Following an athletic department announcement at the beginning of the year banning signs from sporting events, University students staged a protest against the policy at Saturday’s football game.
An e-mail was sent to ‘Hoo Crew members early Friday morning containing a message from an anonymous source urging students to participate.
“As many of you have heard,” the message read, “The Athletic Department recently instituted a sign prohibition for all athletic events. This announcement has recently garnered national attention portraying U.Va. in a very negative light. Many are outraged. We ask that you be a part of the solution.”
Several locations around Grounds were listed where blank sheets of paper would be distributed to students. At each location was a set of directions instructing students to raise the blank sheets of paper at the 5- and 10-minute marks of each quarter.
The sign-banning policy has upset many students in recent weeks and has received national media attention, including an article by ESPN sports reporter Rick Reilly that served as a source of inspiration for the protest.
“Here’s what Virginia students should do for every home game from now on: Bring signs that say nothing,” Reilly wrote. “Bring signs that say, ‘This Is Not a Sign.’ Or bring 60,00 [sic] signs and let the athletic department goons try to sort them out. Because sometimes rebellion isn’t just a good thing. It’s the only thing.”
Fourth-Year College student Blaire Hawkins, who helped organize the protest, said she saw Reilly’s article as the call to action for University students.
“People were already upset,” Hawkins said, “and then to see such a … public reaction is what finally pushed us to try to do something.”
‘Hoo Crew president Kevin Dowlen said he received an e-mail regarding the protest at about midnight Thursday. He chose to make the rest of the ‘Hoo Crew aware of the protest because he felt students should be informed about the controversy surrounding the new policy.
“I [thought it] would be good to galvanize the whole student body and make them aware of [Reilly’s] article that doesn’t portray us in positive light,” Dowlen said. “It’s important for students to see that so they can try to take a stand against it.”
University spokesperson Carol Wood said the policy is only intended to promote sportsmanship and a positive gameday environment.
“As part of the University’s commitment to sportsmanship, we annually examine ways to improve our efforts in this area,” Wood said. “It is our hope that these recent changes will encourage true sportsmanship in the stands and add to gameday enjoyment of all fans and guests of the University.”
Dowlen, however, said signs add to the game-day environment.
“[The athletic department] talks about ‘gameday atmosphere’ until they get blue in the face,” Dowlen said, “But signs enhance the gameday atmosphere.”
Fourth-year College student Alexander Neal, who attended Saturday’s game, said the policy should be revoked because he believes signs can be an effective and positive way for students to express themselves at athletic events.
“Craig Littlepage and Al Groh should work to promote a festive and positive game day environment,” Neal said, including the allowance of signs.
Rich Murray, associate athletics director for public relations, however, said the athletic department had no comment, other than to reiterate the policy stating all banners, signs and flags are prohibited in University athletics venues.
Meanwhile, the discussion moved beyond just students and the administration this weekend as a number of alumni present at the game were equally dismayed with the new policy.
“It’s disgraceful,” 1986 Engineering alumnus George Ax said. “They’re taking the fun out of the game.”
Ax also recalled the more lax athletic policies in place when he was a student, referencing the fact that “even the school-sanctioned Pep Band made jokes about the other team” and was not reprimanded.
1997 Engineering alumnus Joe Pedersen said the signs are all in good fun.
“Some might be in bad taste, but the majority are clever,” he said. “Whatever happened to free speech?”
Pedersen also suggested the sign ban contradicts some of the University’s founding principles, noting the University prides itself on the prevalence of student self-governance. Students are considered responsible enough to preside over the honor code and hold trials for fellow students, Pedersen said, “but now you’re not responsible enough to make [appropriate] signs?”
As the debate continues, Student Council President Matt Schrimper said student protest against the policy will continue until the issue is resolved and noted that Student Council plans to become more involved in the issue.
Student Council has been in touch with the athletic department, Schrimper said, and a meeting between the two organizations to seek a resolution will be scheduled in the near future.
“If we can’t have a resolution with the athletic department,” Schrimper said, “then we’ll continue to find other ways to address the situation through alternative methods,” including repeating Saturday’s protest at future games.
Schrimper said the policy has a deeper significance than simply the banning of signs.
“I think we all agree that it’s part of a larger issue of First Amendment rights and free speech,” Schrimper said, “Especially at Mr. Jefferson’s University.”
As for Saturday’s protest, Hawkins said she was pleased with the outcome.
“I was really thrilled to see how many participated,” she said. “The visual was very powerful and not something that can be easily ignored.”
Editor’s Note: One of the organizers of the protest, Zach Rowen, is a Cavalier Daily sports columnist.

The Inter-Sorority Council is reviewing its judicial structure this semester, with the goal of making the judicial system more mediation-based rather than trial-based.
Though the ISC currently has a judicial branch, ISC president Stuart Berkeley said, in recent years it has become less active — a problem she attributed to its structure.
“This might be a more approachable and appropriate way to deal with issues affecting sorority women,” Berkeley said of a revised, mediation-based system. “More specifically, we’ll first [attempt] mediation, and if we can’t figure it out, we still have judicial hearings in our bylaws.”
The possibility of making changes to the judicial system has been a topic of discussion within the ISC for quite some time, Berkeley said.
“We have talked since last spring about the judicial system, and then preliminary work was done this summer,” Berkeley said. “We will have a vote from our representatives in the coming weeks, once we have [a] presentation on what we worked on over the course of the summer.”
If the representatives vote in favor of the changes, Berkeley said, the ISC’s judicial structure will be unique.  
“Within the national regulations … it’s mandated that when mediation occurs, it should be by unbiased administrators within the school,” Berkeley said. “We have fought to make sure that we maintain the spirit of self-governance, so our mediators will be students, which is unheard of within sororities nationwide.”
Berkeley said she hopes to have representatives from each sorority within the ISC serve as mediators. In order to determine the best course of action for developing such a program, Berkeley said, the ISC has been working closely with University Mediation Services.
“We have relied on University Mediation Services to [help us] look at documents and try to figure out what we want,” Berkeley said.
UMS coordinator Lauren Catlett said UMS is working with the ISC to develop a training session for sorority members chosen as mediation representatives.
“We haven’t worked out all of the details yet,” Catlett said, “but it will probably be co-run by [UMS] mediators and our community partners.”
Catlett said this collaboration with the ISC falls under the educational aspect of UMS, which also offers educational workshops to other groups and individuals.
“We have our [mediation] structure in place already [so] we can help them build theirs,” Catlett said.
Catlett said mediation is often a good route to take for conflict resolution because it allows students to work through problems without the intimidating possibility of punishment.
“A lot of conflicts deal with miscommunication, and mediation gives people a chance to put their side of the story out there on equal playing fields without the threat of some sort of punishment,” Catlett said. “You can end up with a more appropriate solution to the conflict … and it empowers the individuals involved.”
ISC mediation training is tentatively planned for November, Berkeley said, adding that she hopes to have the entire program up and running by January.

The American Political Science Association recently held a conference during which scholars discussed the merits of American politics as a field of study and considered the possibility of abolishing the field altogether.
APSA Executive Director Michael Brintnall said he did not believe this discussion implied that the field should be abolished in a literal sense, but rather that the scope of American politics should be broadened to include a wider range of world views. Brintnall said politics professors David Mayhew, from Yale University, and Mary Hawkesworth, from Rutgers University, led this forum discussion, which also featured Rogers Smith and Anne Norton from the University of Pennsylvania.
“I suppose the single most significant reason the conversation occurs is whether American politics is thought of often enough in the larger context of the world as a whole,” Brintnall said. “How do we assure ourselves … we don’t end up thinking or appearing to tell students that events in the world have no relevance to American politics or American politics is not relevant to understanding things in the rest of the world.”
Brintnall said while some scholars suggest the field of American politics is too narrow and focuses too little on the politics of the rest of the world, defenders of the status quo argue that it is important for students to understand politics as it affects them and how it surrounds them.
Smith said each professor involved in the discussion suggested different ideas about the field of American politics.
Hawkesworth, Smith said, suggested that focusing on American politics without comparing it to global political and economic structures could contribute to accounts of American exceptionalism.
“She thought teaching American politics as a separate field had some damaging intellectual consequences,” Smith said.
Norton, meanwhile, against the preservation of American politics as a subfield, Smith said, while Mayhew defended American politics, claiming that America is a significant world power and deserves considerable attention.
Smith said his view is that the structure of political science as a whole needs to be revised “to focus on the kinds of problems and issues [significant] in the 21st century.”
Though there are currently no plans to discontinue study of American politics here at the University, American Politics Prof. David O’Brien also emphasized the need to broaden the perspective of American politics.
“I think it is true that in the last decade … it seems like race, gender and public opinion have ridden to the forefront of American politics,” O’Brien said. “I think it is important for American politics people not to limit themselves but to look globally and internationally in their writing, research and even teaching.”

The voter registration code of Virginia has become a hot topic of debate among college students and young voters in the commonwealth following an August press release from the Montgomery County registrar.
Though Montgomery County Registrar Randy Wertz’s Aug. 25 press release intended to clarify the Virginia Voter Registration Code for college students in Montgomery County, the release caused confusion and was later revised.
The press release stated, “The Code of Virginia states that a student must declare a legal residence in order to register. A legal residence can be either a student’s permanent address from home or their current college residence. By making Montgomery County your permanent residence, you have declared your independence from your parents and can no longer be claimed as a dependent on their income tax filings — check with your tax professional. If you have a scholarship attached to your former residence, you could lose this funding. And, if you change your registration to Montgomery County, Virginia Code requires you to change your driver’s license and car registration to your present address within 30 days.”
Wertz said he issued the release in part because of misinformation related to voting that was being spread around the Virginia Tech campus.
“For example [the campaigns on campus] were telling students not to vote [by] absentee ballots,” Wertz said. “The students were being misinformed on a lot of issues, so I decided to send out a press release to take out from the code the issues that they needed to consider for residency.”
Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, said he thought Wertz made an incorrect move by issuing the press release.
“The Montgomery County registrar was dead wrong,” Willis said, adding that contrary to Wertz’s statement, students should be able chose their own primary address without fear of any consequences.
“Voting is a right,” Willis said, “And it should be easy, and we should be doing everything we can to encourage people to participate in our democracy.”
If students feel more connected to the community in which they attend college, they ought to be able to vote there, Willis said.
“We’ve reacted to this [by] trying to get the message out to people doing voter registration work around the state, as well as students across the state, to contact us if they run into problems while trying to register to vote.”
Willis explained that the controversy surrounding Wertz’s comments related to the Virginia Voter Registration Code are nothing new.
In fact, for the past eight years, Willis said the ACLU of Virginia has addressed incidents around the commonwealth pertaining to registrars, like Wertz, who the organization believed were preventing, rather than encouraging, voter registration.
“The state code states that one of the purposes of being a registrar is to encourage individuals to register and to vote,” Willis said. “By creating obstacles for students, registrars are doing the opposite of what they’re supposed to do.”
Much of the controversy with the code, Willis said, is due to the fact that it is not clear — especially in terms of the issue of domicile, or where college students identify their central place of residency, as this determines where they will vote.
“In the end there’s a nuance here [because] students live in more than one place,” Willis said. “They should simply be able to make the choice of which is their primary place [of residency].”
In Charlottesville, Registrar Sheri Iachetta said she also believes it is up to the student to choose where he or she wants to register to vote.
“We don’t question their decisions.” Iachetta said. “If they want to register to vote, we let them. We are always students’ advocates and always will be.”
The City of Charlottesville is dedicated to treating University students like young adults, Iachetta said.
“We don’t question their decisions,” she said. “If they want to register to vote, we let them. We don’t ask any questions.”
Since becoming registrar 10 years ago, Iachetta said she has been a proponent of making the code more specific and clear to promote consistency among Virginia registrar offices.
“I think that if they’re going to want any consistency across the state then the [code] is going to need to be defined much more specifically,” Iachetta said. “Because, right now, it’s open for interpretation and its being interpreted very differently.”
Iachetta added that if the code is changed, she wants it to be changed in a way that will be beneficial to students looking to register in the commonwealth.
“I’m hoping if the definition does get changed or tightened that it’s going to be tightened pro-students,” she said.
For the time being, Iachetta said she has no plans to change the way she interprets the code or to discourage students from registering to vote in Charlottesville.
“Until the General Assembly makes [the code] much more specific, I’m going to continue what I’m doing,” she said, “Because I believe it’s the right thing.”

Students in the Jefferson Fellows and the Jefferson Scholars programs are organizing a forum about health care and the 21st-century “good Samaritan” this fall to foster conversation across various disciplines.
The Jefferson Fellows Forum for Interdisciplinary Dialogue will take place Sept. 27 at the Miller Center of Public Affairs and will be a “day-long event meant to bring speakers together from various departments from across the University,” Jefferson Fellow Rachael Beaton said.
The goal is to expose connections among disciplines that at first glance may seem to be completely unrelated, Beaton said, thereby uniting the University.
“We think it’s important because it is easy to feel a divide between the humanities, social science[s] and hard science[s],” Beaton said. “When you view these fields in a different light, you can see how similar they are and how there really isn’t a divide between them.”
The idea to organize such a program was proposed several years ago, Beaton explained, but this is the first year the Jefferson Fellows and Jefferson Scholars have been able to fully organize and present the forum.
“This was an idea completely hatched by the Fellows themselves,” Graduate Fellowship Program Director Doug Trout said. “The idea was that every year they would come up with a broad discussion piece and then invite different members of the University to come and discuss the broad topic.”
The inaugural forum will feature three panels and one keynote speaker, Trout said, noting that “this year’s topic is at the heart of academics, both at the University and across the country.”
According to Trout, the Jefferson Scholars and Jefferson Fellows hope to make this forum an annual University event.
“The Fellows are trying to lead the way of promoting [interdisciplinary] discussions of this type,” Trout said, noting the Jefferson Scholars and Fellows are hoping to tie together the academic world with the “real world.”
“There are issues here that need to be discussed,” Trout said, “and hopefully we can provide the forum to do it.”

The Honor Committee approved a bylaw at last night’s meeting limiting the number of days an accused student has to request a change in the type of jury hearing his or her case.
Under the new bylaw, if the accused would like to change the type of jury panel, he or she must submit a request in writing to the vice chair for trials at least 14 days before the trial date. Previously, there was no regulation stating until what point accused students could request a change in the jury panel.
Committee Chair Jess Huang said the change was necessary to ensure the accused would still have a fair and balanced jury if he or she requested a different jury panel.
“We really need advance notification,” Huang said. “It’s just not feasible to change the composition of someone’s jury a week in advance.”
Accused students can choose to have their cases heard by a jury panel comprised of Committee members and randomly chosen students, a panel of Committee members only or a panel of only randomly selected students.
Huang noted, however, that if the accused requests a change in the type of jury with less than 14 days until the trial date, the Committee will make an effort to accommodate the student’s request.
“We can always go above and beyond what we have in our bylaws,” Huang said. “If it’s feasible and it’s something we can do, we will absolutely try.”
The bylaw passed with 21 in favor and one abstention.

The University athletic department has so far chosen to respond to the mounting criticism of its ban on flags, banners and signs at athletic events — which included one of the most massive student protests in recent history — with nothing more than a “no comment.” Student leaders and other concerned students should continue to pressure it publicly until the unnecessary and unpopular decision is revoked.
In announcing the ban, the athletic department demonstrated a disregard for student opinion by sneaking the new policy into an e-mail about an unrelated topic. Even worse, the athletic department did not consult either the ‘Hoo Crew or Student Council — two groups who could reasonably be expected to communicate students’ views — before coming to the decision to ban these items. Given the controversy that erupted last year over the confiscation of then third-year Engineering student David Becker’s “Fire Groh” sign, the athletic department should have anticipated students’ reaction and talked it over with them first. Students would have said it was a bad idea.
Since the ban was announced, the ‘Hoo Crew has been disappointingly uninvolved in the opposition. ‘Hoo Crew President Kevin Dowlen said the group has not yet voiced students’ dissatisfaction with the policy to the athletic department. If ‘Hoo Crew sees its mission as facilitating student support for University athletics and thinks the ban on signs has hindered that support, it should voice that concern to the athletic department.
Instead, Student Council plans to get involved. Athletics director Craig Littlepage has agreed to meet with Council, according to Council President Matt Schrimper. Schrimper hopes to involve the organizers of Saturday’s protest and the Student Athlete Advisory Committee in the meeting as well. The athletic department was unresponsive at first, Schrimper said, but has become more open to the idea of talking seriously with Council.
The problem with negotiating with the athletic department is that it does not have a strong incentive to respond to students’ concerns. Very little of the department’s money comes from students. Students do not pay to attend games, and a threat of a boycott does not seem credible.
The athletic department is hugely concerned, however, with its public image, which is why protests like Saturday’s blank signs are particularly effective in pressuring it. When students unite to show their disapproval in a way that is noticeable on national television, the athletic department needs to pay attention. National media attention — whether it’s a Rick Reilly column or a play-by-play announcer pointing out a student section full of white signs — will encourage the athletic department to reconsider its policy.
The issue is somewhat trivial. While it is a suppression of students’ rights, the right to spell out E-S-P-N  while proclaiming the Wahoos’ superiority ranks low on the totem pole. The athletic department, however, should exist to serve students, including the teams they cheer, and its policies should reflect student preferences when possible. We hope the athletic department comes to its senses and does what almost every interested student wants it to: lift the ban. But if the problem is not solved before the next home game, Schrimper is right to encourage further public protests.

IT’S BACK to the basics. With much of the economy in a tailspin and commodity prices soaring, Americans are once again finding themselves having to brush up on their fundamental economics, and more carefully scrutinize the platforms of their local and national politicians.
The economy won’t fully recover anytime soon, but a few short-term fixes put in place were fairly uncontroversial. The fiscal stimulus packages found bipartisan and — how surprising — public support. Other government actions have caused more heated debate, such as the practice of bailing out financial institutions along the lines of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On the other hand, there are some solutions that should not be so contentious, but are nonetheless. The most pressing example in this category is, arguably, balancing short-term gasoline price hikes with a comprehensive, long-term national energy plan. To confront this challenge, Americans should demand that the 110th Congress put away tired partisan talking points and truly engage themselves with finding a viable solution to this problem.
As the House and Senate reconvene following their August recess, a good starting point for the latter would be to schedule substantive debate over the New Energy Reform Act of 2008. The legislation, brokered by a group of Republicans and Democrats dubbing themselves the “Gang of 10,” addresses many of the critical questions raised by the current energy crisis. The details will require some fine-tuning to be sure, but the plan’s tenets are solid.
The first and undoubtedly most controversial aspect of the measure is that it proposes to lift the ban on offshore drilling for large parts of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. States could consent to drilling taking place more than fifty miles offshore. Though this is the legislation most likely to infuriate environmental groups and vilify the GOP, it is also the most crucial medium-term step in securing our energy needs for the future.
The basic liberal case against expanded drilling is two-fold. First it is that we cannot afford to sacrifice more of our environment in the name of oil, and second, that drilling will only delay taking genuine steps towards implementing the alternative sources that must be found.
The Democrats are correct here to a certain extent: The government needs to strictly enforce environmental standards on oil companies who seek drilling leases as well as make some key investments into alternative fuels research. This second point needs to be fleshed out and discussed on Senate and House floors sooner rather than later. Still, it is unwise to think that offshore drilling will be a major disincentive for private companies to invest in research seeking substitutes for oil and natural gas. Being ahead of the game and out in front of the competition is what business is all about. The Democrats are right to question if Republicans will use increased drilling as an excuse to ignore long-term planning, but it is precisely their job to press the issue in the future — not to cut off all shorter-term proposals. This kind of disciplined rationality and foresight could make Congress remarkably more effective, not to mention popular.
The other claims against offshore drilling are rather superficial. Some claim it will not deliver oil to the market for several years at best. True, but that same argument was made during oil shortages of the 1970s. Furthermore, the notion of a stable oil source in the future might have some impact on prices today. Critics are right to point out that oil operates in an international market and that revved up domestic production will not be significant enough to remake the global energy scene. Yet at the same time, advances in search and recovery technology have some oil companies estimating that unproven reserves might be much higher than government estimates. These companies aren’t evil; they are simply market-driven. If it’s financially practical to recover the oil, they will do so as quickly as possible.
And on the environmental front, if America neglects to take advantage of its own oil reserves, foreign producers will step in to fill the void as much as possible. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded in May that Saudi Arabia ramp up production by a million barrels a day. In essence, we are simply outsourcing our environmental damage to other parts of the world. Because the U.S. has much better technology and far more rigorous environmental standards than most developing countries, the overall impact of this noble goal is actually a negative in terms of protecting our planet. Syndicated columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer eloquently argued this very point in an August column.
In exchange for expanded drilling, the Gang of 10 proposal cedes ground to Democrats in several ways. It keeps the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge off-limits and repeals the tax breaks given to oil companies in leaner years. It also promotes strong conservation and new, cleaner technologies. After all, politics is supposed to be all about compromise. Instead of wasting our time chasing after energy speculators or other equally faultless parties, let’s accept market mechanisms for what they are and go from there. You know, it might not hurt Congress to brush up on some basic economics either.
Ross Lawrence is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. He can be reached at r.lawrence@cavalierdaily.com.

What a difference a week makes. The Virginia men’s soccer team erased its painful memories of its first two games by collecting two victories this weekend.
The Cavaliers left Fairfax Friday night with a thrilling 3-2 double-overtime, come-from-behind victory over George Mason and then blew past Hofstra 4-2 Sunday evening at Klöckner Stadium in a game that saw plenty of action.
Freshman midfielder Tony Tchani scored two first-half goals Sunday, effectively putting Hofstra away early on. Freshman defender Hunter Jumper and sophomore midfielder Jimmy Simpson each added two assists for Virginia. The Cavaliers now stand at 2-2 on the season.
“We created a ton of chances,” Virginia coach George Gelnovatch said. “We’re still young and we need to work on finishing our shots.”
Tchani got the game off to a brilliant start for the Cavaliers when his free kick attempt cleverly found its way around a wall of Hofstra defenders and just beat Pride sophomore goalkeeper James Winters to the far left side of the net. Tchani’s goal was the first of his career and gave Virginia a 1-0 lead less than five minutes into the game.
Tchani added his second ­— and Virginia’s second — goal of the game less than five minutes later. Tchani received a pass from Jumper about 12 yards in front of Hofstra’s goal and effortlessly kicked the ball into the far corner of the goal. Simpson assisted on Tchani’s second tally, which put Hofstra in a deep hole early in the contest.
“Tony [Tchani] is a very good player, Gelnovatch said. “He played almost 110 minutes on Friday and he gave us everything he could for 45 minutes tonight. Two goals in 45 minutes are pretty good.”
Throughout the next 10 minutes of action, Hofstra stepped up its pressure on Virginia’s defense and created a few scoring opportunities. Virginia’s backline and sophomore goalkeeper Dan Louisignau, however, were able to deny every opportunity the Pride created. Eventually, however, Hofstra’s continued offensive pressure paid off. With 12 minutes remaining in the opening half Hofstra freshman forward Brett Carrington drilled a shot from the top of the box past Louisignau and into the back of the net. The Pride goal drew Hofstra to within 1, and made the score 2-1 in Virginia’s favor.
Not to be undone, the Cavaliers answered Hofstra’s strike shortly thereafter. With only 7 minutes remaining in the half, Virginia junior forward Matt Mitchell received a long and high arching pass from Jumper, on the far side of the field. Mitchell collected the pass and quickly put the ball past Winters. Mitchell was also assisted by Simpson on the play. The midfielder’s strike put Virginia back on top by two, 3-1, which is where the score stood at halftime.
The second half opened with plenty of action, but few real scoring opportunities. Virginia controlled the ball in its offensive half for the first 15 minutes of the period, but the Cavaliers were unable to put together the necessary ingredients in order to extend their lead. Freshman forward Brian Ownby, in fact, had a golden opportunity in the 57th minute when he got open just long enough to get off a strong shot from the top of the box. Ownby’s attempt, however, flew straight towards Winters and ended up being an easy save.
Virginia kept up its offensive intensity for the next 10 minutes as it continued to hold the ball in its offensive zone. In the 68th minute, junior midfielder Neil Barlow broke free and blasted a shot from 25 yards out. Barlow’s attempted screamed toward Winters but ultimately ended up being another easy save. Barlow’s blistering shot drew applause from the Virginia faithful, but Virginia continued its second-half scoring drought.
After minutes of continued pressure and numerous opportunities, the Cavaliers came away with their fourth goal of the night. The goal came during the 77th minute, when Barlow played a beautiful corner kick right to freshman forward Chris Agorsor. Agorsor, in perfect position, easily headed Barlow’s kick towards the goal, off Winters and into the back of the cage. Agorsor’s goal was his third of the season and gave Virginia a 4-1 lead. Hofstra would add a late goal but was never close to threatening Virginia’s lead.
“As a team we’re building,” an exhausted Agorsor said. “And I feel like I’m fitting in well.”

A week after playing one of the best teams in the country, Virginia stood toe-to-toe with a team Saturday that wasn’t even in its division. Nevertheless, Richmond coach and former Virginia defensive coordinator Mike London’s squad hung tough for three-plus quarters with the Cavaliers, before Virginia cornerback Vic Hall’s game-clinching interception return for a touchdown to a 16-0 victory.
“That’s a BCS [Bowl Championship Series] school; we’re an FCS [Football Championship Subdivision] school,” London said. “Everyone thought we were going to get clobbered.”
Actually, coach Al Groh noted, not everyone shared that line of thinking.
“Apparently, there were quite a few people in the country who saw us as being the underdog in the game,” Groh said. “Players seemed to respond to that challenge pretty well.”
Though the opportunities were numerous for both sides throughout the contest, the score stood at 3-0 in the Cavaliers’ favor until Virginia junior running back Mikell Simpson finally lowered his shoulder and punched through Richmond’s defensive line on a 3rd-and-goal at the 1-yard line with 7:25 remaining in the fourth quarter.
“That was the kind of drive we needed,” sophomore quarterback Peter Lalich said. “The offensive line played great in that drive and really knocked them back.”
Lalich, who started despite charges brought against him last week for violating his probation following a July 13 underage drinking arrest, had an up-and-down afternoon. He was on target for the most part in the first half, completing 16 of 27 passes for 158 yards, but was off in the second half, as he found his mark just five times in 12 tries. Lalich also threw two interceptions on the day.
Groh had this to say about last week’s reports about Lalich and the decision to start him Saturday:
“Why would there be any hesitation to play him?” he said. “He’s our starting quarterback. We’re here to talk about football. It’s unfortunate that some people have chosen to misrepresent the player without having all of the facts, and those people should examine themselves.”
Lalich was not the only player on the field Saturday who missed the mark on several plays. Richmond found itself deep in Virginia territory on many occasions, but came up empty time and again. Junior kicker Andrew Howard had two field goal attempts, both from 29 yards, but was blocked on both occasions; the first was tipped by freshman Matt Conrath before it sailed wide right, and the second was batted to the ground by freshman Nick Jenkins.
One of those blocked field goals came as the result of a failed fourth down conversion attempts by Virginia. On a fourth-and-two at the Spiders’ 15 yard-line with 49 seconds remaining in the first half, Lalich targeted senior wide receiver Cary Koch in the flat. Richmond sophomore linebacker Jordan Shoop, however, read the play and snatched an interception before the ball reached Koch. Between Shoop and the Virginia end zone there was nothing but open field, but Shoop ran out of gas and was caught by Koch after a 63-yard return.
“At first, I thought I was good,” Shoop said. “I took off good, and then after about 20 yards I don’t know what happened. My legs were just – that was about it for them.”
Groh also elected to keep his offense on the field for a risky 4th-and-1 from his own 29 yard-line. Though this attempt also backfired – Lalich’s quarterback sneak was snuffed for no gain — the Spiders once again couldn’t capitalize, as a 5-yard tackle for a loss and a 14-yard sack forced Richmond to punt.
Richmond, however, did not entirely shut itself out; Virginia’s defense and special teams played its part in keeping the Spiders scoreless while playing in many short-field situations.
“We have a saying that is vital to being a good defensive team: it’s not just stopping plays, but to win the battle for the ball,” Groh said. “We probably knocked four or five down at the line of scrimmage, had a couple interceptions and pretty good pressure on the quarterback, so that part of the game was positive for us.”
The shutout was the first for Virginia since last year’s 48-0 blowout against Miami Nov. 10. Though Richmond’s FCS team is no ACC opponent, Groh said his defense was forced to make a number of in-game adjustments to battle its old defensive coordinator’s offensive scheme.
“Coach London knew a lot of how we like to play on defense, so obviously that was to his advantage,” senior linebacker Clint Sintim said. “We made some different changes and adjusted a little bit as far as getting ourselves in the best position to make plays, and it showed out there on the field today.”
Sintim and the rest of the linebacker corps looked particularly energized after giving up 52 points a week ago, as they accounted for 11 tackles, two sacks and two blocked passes on the day.
The coaching staff “emphasized during the course of the week just get back to reading your keys and get to the right places and play run-and-hit ball, and the plays will find you,” Groh said. “I spoke to all three of them after the game and congratulated them on the fact that they looked like they were back on their game today.”