Saturday afternoon, the Virginia football team lost its sixth straight game to rival Virginia Tech, capping a disappointing 3-9 season. Less than 24 hours after the conclusion of that game, the University dismissed head coach Al Groh, effective immediately.

Groh’s tenure was not without success, but ultimately, the athletic department made the appropriate decision. The state of the program is arguably at its lowest point in nearly 30 years — the last time a Virginia football team suffered nine losses was in 1982, George Welsh’s first season as coach. Virginia has fielded losing teams three of the past four seasons and has not enjoyed a bowl victory since 2005. Perhaps worst of all, Groh managed to beat Tech only once in his nine seasons at the helm.

Athletic Director Craig Littlepage is right to take Virginia football in a new direction. Nevertheless, the University should not be deluded into thinking that a new coach will cure all the program’s ills.
In choosing Groh’s successor, it is important to select someone who is especially familiar with college football. Though Groh had some collegiate coaching experience, he was an NFL-style coach at heart. His player management and game strategy reflected that fact. Coaching 18- to 22-year-olds, many of whom are living on their own for the first time, is much different than managing professional athletes. Off-the-field issues have unfortunately become routine for many college programs, but the Virginia football team’s woes seemed to spiral out of control. In 2007, several players were lost for the season because of either academic or legal issues. Before the 2006 season, academic ineligibility prevented one-third of the incoming recruitment class from enrolling at the University.

Administrators must understand, however, that a coaching change alone does not guarantee improvement in the program. For all his faults, Groh was not an incompetent leader. Prior to taking the job in Charlottesville, he had been on the sidelines for two Super Bowls as an NFL assistant. Perhaps this year aside, he has brought in some top-notch recruits as well. Virginia has sent a number of players to the NFL during Groh’s nine-year tenure, with multiple players selected in the top 10 of the NFL Draft. By all accounts, the coach seemed to have the support and admiration of this year’s team right up to the end. Those facts naturally lead one to question why the Cavaliers have consistently underperformed in recent years, but it does demonstrate that at least some of the building blocks were in place for a successful program.

Many fans had problems with Groh that ran deeper than football performance. More than a few observers thought him to be unpolished and inarticulate, making him a poor representative of the University. A large contingent of students and alumni despised his campaign for a “Sea of Orange” at Scott Stadium, seeing it as an assault on one of the institution’s long-standing traditions. Not helping public relations was that Groh generally avoided speaking engagements and outside contact with the University community, preferring to dedicate his full energy toward matters internal to the football program.

Littlepage and his staff cannot ignore these sentiments when hiring a new coach; the University needs an individual who can reconcile both the traditionalist and the more progressive fans to create a winning football culture. That being said, both administrators and the University community must recognize that they, too, have a role to play in cultivating the kind of atmosphere that will encourage long-term football success. Preserving tradition and having a fervent, dedicated fan base need not be mutually exclusive objectives. In fact, it is a combination that has proven successful at many colleges across the South, including Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and Georgia.

The University must weigh these intangibles when selecting a new coach. Experience with the college game and a winning track record are important, but so is picking someone with the right outlook to engage fans and attract recruits. A house divided cannot stand, and a fan base that is fragmented or apathetic will not engender positive results on the gridiron.

Lauren Caldwell’s editorial cartoon that ran in The Cavalier Daily last Monday was an example of found commentary. All Caldwell had to do to make an effective comment on some of The Cavalier Daily’s readers was to quote those readers’ online comments.

Writer and commentator Molly Ivins used to counsel young journalists to avoid the cynical attitude that the people — as in “we, the people” — are stupid. She also counseled those journalists that it would be easier to do that if they never read the letters to the editor. That seems to be at least doubly true of online comments.

I don’t read every comment on every article, letter, column and editorial, but I read a bit. And it can be a bit depressing. It’s not just that the most commented-on articles seem to be the least substantial. (Dan Stalcup’s column about rooting for Virginia Tech not only generated a follow-up Stalcup column, but the two columns begot 376 comments at cavalierdaily.com.) It’s not just that those comments seem to veer off into unrelated vitriol. It’s not just that so many online commentors seem more interested in parrying other commentors’ next comments — often to the point of missing the point of whatever was said before. It’s not just that a lot of those comments from people arguing about whose school is more academically superior suggests that neither school is putting much emphasis on spelling, grammar or critical thinking. But all of those things rolled together have a significant weight.

On the other hand, I’m encouraged by what I’ve seen in connection with a proposal to add a community appeals option to the honor system. Graduate Arts & Sciences Representative Alexander Cohen made the proposal, which would let anyone convicted of an honor violation “have the right to have the facts of his case placed before the community and have his conviction overturned if, in the judgment of the community, he should have not [been] convicted.” Both the article reporting the proposal and the editorial commenting on it have generated a largely reasoned and reasonable discussion.

There are some cheap shots grounded in something besides reason even among these comments, but they are outnumbered by what seem to be serious, considered comments.

It’s early in the process. The story and the editorial are both about a week old, and much of that week was taken up by Thanksgiving break, so more people may become more engaged in this debate. But it’s still a little disconcerting that an associate sports editor cheering for the Hokies and sartorial choices in the student section would get so much more reaction than a debate about the honor code and how it should be enforced.

Maybe that’s somehow related to another recent Cavalier Daily editorial, the one about student leadership and self-governance.

“Students are encouraged to embrace the concept of self-governance from the moment they arrive on Grounds,” that one began. “It is an ideal that is purportedly at the heart of the University’s mission. Although the institution’s administration is composed of adults, it is the students — particularly undergraduates — who are supposed to be the underlying force for change. In essence, students, not administrators, are meant to guide the University’s path. … Tasks like passing commemorative resolutions and adjusting by-laws are not without merit, but they do not invoke the full force of self-governance. Students will generally admire one of their peers for leading a prominent organization on Grounds, but those accolades are fleeting. In time, only truly exceptional effort and nerve will be remembered.”

No one’s commented on that one yet.

Tim Thorton is The Cavalier Daily’s ombudsman. His column usually appears on Mondays.

Draft Dick Cheney 2012. The group was formed just this past Friday and its purpose is to urge former Vice President Dick Cheney to run for president in 2012. While the Democrats have President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the face of their party, the Republicans have settled for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, radio personality Rush Limbaugh, and the aforementioned Cheney. Even though it may seem detrimental to just the Republican Party’s image, having these three representatives for the GOP is hurting the entire political spectrum.

Ever since the White House turned from red to blue earlier this year, there have been countless attempts at questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, whether justified or not. These attacks have come from GOP vice presidential candidate Palin regarding health care, former Vice President Cheney on the war-front, and Rush Limbaugh attacking almost every Obama-led issue. Although they have their fair share of followers, this trio is widely regarded by the left as being among the least-respected figures in politics.

The grassroots base is there for conservatives, and representatives are taking notice. Palin, Cheney and Limbaugh have been able to charm, scare, and scream their way into the hearts and minds of many Americans. In response, representatives in Congress have become more conservative in their approach to the major issues, particularly health care, fearing the loss of voters in their future November race.

This is not an issue for Republicans because going further right is not something many GOP members oppose. On the other hand, many Democrats in Congress have been forced to unite in their temporary majority and are scrambling to pass legislation while they are still in power. Democrats on the horizon for office and those that are going to be in tightly-contested races in the future are more worried about their perception to a small number of right-wing radicals than representing the rest of their constituents.

It seems as if there is a ripple effect caused by a very small minority of people. People like Palin, Cheney and Limbaugh are criticizing the Democratic majority as a purely political move. They are not worried about representing anyone but themselves and are only trying to further their agenda, whether that’s a future presidential nomination, a desperate attempt to stay relevant in politics, or ratings on a radio show. Republicans in Washington follow suit because their leaders have determined their course of action for them.

The voice of the GOP is coming from a select few and is being trickled down to representatives. It is doubtful that their views are shared by their constituents. For instance, nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured and surely not all of them can be Democrats. Is Palin speaking for Alaska or for her dreams of being president when she calls the health care reform “downright evil?” Ironically, the woman who claims to represent the everyday “Joe six-pack” is possibly doing just the opposite.

I once saw a sticker that read “Politics is a Good Thing!” That’s hard to believe in the current political climate. There is no such thing as bipartisanship. One party is in power and if they become even slightly unpopular, the other party is too quick to pounce instead of working with the other. The conservative leaders have been sure to take shots at the Democrats at every turn, whether or not “real America” agrees with them. Instead of Congress listening to the people, it seems as if people are being told what to think by Congress.

November is gone and in that month, two gubernatorial elections were seen by many as an early test to Obama’s popularity. Next November is another test in the form of midterm elections. Some people vote for the needs of their families and others for the needs of their communities. No one should ever vote for the needs of a political figure advancing his or her career by exploiting the party in power.

Hung Vu’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.