to health imposed by a smoker in the area.

Extending this train of thought to the restaurant issue leaves out an important detail. In the restaurant setting, the customer does choose to attend a particular venue and should understand the consequences of that choice including the potential impact of the house’s smoking policy. Smoking in the restaurant is not violating a nonsmoker’s rights because the nonsmoker chose the environment by choosing a restaurant that allows smoking. The choice to smoke and the choice to attend a restaurant or bar that permits smoking are very different, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the consumer, not the state government.

The recent Jaberwoke affair provides an excellent analogy for how individuals concerned about their health should go about ensuring a safe and comfortable dining atmosphere. When the Jaberwoke dress code was released, Jaberwoke was exercising its right to set rules for people who chose to eat there. Though the motives may have been impure, nothing about the dress code was illegal. Since the consumer population vehemently expressed its opinion and nearly boycotted the restaurant, Jaberwoke was forced to rescind the undesirable dress code or to lose considerable income. Predictably, it chose to avoid losing customers and terminated the new policy.

If consumers care enough about smoking to merit a push for legislation, they should certainly care enough to avoid restaurants where smoking is pervasive. The possibility of legislation implies a significant number of voters want to see an end to smoking in restaurants and bars. Owners would then be faced with a demand for smoke-free facilities that they would meet due to the economic incentive. Smoke-free restaurants and bars would then be available as a result of consumer tastes.

Legislation may bring about the same end but does so at the expense of individuals looking for a place to smoke and owners who wish to allow smoking in their establishments. Though a good number of people would enjoy a smokeless atmosphere, some may desire an environment in which they are free to smoke. Owners should be permitted to cater to either group, or to both by establishing well-separated smoking and nonsmoking areas.

Smoking and secondhand smoke are health hazards. People who do not wish to smoke or suffer a health risk due to secondhand smoke are acting rationally. Avoiding smokers when possible and expecting laws prohibiting smoking in public areas are reasonable means of protection. This does not mean that the government has an obligation or a right to legislate on the issue. Smoking in a private restaurant should be controlled not by laws but by market forces. It is the responsibility of the consumer to demand quality services.

Jason Shore’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jshore@cavalierdaily.com.

GERMANY has seen a disturbing growth in “infanticides” in the past several years. They usually occur when a mother decides she does not want or cannot keep her newborn baby. A woman may beat or strangle her baby, or just leave it in a trash can or other random location to die of exposure. Germany developed a program a few years ago in response to the alarming growth in the number of infanticides. The program involves baby “drop-boxes,” and just in Berlin six children have been dropped off and thus saved. Now the four-year-old program is again the subject of news as Fox News reports that the German government, especially city councils, is launching a major campaign to advertise the drop-boxes and urging mothers to use them instead of resorting to murder.

Before Germany made the drop-boxes available, researcher Meral Burul told the BBC he found that at least 1,000 infants were discarded each year. If women are given this option, even if just one life is saved, it’s worth it.

Called Baby-Klappe hatches, the baby drop-boxes are “heated nest[s] in the walls of hospitals,” as described by the BBC, where mothers can anonymously leave an unwanted child.

It is an incredibly safe process, both to protect the baby and the mother’s desired anonymity. The Fox News article explains that the drop-off point is well-hidden from security cameras and under tree cover or otherwise shielded from the view of the public eye. The baby is put onto a tray, slid into the hospital, and moved gently to a heated cot. Once enough time elapses for the mother to get away, an alarm goes off so nurses learn they have a new charge.

A mother has a grace period — usually up to three months — to come back and reclaim her child. Otherwise, the baby will be put up for adoption.

The program began in 2003, but had its criticism in Parliament before the government passed the original bill, as the BBC reported at the time.

The arguments against the Baby-Klappe are similar to arguments here in the United States against emergency contraception, safe-sex education, and other solutions to helping people who make “bad” decisions, can’t handle certain consequences, or are in environments that limit the options. Fox News reports that members of the clergy and various charities think the Baby-Klappe will just encourage more women to “dump their children.”

This claim is just as ridiculous as its comparable arguments in this country. At least the prevailing majority understood that, and didn’t set unnecessary boundaries like having to be 18 or limiting accessibility. There is no reason to think that women will have more unprotected sex and then want to dump their children even more just because there is a safe option if something happened. Unfortunately, there will always be desperate women, stuck in a situation that makes getting rid of the baby seem like the only option. There will be women who choose to take that option. As long as there is even one woman who thinks that way and takes such measures, there should be some place where she can turn.

Of course preventative measures are important. No one wants women to even be in situations where they are too afraid to tell their own partners about being pregnant. It would be marvelous if no woman were incapable of caring for her child because of a lack of income, housing or employment. Ideally there would also be no woman who was just afraid or too emotionally unstable to handle caring for the child she carried to term. But of course there will be women in any one of these or other situations, and if a woman really thinks that the best option for her, the baby, or both of them is to discard her own child and she is willing to follow through, then something needs to be done.

Baby-Klappen are not supposed to just be another choice in child care, but they are the last resort. They keep the dumpster in a back alley from being the last resort.

Ashlee Wilkins’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at awilkins@cavalierdaily.com.

It began with nonsense. “Bong hits 4 Jesus,” the banner proclaimed. But the principal took it to advocate smoking marijuana, and she took the banner away from a student and punished him. Now it’s a Supreme Court case, testing the boundaries of high-school students’ freedom of speech and raising questions about character education in a free society with public schools.

Representing Principal Deborah Morse and the Juneau, Alaska, school board, Kenneth W. Starr argued that Morse had the right to discipline student Joseph Frederick for what she deemed his advocacy of drug use merely because it “disrupted” the school’s anti-drug message. Starr did not claim that the event at which the banner was unfurled — an Olympic Torch relay — was focused on that message. Rather, he argued that Frederick’s message disrupted the school’s message simply by disagreeing with it and violating a school-board policy against pro-drug speech. The school’s message was that illegal drugs are bad — and because of the importance of this message, according to Starr’s main brief, messages contrary to it did not have to be tolerated at school-sponsored activities. (The connection between the school and the torch relay is weak enough that a decision supporting Frederick’s punishment would undermine the constitutional protection of a wide range of student speech off school grounds.)

Oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court last week, and a transcript, some highlights of which follow, is available on the court’s website.

Starr did not ask the court to overturn its ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines School District, in which it famously said that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” but that disruptive speech could still be punished. Instead, he argued that disruption need not be disruption of the orderliness necessary for teaching and learning: Disrupting an anti-drug message by encouraging drug use could count too.

But if disrupting a school’s anti-drug message by disagreeing with it can be punished, what about disagreeing with other messages a school may endorse? Suppose, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, a school has a pro-war message — can it prohibit anti-war expression, such as the black armband John Tinker wore back in 1965 to protest the Vietnam War? No, said Starr: That is political speech. But “Bong hits 4 Jesus” was — or at least the principal thought it was, which was good enough for Starr — “an encouragement of the drug culture.”

But as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, school districts take positions on a wide variety of political questions. Drug use can be distinguished from these in that encouraging the use of illegal drugs is not the same as supporting a change in the law to make them legal. But according to Starr’s main brief, the “basic educational mission” that the suppression of Frederick’s speech supported was that of “promoting a healthy, drug-free lifestyle.” And schools take a wide variety of positions on the lifestyles students ought to embrace.

Suppose a school takes the position that teenagers ought not to have sex. It might claim that a student who tells his friends about methods to prevent pregnancy and disease while being sexually active disrupts its “basic educational mission” of promoting a healthy, moral, sexually abstinent lifestyle. Or suppose a school board believes that condemning premarital sex as immoral is unhealthy. That board might claim that a student who advocates abstinence on moral grounds disrupts its “basic educational mission” of promoting a healthy attitude toward sex.

Freedom to discuss important personal choices is almost as important as freedom to discuss political questions — perhaps more important, especially in high schools, most of whose students are not allowed to vote but do have to make important choices about the kinds of lives they want to live.

High schools have a legitimate role in character education, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, and it is reasonable for them to teach their views on drugs, sex and other matters of morality. But in a free society, character education must have as its overriding goal helping students develop as free, responsible men and women. Being free and responsible means considering the reasons for one’s choices, not adopting unthinkingly every aspect of the way of life prescribed by the local school board. It means being willing and able to state one’s views and defend the choices one has made. And it means knowing one’s rights and knowing that a free society will respect them.

As silly as Frederick’s banner was, he did get one thing right. According to his lawyer’s brief, when Morse confronted him, he quoted Mr. Jefferson on free speech. The principal doubled his suspension. And that sent a message far more disruptive than any banner Frederick could have held.

Alexander R. Cohen’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at acohen@cavalierdaily.com.

The Virginia softball team has another chance this weekend to capitalize on midweek momentum as it faces Boston College in a three-game ACC series at The Park.

Last week, the Cavaliers (11-22, 0-6 ACC) swept Radford in a doubleheader but were unable to apply those wins to the field against Maryland. Yesterday, the Cavaliers came up with a 6-5 win against James Madison in the first game of their doubleheader. The second game was called due to darkness in the middle of the fourth inning, tied at 1-1.

Senior pitcher Coty Tolar threw a complete game and picked up the win to move to 5-7 on the season. Senior catcher Michelle Salmiery and freshman right fielder Sarah Tacke both went three for four and had one run batted in. Sophomore Kierstie Cameron went one for three, with two RBIs.

“All of us tried to do well in every aspect of the game,” Salmiery said. “We tried to take that next step in improving.”

Timely hits were another key for the Cavaliers’ victory.

Boston College (1-11, 0-3) is one of the weaker teams in the conference. They won against Holy Cross in a doubleheader yesterday, but lost all three games to ACC rival North Carolina by scores of 9-4, 1-0 and 3-2. Compared to Virginia’s series with the Tar Heels in which the Cavaliers were swept 3-1, 10-2 and 9-0, it looks like this series against the Eagles could be an interesting one.

“We’re looking forward to it,” Salmiery said. “We’ve been doing lots of things in practice so we’re looking forward to execute what we’re doing in practice against another ACC team.”

Boston College is led in the circle and at the plate by senior pitcher Britney Thompson. Thompson is 1-2 on the year with a 6.67 ERA and a .419 batting average, with nine RBIs. The rest of the Boston College pitching staff is a combined 0-6 with an average ERA of 39.2.

Despite having only one win on the year, the Eagles do have three other players who have batting averages over .300 in junior utility player Carley McNary (.345), senior utility player Ashley Obrest (.321) and freshman catcher Amy Tunstall (.308) (stats as of March 15).

Virginia’s freshman first baseman, Kelly Haller, continues to be easily the most efficient hitter on the team, with a batting average of .427 and 30 RBIs. Senior designated hitter Brooke Sorber maintains a steady batting average of .314.

Even though Tolar’s 6.25 ERA is the second-highest on the team, she has the best record of 5-7. Freshman Nicole Koren, following the same model, has the best ERA on the team, of 5.54, but is 0-6. Sophomore Karla Wilburn falls in the middle of the pack with a 5.97 ERA and a record of 6-9.

The Cavaliers are hoping that their victory against James Madison translates better to this weekend than the Radford sweep did last weekend.

“We just need to build upon the positive things we do,” Salmiery said. “These midweek games give us the opportunity to do that.”

It will be necessary for Virginia’s pitching staff to improve for success in the ACC.

“We have to play good defense and get better pitching in the ACC,” said coach Karen Johns. “[The Eagles] had unfortunate weather at the places they’ve played. They haven’t had a lot of opportunities to play and we need to take advantage of that.”

Virginia’s doubleheader begins Saturday at 1 p.m., and Sunday’s game is also slated for 1 p.m.

Thanks to a victory over the Hokies, the Virginia men’s tennis team heads into a crucial weekend of tough Atlantic Coast Conference matchups with some momentum.

Coming off an impressive outing against No. 39 Virginia Tech (10-6, 1-4 ACC), the No. 2 Cavaliers (17-3, 5-0 ACC) look to continue their surge through the ACC standings against Clemson and Georgia Tech this weekend, respectively ranked No. 26 and No. 46 nationally.

Despite their undefeated record in conference play, the players appreciate the challenge every conference foe poses.

“I think every ACC team can give a challenge,” freshman Dominic Inglot said. “The only way we can nullify that challenge is if we really knuckle down. I know that this team is strong enough, that if everyone focuses and concentrates I know we can win those matches. It’ll be a challenge, but if we stay strong, I don’t think it’ll be a problem.”

Inglot’s solid play as a freshman has been a large part of the Cavaliers’ early season successes, and though they have suffered in recent matches, he is confident he has found his game again.

“It’s definitely on the turnaround,” Inglot said. “The courts are slower outdoors and it’s a little windier and it’s a little more difficult for someone like me who plays serve volley. I’ve put in some real good work with the coaches and I feel like I’m on the up again.”

With three singles players ranked nationally along with two of their doubles teams, the men’s team is eyeing an undefeated run through a very difficult ACC schedule and remains positive about every match.

“I’m hoping that [our chances] are very high and you never know,” freshman Houston Barrick said. “Every team is great. Every day we go out and play a top-30 team, so it’s tough. Hopefully, if things fall our way, we’ll be in good shape.”

Having such impressive national rankings, along with their recent five-match winning streak, has given the players a mental toughness and an edge over their upcoming opponents.

“Other players want to beat ranked players to get themselves ranked as well,” Inglot said. “But they know coming into a match against a ranked player, other than the desire to beat me, is that I have beaten ranked players and it puts a little bit of pressure on them. It gives you that little edge in the game and as long as you don’t take things for granted, you should be fine.”

Success in the regular season often equates to a successful postseason, and the men’s team finds itself struggling with the temptation to begin thinking of what will hopefully be a deep run into the postseason.

“That [postseason] is always in the back of our minds, but we have to focus on the regular season right now,” Barrick said. “Hopefully on Friday it’ll be a good atmosphere out there. For this match I’d say Boar’s Head, but hopefully that’ll change.”

With Clemson and Georgia Tech coming to town, fans of the men’s tennis team hope they can say “seven-match win streak” come Monday morning.

Let me start by saying that I’m ashamed. And because you probably weren’t at Davenport Field Wednesday for the Cavaliers’ contest against Longwood, odds are you have no idea why I’m so upset.

Sitting in the bleachers at Davenport, watching Virginia baseball struggle against the Lancers, I felt ashamed to be a Virginia fan. I was embarrassed to be in the Virginia crowd and not in Longwood’s.

About 25 Longwood students, known as the Lancer Lunatics, sat above the Longwood dugout, screaming loud enough to fill Davenport for the whole game.

The Lancer Lunatics, much like our Hoo Crew, supports all of its school’s athletics. But they travel, too — and they do it well.

They wore sundresses and plaid shorts, either to mock us, or because that’s what they wear at Longwood –- I don’t actually know.

But the Lancers came to play Wednesday, and so did their fans. The Lunatics easily out-shouted the larger Virginia crowd and created a raucous atmosphere I had not before seen at Davenport.

When asked if he had ever seen such a strong visiting crowd at a game, senior outfielder Brandon Marsh replied, “Never.” He continued, “I’ve never thought about getting heckled in my own stadium. It made it a lot tougher playing in a home atmosphere.”

Simply put, Virginia fans weren’t there for their Cavalier ballplayers Wednesday — unlike our opponents’ fans.

Virginia had to do every little thing on its own against Longwood. There was no roaring crowd to get behind the players like there was last weekend against Miami.

But Virginia still got it done.

“Our dugout was fired up from about the third inning on,” O’Connor said.

Longwood tagged junior Pat McAnaney for three runs in the first three innings to jump out to a 3-0 lead. The Lancer Lunatics’ cry was undeniable.

But where were the Virginia fans when junior Michael Schwimer got the bases-loaded strikeout in the sixth inning and then escaped the inning unscathed?

Where were they when senior outfielder Tim Henry lay down the squeeze bunt to bring across junior Patrick Wingfield for the first Virginia run of the game?

Where were they when junior Sean Doolittle took a pitch from Longwood senior pitcher Brian McCullough and sent it deep over the right field wall?

The Lancer Lunatics were there. They were there in the ninth inning when Virginia junior reliever Jake Rule threw the ball into center field on a play to second, putting a Longwood runner in scoring position.

But where were the Hoos when O’Connor brought in senior closer Casey Lambert with the bases loaded and one out in the ninth inning? I finally heard some cheering after he struck out the only two batters he faced.

And I think I heard a little bit more in the bottom of the ninth when senior Brandon Marsh brought around freshman Tyler Cannon to win the game 4-3 in exhilarating fashion.

I’ve got to hand it to Virginia. The Cavaliers have plenty of composure. They play well under pressure. But why do they have to? Why did they look at this game like it was a road game?

The attendance was listed as 1,190 — and that’s pushing it. The lackluster Virginia faithful showed up in meager numbers, which isn’t surprising for midweek games. They’re often lopsided and long, and sometimes Virginia scores up to 29 runs in one day.

But that doesn’t mean we can take them for granted. Baseball season doesn’t run only Friday through Sunday.

This leaves me wondering: What are we doing if we can’t even get a positive crowd at our own home games for a team ranked No. 5 in the country?

Virginia basketball is over. And by no means does it mean there’s nowhere left for Wahoo fans to go. Baseball is the sport to support and plenty of people are looking for it to grow.

“I think there are enough people, now that our baseball team is good, that would like to come and have a section to make [the game] a little louder and more supportive of the team,” second-year College student Taylor Burrow said.

I’m not asking for JPJ or Scott Stadium crowds to show up at Davenport. The stadium only holds about 3,000 people. So all we really need is 50 organized, loud, raucous students.

“I wish we had 25 students like their 25 students,” O’Connor said. “Those guys were wearing me out.”

As for now, it’s nice to know the Cavaliers can still win when we’re not there. They’ll have plenty of experience with that, not returning for a game at Davenport until April 6. Maybe by then things will be a little different in Charlottesville.

Today, the Virginia baseball team will travel to face the Virginia Tech Hokies in a three-game series as part of the Commonwealth Challenge at English Field in Blacksburg.

This week, Virginia (24-5, 5-4 ACC) collected two wins, flooring George Mason 17-6 Tuesday before a tight victory against top-ranked Longwood, 4-3, Wednesday.

The Cavaliers brought in eight runs during the first inning Tuesday, but had to rally from an early 3-0 deficit for Wednesday’s win.

“[The Longwood game] showed the depth of our bullpen,” Virginia coach O’Connor said. “We can use five guys out of our bullpen, they didn’t all pitch lights out, but they did the job, held the game in check and made big pitches.”

After senior Casey Lambert pitched out of a bases-loaded, one-out corner at the top of the ninth, senior out-fielder Brandon Marsh came through deep in the ninth with the single score to freshman Tyler Cannon that pushed Virginia to a victory.

“[Lambert has] got his really good stuff going,” O’Connor said. “He has for a few weeks, now. He’s very sharp. His breaking ball is very tight on rotation. You’d like to feel that your Friday night starter is a guy that can pitch deep in to ball games.”

O’Connor also said that Rule and Lambert should be ready to go Friday and Schwimer and Carraway Saturday against Virginia Tech.Reputation aside, the Hokies are 15-11 overall and 4-5 in the ACC. They are eager to prove critics wrong and move out of the middle of the ACC.

Nate Parks leads the Hokies in hitting with a .336 batting average, and Sean O’Brien closely follows at .323. Coach Pete Hughes faces the Cavaliers in his first season as a Hokie, after spending the past 12 years of his career at Boston College, where he posted a 250-181-2 mark.

Though Virginia has lead the all-time series with Tech, 76-72 with six consecutive wins dating back to 2003, the series remains crucial for the Cavaliers in the Commonwealth Challenge.

Virginia faces a different breed of competition this weekend than that of Miami or UNC.

“It’s going to be a tough series,” O’Connor said. “It’s obviously our in-state rival, and they’ve been playing very good baseball. They’ve got confidence in themselves and we’ve got to come down and play good baseball. The plan is the same: clutch hits, execute, have good starting pitching, and if we can pitch deep in to ball games, I like our chances.”

As for the Cavaliers, the story is in the bullpen. Virginia’s roster includes a strong lineup of relief pitchers.

“There aren’t many words that can describe what our bullpen has done this year,” Lambert said. “We have the confidence going in that if our starter has a rough day, we have three or four guys that can come out of the pen and keep our team in the game.”

Lambert has pitched dominantly during the last few games, including his performance against Longwood.

“I don’t know what it is,” Lambert said. “I’m feeling good knowing that my team has confidence in me. ”

Lambert noted the reinforcement he receives from not only the entire team, but the coaching staff, as well.

Hitting averages have experienced a slight shift downward, but the team still manages to do what is needed to bag wins and have energy stored from the game Wednesday.

A win in the series will result in the Cavalier’s 25th overall win and add a point to Virginia’s tally in the Challenge.