Last week, the Inter-Fraternity Council instituted a policy to restrict coercion by fraternities while extending bids to potential members. Bid Day at the University is riddled with various emotions, ranging from excitement to trepidation, as rushees are offered the opportunity to join Greek organizations. Some may have decided which fraternities they wanted to join in September after reading threads on CollegeACB; others still may need to weigh input from family and friends. Pressure builds from all angles during the recruitment process, and culminates during the designated period to receive bids.

During the two-hour bid extension period, fraternity members arrive at the rushee’s place of residence and present an invitation to join their respective houses. Recipients then have until 5 p.m. to inform fraternities that they have accepted or declined their bid.

Fraternities have their own traditional ways of extending bids: Some throw students in the air, some rush at prospective members, some even use strings of expletives. To standardize this procedure would strip fraternities of their identities during this important day and would be ill-advised. Still, some practices border on coercion thus the IFC should better enforce its existing policies.

The rewording of the IFC regulation reads as follows: “A fraternity shall not require nor coerce rushees to accept a bid before the designated time.” As each fraternity extends bids to prospective members, most inform rushees of a designated time and place to accept the bids. Some fraternities, however, continue to defy the regulations and attempt to pressure students into “signing a book” or accepting bids at extension. This encouragement may be coupled with strong verbal persuasion, leading some students to feel as though not pledging is no longer a choice. Such practices are precisely what the IFC hoped to avoid. Not only do these intimidation tactics pressure the rushee, but they also place other fraternities at a disadvantage.

Formal rush can be a stressful time for students who have to decide during just two weeks which of several Greek organizations to join — or whether they wish to pledge at all. Removing coercion from the mix is necessary and serves to “establish an even playing field for all fraternities during Bid Day and prevent situations in which a student is pressured into accepting a bid to a fraternity before he gets a chance to receive a bid from another,” IFC President Charles Gamper said. And though the IFC has taken the appropriate measures to ban this ongoing problem, the continued use of such coercion this year demonstrates that enforcement efforts should be ramped up.

The Lawn is clearly a special place. Not only is it the centerpiece of Thomas Jefferson’s vision for what a university should be, but it is also where we begin and end our experience at the University, through Convocation and Graduation. The Lawn is arguably the toughest place to live on Grounds. Each year hundreds of hopeful third-years submit applications with the goal of earning the elite status of Lawn resident. On Friday, this year’s applicants will find out whether or not they have been granted a Lawn Room, and because of the competitiveness of the selection process, not everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. Though each year seems to give rise to more and more criticism of the Lawn selection process, it is way past time for some serious discussion about who gets to choose each year’s Lawn residents.

Currently the selection committee is comprised of thirty-seven voting members, in addition to one non-voting member, the current Head Resident of the Lawn. Of the thirty-seven, fifteen are fourth-years who submitted their names to the Housing Division to be entered in a random computer lottery. The remaining twenty-two voting members are “ex-officio” members who are involved in certain clubs and student organizations around Grounds. Such groups include the National Pan-Hellenic Council, the Latino Student Alliance, the Inter-Sorority Council, Multicultural Greek Council and the Black Student Alliance. There is also a Middle Eastern student representative, a transfer student and a student athlete. In addition, the president of Student Council and the chairs of both the Honor Committee and University Judiciary Committee are also “ex-officio” members of the selection committee. The Organizing Committee, which includes the Dean of Students, the Dean of the Office of African American Affairs and the presidents of all six undergraduate schools determines which groups have a seat on the Selection Committee. The organizations which have seats can change from year to year, although current Head Lawn Resident, Ben Chrisinger, who is also on the Organizing Committee, acknowledges that the committee “can’t really take away groups” once they have been added. This essentially means that once a group successfully lobbies to get a spot on the Selection Committee, it has a permanent voice in the Lawn selection process. The point of the “ex-officio members,” according to Chrisinger, is to “ensure a broad perspective on the Committee.”

Guaranteeing certain favored groups on Grounds a seat on the Selection Committee is not necessarily the best way to ensure fairness and unique perspectives on the committee. Why not eliminate the “ex-officio” members all together and instead have a committee of entirely randomly selected students? Surely thirty-seven random fourth-years would be a diverse group of individuals. Comprising the selection committee of random students would also legitimize the entire process. Whether a valid belief or not, the process has the appearance of favoring certain individuals over others because of the make-up of the Selection Committee. Having a committee composed of randomly chosen individuals would help eliminate this perception, thus giving the process more credibility.

Completely randomizing the committee would not only give greater legitimacy to the selection process but would make the committee more representative of the student body as a whole. For example, the “ex-officio” members for the most part are the presidents of their respective organizations. Collectively, those individuals cannot be representative of the majority of students who are not club presidents because they choose to pursue other — no less important — interests, perhaps by donating their talents to volunteering in the Charlottesville community or devoting their time to the arts. Those efforts rarely have the possibility of being recognized with such a title as “president.” In addition, some of the groups who have seats on the selection committee represent a small fraction of students. Why should these organizations have a say in who gets on the Lawn? Rather than try to make sure that all interests are represented, which seems impossible without having hundreds of “ex-officio” members, the simplest and fairest thing to do is to eliminate the “ex-officio” members all together.

In the end, perhaps the best part about randomizing the selection committee would be that it would give ownership of the Lawn and the selection process back to all the students, not just those select few who happen to be the president of a club that the Organizing Committee deems important or special enough. One often-heard criticism of the selection process is that committee members are biased to members of the groups they represent. Chrisinger explained that “in training they are told to leave their allegiances at the door. They are not lobbyists.” That may be true, but that does not change the perception regarding the existence of bias. A random group of peers should be able to do just as good of a job of selecting the Lawn Residents in an unbiased manner as “ex-officio” members. That is not to say that the outcome of who gets to live on the Lawn would change. In all likelihood, it wouldn’t change that much, if at all. Changing the make-up of the Selection Committee would, however, be a more credible and legitimate way to select who gets a prestigious Lawn room and would eliminate any criticism of the process being biased.

The Lawn belongs to all students at the University. Acceptance into the University grants a measure of credibility to a student’s intelligence and work ethic. Therefore, nothing would be more fair than to allow a random group of University students to select who gets to live on our Lawn. It is time to say goodbye to the “ex-officio” members of the Selection Committee, give the process more credibility and give ownership of the Lawn back to all students of the University.

Megan Stiles columns appear Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.stiles@cavalierdaily.com

In his State of the University Address, President John T. Casteen, III reflected on the past year while also highlighting his storied career. Speaking to a crowd of mostly adults, Casteen called his 20 years as president both a pleasure and an inspiration. Looking ahead, however, he remarked that it would be difficult to “provide a more general consensus about the future.” The speech yesterday marked the beginning of a farewell tour which will culminate in the presidential changing of the guard in August. Like so many events at the University, the presidential switch is cast under the shadow of Thomas Jefferson, whose presidential victory in 1800 was a benchmark for the peaceful transition of power. As the sirens of change sound, it is only fitting that we too reexamine our past before reorienting ourselves for a new direction. It will be the role of the students to address the future course of the University, most notably regarding Jeffersonian traditions and the legacy of student self-governance.

Everywhere, there are signs of progress. President Teresa A. Sullivan and football coach Mike London, besides offering their individual expertise, are evidence of the rapid strides the University has made in diversity. The ambitious South Lawn project extends Jefferson’s Academical Village with modern architecture and cutting-edge educational design. Other improvements — from the upgraded Economics department Web site to the revitalized basketball team — point to an ascendancy in the school’s academic and athletic rankings. But those are all aspects of the University itself. Real change at this school comes from its students.

With the recent controversies surrounding Thomas Jefferson, including his relationship with Sally Hemings and the usage of slaves to construct his school, it is understandable why some would want to distance the University from its founder. Others argue that Jefferson’s teaching philosophy is more necessary than ever to prepare a new generation of leaders.

Indeed, for a generation generally lacking in civic engagement, a school that promotes self-government would seem the proper remedy. Or maybe Mr. Jefferson is altogether irrelevant — the ghost of an old man whom we disturb late at night by approaching his door and streaking across his lawn. I think it is imperative that we maintain and cherish the legacy of Jefferson. If anything, being more open about the University’s founder and founding will teach students valuable lessons that cannot be found in an aphoristic quote.

The University’s self-governance faces its own critical issues. If budget cuts slashed the yearbook, what will go next? Though recruitment numbers have gone up for several organizations, some may wonder if student democracy has been replaced by oligarchy: Several groups of involved students wield considerable power over their peers. The coming election process will be an example of the two-way street that is student self-governance. Students may be scorned for not voting, but they may rightfully protest that they were not really sure for what purpose they were voting. For instance, I still don’t understand the purpose of Association Council. There are many opportunities for leadership at the University which highly politicize some students while drawing apathy from others. Students who try to be active feel foreign to the process; the successful student leader is chosen by a body of his strangers.

What then is our, the students, State of the University? Are we honoring Jefferson’s vision with our current self-governance? If there is any hope for self-governance, we must first unite. The groups at the University act in a pluralistic manner by dividing us into our separate interests. Where is the sense of community in the student body? In an economy that favors employable skills and individual resume padding, it will be difficult to promote a community defined by seemingly archaic principles such as virtue or honor. Educational measures need to depict the importance of self-governance with clarity. Moreover, the scope of our self-governance must be broadened. We are eager to make small changes within the system, but we fail to question whether the system itself ought to be reformed. If there is truly student self-governance, then we will get an equal place at the meeting table, not merely as intermediaries between administrative decisions and the student body.

There are, of course, no basic answers for those questions. We could have today’s general college experience, which comprises little more than an industrialized machine that prepares students to be interchangeable parts in a ruthless market. On the other hand, we could seek something timeless, an opportunity to etch our mark among the stones of the University’s great history.

In the vague purgatory of youth, feeling alienated from both adolescence and adulthood, the path for us is not clear. A new generation of Lewis and Clarks, we have been sent out to broaden our horizons and to cope with numerous uncertainties as we navigate through the unknown territory. And so we have come back to where we started. We can never truly escape the gaze of Mr. Jefferson, the proud father of a school that would be maintained by its students — for whatever we choose to do will be exactly what he wanted.

Aaron Eisen is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.

President John T. Casteen, III delivered his 20th and final State of the University address yesterday in Old Cabell Hall auditorium.

During his address, Casteen focused on assessing the University’s current condition and the evolution of the institution during the course of his 20-year-long presidency. He chose to not discuss the future of the University, however.

Much of the address focused on the University’s ongoing financial challenges in light of the continuous effects of the economic downturn. At the beginning of the academic year, Casteen said the University absorbed three reductions in state funding that totaled $32 million. These cuts were quickly followed in October by an additional cut of $19 million.

Former Gov. Tim Kaine had recommended regaining some of these lost funds by implementing a furlough day during which University employees would be forced to take a temporary leave of absence and not collect a day’s salary.

“I ask that they eliminate the furlough rather than doing the internal damage it would cause,” Casteen said. “Everyone understands that the furlough is a short-term approach to a structural problem.”

Casteen went on to say that tuition inevitably will go up as state reductions continue but that the University will emphasize continued funding of AccessUVa. The financial aid program partially has allowed for the University’s steady recognition as a value college by publications such as Princeton Review, he said.

Moreover, alumni and friends are beginning to see AccessUVa as personal commitments to the next generation and want to contribute to it, he added, citing the friends, family and supporters of former Dean of Admissions John Blackburn who raised nearly $1.9 million for the financial aid program.

Despite these financial challenges, the University has seen growth throughout the past 20 years, as well, Casteen said. Since 1990, 134 new buildings have been built across Grounds. The University also has worked to increase opportunities for students by increasing access to technology and implementing more study abroad programs. In 1990, there were fewer than 10 faculty-led University study abroad programs. The University now is ranked third on a list of public universities across the country that send the most students abroad, he said.

Additionally, the percentages of female and minority students has greatly increased, he said.

Not all of Casteen’s time at the University was smooth sailing, however. Among the challenges he faced was restructuring curriculum requirements, which he expressed regret for not completing.
“We have not addressed need to reform curriculum in every program,” he said. “Our students wish to be competent in foreign languages and they take these courses but have not learned to use the language in the way they would like. We need to develop better teaching methods in America.”

Casteen also said institutions of higher education must ensure that students do not neglect any facet of their studies, specifically pointing to the University’s math requirements.

“We need to build vigorous mathematics in every student’s learning,” he said. “We have got to deal with the reality that students who are not taking math in their first year are losing opportunities.”
Casteen additionally acknowledged that the University is the largest university in the United States without a concert hall.

He expressed regrets about the renovation of Campbell Hall, as well, which began in 2006. It is more apparent now that the University could have spent less money and given more space to the Architecture School if the arts program had been moved to the Bayly Building, which houses the University Art Museum, he said.

Despite these regrets, Casteen looked back on his term fondly, noting that faculty and staff members, students, parents, alumni and friends support and give life to the University.

“Thank you for 20 wonderful years,” he said. “I will get out of the way so President Sullivan can do what she needs to do.”

The address was open to the public and attended by faculty, staff and students, many of whom praised the president for his accomplishments.

“I really think that the president has made an extraordinary difference for the University during his 20 years,” Dean of Students Allen Groves said.

Dion Lewis, the assistant dean in the Office of African-American Affairs, expressed similar sentiments.

“Although he didn’t give answers to everything, he did in fact enlighten us on the direction the University is moving with some of his initiatives,” he said. “I thought today’s speech was a great way, in many ways, to tell us about current issues facing the University, but also the successes that he has had as president for this long time.”

Overall, Casteen’s final State of the University address drew a positive response from the community.

“President Casteen’s report to the University community underscored the tremendous contributions he has made to U.Va. over 20 years,” said Leonard Sandridge, the executive vice president and chief operating officer. “His vision, leadership and commitment to excellence were evident in the results achieved. Few have served with such dedication and none have accomplished more than John Casteen.”

Student Council President John Nelson discusses the logistics of the new bill with fellow Council members. The bill will be put to vote during the upcoming University-wide elections. Photo by Scott Miles.

Student Council’s representative body passed a bill yesterday night to give the University Board of Elections the authority to determine the criteria for submitting constitutional amendment proposals that would alter Council’s constitution.

The bill stemmed from conversations among Student Council, the Honor Committee, the University Judiciary Committee and the University Board of Elections, Council President John Nelson said, to allow the UBE to streamline the process by which individuals can submit petitions to propose amendments to the individual constitutions of those organizations. In turn, each of these organization’s separate policies would be replaced with a single, overarching policy outlined by the UBE.

“Out of those conversations there was a general consensus, especially from things that have happened in the past, that it would make sense to be consistent and clarify that the University Board of Elections really is the body responsible … for handling and overseeing Student Council elections and the elections of the other groups,” Nelson said. “This is simply for petitions to propose an amendment to go on the ballot, but right now there are differences among the constitutions.”

Currently, Article V, Section 1 of Council’s constitution dictates that amendments can be proposed in three ways: by a written petition with the support of “5 percent of the full-time student body submitted to the Representative Body,” a written petition of 25 students submitted to the Representative body and passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a three-fourths vote of the representative body. The Honor Committee, on the other hand, requires either the support of 10 percent of the entire student body or a two-thirds vote by the Committee in favor of the amendment. UJC, meanwhile, requires the “vote of two-thirds of the entire membership” to alter or amend its constitution. Both the Honor Committee and UJC have passed similar bills for the upcoming University-wide elections.

“The idea … is simply to enable the University Board of Elections to set the requirements for both petitions and other standards of University elections,” Nelson said. “I think it’s consistent with our constitution in giving the authority over Student Council elections to the UBE. Hopefully it will clarify our procedures, as well as [those of] Honor and UJC.”

Third-year College student Jooyong Kim does not think UBE should dictate how individuals can submit proposed amendments to the constitutions of these organizations.

“I think Student Council should make their own decisions about their own constitution,” Kim said, adding that he has concerns about a third party imposing regulations on individual organizations. He noted, however, that these and similar referenda passed by the Honor Committee and UJC raise awareness of how students can submit proposals.

Students will be able to vote on the referendum during the University-wide elections Feb. 26.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear Abbott v. United States of America, in which the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic of the University Law School will represent the petitioner, Kevin Abbott.

With the help of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Abbott is contesting a sentence he received from the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that he unlawfully received an excess of consecutive minimum sentences, University Law School Prof. Daniel Oritz said.

Abbott was arrested and prosecuted for a drug trafficking crime; he was given an additional five years for possessing a gun and 15 more years for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, Ortiz said.
The clinic became involved with the case once it passed through the U.S. Court of Appeals, said Law School lecture David Goldberg, a lawyer at Donnaghue and Goldberg who is working with the clinic on the case. After Goldberg and other professors convinced law students participating in the clinic to take the case, the students created a brief for the case to submit to the Court for review, Goldberg said.

“Now that the case has been accepted, the students will do the work to create the case, including primary legal research, drafting and outlining,” Ortiz said.

Abbott was convicted because of a provision that contains an ‘except clause’ pertaining to extent of additional sentences that can be added to a defendant’s sentencing, Oritz said.

“The ‘except clause’ states that a person convicted of a drug-trafficking crime or a crime of violence shall receive an additional sentence of five years unless a greater minimum sentence is provided by any other provision of the law,” he added.

The  law students will conduct and compile research with the intent of proving that the clause was interpreted incorrectly in Abbott’s case.

The Court will review the intent of this clause when the case is reviewed in the fall.

During the last four years, the Clinic has worked on four cases since it began in 2006. Abbott v. United States is its fifth case so far.

Greek organizations part of the Inter-Fraternity and Inter-Sorority Councils saw an increase in student participation this year, despite inclement weather during recruitment and continuing economic troubles.

The IFC reported that 812 students participated in its spring rush this year, compared to 693 students in 2009, IFC President Charles Gamper said. Of the 812 students who rushed this year, 598 were extended bids, an increase from 580 students in 2009, he said. Of the 598 extended bids in 2010, 467 were accepted, he said.

Gamper said the increase was a “result of an expanded outreach program initiated by the IFC to create co-sponsorships with cultural organizations” and an effort to discuss fraternity life with different communities at the University.

The ISC also saw an increase in the number of rushees this spring, as 829 students registered this year, while only 819 students registered last year, Vice President of Recruitment Chelsey Iaquinto said. Of the 829 students who registered for rush this year, 794 actually participated — also an increase from the 785 students who rushed in 2009, she said.

The increases in recruitment numbers were not affected by the snowstorms, though the weather posed a challenge to both rush processes this year.

“I think it was a different experience this year with the snow that we had,” Iaquinto said.

Three rounds of sorority recruitment — including house tours, preferences and bid night — had to be moved to the days after what was originally scheduled because of the hazardous weather, Iaquinto said. Because of the snow, the third and fourth rounds of recruitment took place last Monday instead of the previous Sunday, she said.

Additionally, sororities traditionally hold preferences, the fourth round of rush, in various locations throughout Charlottesville, Iaquinto said. The snow, however, caused sororities to host the events at chapter houses.

Fraternities across Grounds, on the other hand, dealt with the snow by extending their second round of invites one day longer, allowing fraternities the option to host events on what was originally intended to be a day of no contact with the rushees, Gamper said. The IFC also did not reschedule its Bid Day but took safety measures to ensure that the day went smoothly for all students involved.
“Snow just sort of gave an extra challenge to make sure that we had things in place to keep people safe in terms of clearing sidewalks and adding regulations to how bids were extended.” Gamper said.
Though the constant snowfall was a hindrance, both the IFC and ISC said that the recent economic recession did not seem to affect recruitment numbers. The ISC, Iaquinto said, makes a point to make financial obligations associated with joining sororities clear to prospective members near the start of recruitment.

“I can’t say that it impacted rush at all,” Gamper said.

Junior Sanam Singh dropped matches at No. 1 doubles and No. 1 singles against Kentucky Saturday, as the Cavaliers fell 4-3.

As he strolled to the court to watch the No. 2 men’s tennis team in the country begin practice yesterday night, coach Brian Boland walked with the weight of expectations clinging firmly to his shoulders.

There was no evidence in his demeanor — he carried himself with the steady composure of a veteran coach: face calm and eyes set on his players. But he couldn’t help but grin when asked how he was holding up.

“I’m surviving.”

Though a close loss to a highly-ranked opponent early in the season isn’t necessarily cause for concern, Boland’s team hadn’t experienced the sting of a regular season defeat for more than two years.
Then it traveled to Lexington, Kentucky last weekend to take on the No. 14 Wildcats. And the unimaginable occurred.

With the two teams knotted at 3, the Cavaliers’ fate rested on the racket of senior Lee Singer. And for the first time in 63 regular season matches, the critical shot sailed out of bounds.

“Once the backhand went wide on the last point, we were kind of in shock for about 10, 15 seconds,” junior Michael Shabaz said. “We had never really felt that.”

Shabaz, a 2009 NCAA doubles champion, had been playing some of his best tennis. His team had won three straight matches during the previous week-and-a-half, including two on the road against No. 15 Illinois and No. 30 Notre Dame. Shabaz was on top of his game, winning each singles match in straight sets, a feat which earned him ACC Player of the Week honors.

But the seeds for failure were well-ingrained in Virginia’s unstable doubles dynamic.

Though Shabaz began the season playing alongside freshman phenom Jarmere Jenkins, Boland switched around the teams against Illinois and paired Shabaz with fellow junior Sanam Singh. That tandem lost its first match together, however, to Illinois’ top pair by a score of 8-5.

During the following match, Jenkins, then paired with senior Houston Barrick, lost to Notre Dame’s Niall Fitzgerald and Stephen Havens in the No. 2 slot.

Then everything fell apart.

“Coach thought that it would be better if Houston and Jarmere played together, so [Michael and I] just went with it,” Singh said. “It was OK, and then [Boland] thought, ‘Let’s go back to it,’ ‘cause maybe he thought it didn’t work. And then we went back to it, and that didn’t work too well.”

No doubles combination was effective against Kentucky, as the Wildcats swept all three matches. Boland tried pairing Singh with Barrick, who played together in the No. 1 slot for the majority of the 2008-09 campaign, but they fell to the No. 9-ranked team of Eric Quigley and Brad Cox. Shabaz and Jenkins failed to revitalize their early season chemistry. Sophomore Drew Courtney and Singer, who played together last season, also stumbled. It was an astonishing turn of events for a team that only had dropped the doubles points twice during the regular season just one year ago.

“At the end of the day, it’s such a big deal for us ‘cause since I’ve gone here and Michael’s gone here, we have not lost a regular season match. We were actually talking about that — when we lost that last point, 3-all, and Lee lost that last point, we didn’t know how to react,” Singh said. “It’s just a weird feeling, and coach obviously felt the same, ‘cause, you know, people don’t expect us to lose a regular season match. He’s explained to us that at the end of the day, it’s one match. Obviously at Virginia it’s a much bigger deal — people are gonna’ talk.”

But Boland’s consolation came with a jolt to the Cavaliers’ system. Shabaz said Boland has decided to experiment with three entirely different doubles teams for the upcoming ITA National Indoors Tournament. Shabaz will pair with Courtney, Barrick with Jenkins and Singh with Singer.

“We’re not clicking like I think we should be,” Boland said. “We’re putting in a lot of good time and effort, and it’s not happening, so I had to mix it up for the good of the chemistry, and hopefully it pays off.”

Shabaz said he hopes this will be this last switch in the doubles pairings, adding that the changes mainly hinge on the players’ different styles. Both Courtney and Shabaz rely on a big serve, while some of the others play a more “unorthodox” style, Shabaz said.

The new pairing is music to the junior’s ears, as the powerful serve of his new 6-foot-5 partner may help to rekindle the magic Shabaz shared with former Cavalier giant Dominic Inglot during their run to the doubles title last year.

Boland certainly thinks so.

“You learn the most about your players and about people in difficult situations,” the coach said. “Hopefully we come out of this, and I can learn some things that I believe are true about my players and their character, and their ability to respond to adversity. I’m confident that we’ll come out of this better than we went into it.”

1. Football: Virginia 39-Georgia Tech 38  Nov. 10, 2001
Possibly the wildest and most exciting win in Virginia history. A combined 43 points were scored during the fourth quarter — 25 of them by Virginia, which was down 20-7 at halftime. The game-winning Cavalier score came off a freakish hook-and-ladder with 22 seconds left in the game.

2. Men’s Basketball: Virginia 87-Duke 84  Feb 28, 2002
The team was amidst a season freefall, which made it all the more impressive that the Cavaliers overcame a 15-point deficit during seven minutes to top the No. 3 team in the country.

3. Men’s Basketball: Virginia 68-Duke 66 (OT)  Feb. 1, 2007
Sean Singletary made a game-tying shot with 26 seconds left in regulation and a game-winning shot with one second remaining in overtime to upset No. 8 Duke..

4. Men’s Soccer: Virginia 0-Akron 0 (2 OT, Virginia 3-Akron 2 in PK)  Dec. 13, 2009
The soccer team’s first national title game in a decade-and-a-half came against a previously undefeated team and went all the way down to the final penalty kick.

5. Women’s Lacrosse: Virginia 14-Duke 13  May 25, 2007
Down 13-4 with 18 minutes left on the clock, Virginia went on a scorching 10-0 run against the favored Blue Devils and netted the game-winner with 9 seconds remaining, earning the team a spot at the NCAA championships.

6. Men’s Lacrosse: Virginia 10-Maryland 9 (7 OT)  March 28, 2009
The longest lacrosse game in NCAA history saw both teams’ defenses performing stop after mind-boggling stop to drag the game to seven extra periods before Brian Carroll nailed a sweet game-winner.

7. Women’s Basketball: Virginia 103-Georgia Tech 101  March 2, 2008
Three times, this senior night game came down to the closing seconds. In regulation, the Yellow Jackets tied it. In overtime, the Cavaliers tied it. Finally, in the second overtime, Monica Wright scored the game-winner.

8. Men’s Lacrosse: Virginia 9-Hopkins 8 (4 OT)  March 24, 2001
Up until the seven-overtime Virginia-Maryland game in 2009, this four-overtimer in Baltimore was the premier Virginia lacrosse nail-biter of the decade.

9. Lacrosse: Virginia 17-North Carolina 16 (2 OT)  April 21, 2000
The Cavaliers bounced back from a late three-goal deficit and won the high-scoring feud with 11 seconds left in the second overtime.

10. Baseball: Virginia 8-North Carolina 7 (11 innings)  May 21, 2008
During the first round of the 2008 ACC Championship, Virginia battled the No. 1 Tar Heels until 1:26 a.m. before a wild pitch handed the Cavaliers the upset.

11. Football: Virginia 18-Maryland 17  Oct. 20, 2007
I’ve never had a sense of hopelessness more powerfully turned around than when I attended this game. Virginia was pitiful until the fourth quarter, and the game-winning drive during which running back Mikell Simpson played like Reggie Bush was nothing short of a miracle.

12. Field Hockey: Virginia 2-North Carolina 1 (2 OT, 2 PS)  Nov. 3, 2000
This battle between rivals remained a tie not only through two overtime periods, but also through a set of penalty strokes. Finally, in the second set of penalty strokes, Virginia pulled out the narrow win.

13. Women’s Basketball: Virginia 83-Tennessee 82  Nov 17, 2008
This is the definitive Monica Wright game. The Cavaliers were decimated by the graduation of Sharneé Zoll and suspension of Lyndra Littles, but Wright scored 35 to top the No. 6 reigning champions — in Knoxville, no less.

14. Men’s Soccer: Virginia 0-Wake Forest 0 (Virginia 5-Wake Forest 4 PK)  Nov. 13, 2009
It was the ACC title game, and Virginia held the Demon Deacons scoreless through regulation and overtime before escaping penalty kicks with the narrowest of victories.

15. Men’s Basketball: Virginia 80-Western Kentucky 79 (2 OT)  Jan. 5, 2005
How can you read the Associated Press release and not wish you were there? “The final sequence happened so fast, it seemed like no one got a really good look at how Virginia managed to win.”
It keeps going: ”There was the mad scramble for a loose ball when most everyone on the court got a hand on it, and then T.J. Bannister had it in the left corner, drove and laid it in with 2.6 seconds left to give Virginia a 80-79 double-overtime victory against Western Kentucky on Wednesday night.”

16. Men’s Basketball: Virginia 93-Arizona 90  Nov. 12, 2006
Could there have been a better way to open John Paul Jones Arena than a white-knuckle win against No. 10 Arizona?

17. Women’s Basketball: Virginia 76-Wake Forest 73 (2 OT)  Jan. 28, 2001
Schuye LaRue scored all seven of Virginia’s points during the second overtime in this dramatic victory.

18. Baseball: Virginia 11-Georgia Tech 10  April 11, 2009
The Cavaliers stormed back with six runs in the bottom of the ninth to topple the No. 8 Yellow Jackets.

19. Men’s Lacrosse: Virginia 16-Syracuse 15  March 1, 2003
John Christmas scored with 22 seconds left to hand Virginia a win in this clash of lacrosse titans.

20. Men’s Basketball: Virginia 82-Georgia Tech 80  Feb. 14, 2004
Todd Billet had taken three shots and missed every one before he nailed a clutch game-winner. He played like Robert Horry that year, hitting shots when they mattered.

21. Football: Virginia 26-Florida State 21  Oct. 15, 2005
Probably the biggest upset win for the Cavaliers this decade. Virginia pulled ahead 23-10 and hung on to topple the Goliath No. 4 Seminoles.

22. Women’s Basketball: Virginia 74-Charlotte 72  March 19, 2007
A Lyndra Littles buzzer-beater lifted the Cavaliers in a thrilling NIT win to keep the season alive.

23. Baseball: Virginia 12-Wake Forest 11 (10 innings)  May 23, 2003
The Cavaliers survived the second round of the 2003 ACC Tournament with a thrilling win in the 10th.

24. Men’s Tennis: Virginia 4-Illinois 3  Jan. 25, 2008
No. 1 Virginia fell behind 1-3 against No. 8 Illinois before storming back for a win to keep a perfect season alive.

25. Volleyball: Virginia 3-Georgia Tech 2  Sept. 28, 2007
The Cavaliers overcame a 0-2 set deficit to take three straight narrow sets from touted Georgia Tech. “This was one of the best wins in my tenure,” Virginia coach Melissa Aldrich Shelton said after the game.

Dan’s Salute: Football: Virginia 35-Virginia Tech 21  Nov 29, 2003
Here it is, the lone win of the decade for the Cavaliers in this so-called rivalry. If there was one game I wish I had been able to attend during the past 10 years of Virginia sports, this is it. I bet Scott Stadium was hopping. The Cavaliers never looked back after the third quarter, so it wasn’t quite dramatic enough to fit the criteria for this list, but I doubt there was a more meaningful game for fans this decade.