Deleted Account

Vengeful much?

Ah, I wish I could be down on the Corner tonight, brother. Too bad I'm stuck in PA, watching a Rocky marathon on Bravo.

Love the name and location, we could use more like you! And Tazewell looks pretty impressive, eh?

If we can hold them to 12 points like mighty Temple did, yes. I'll be cheering hard for UVA, but my head says take UConn +12.

Haha, told you so ;).

As much as I disagreed with you on the Pro/College board, I'm pretty much dead solid with this. I'll never read another Bristol Herald-Courier until there is a complete overhaul done within that company. A merge with WVWV would be pretty much in order, I have to say.

I know, right? Like Frank Beamer said, it's "out of whack". ;)

I'm not totally sold on UNC for this season, yet. Remember, this is the squad that nearly lost to McNeese State just two short weeks ago. Likewise, Rutgers is not very good this year (and I think the honeymood for Schiano is drawing to a close). But still, UNC has potential; but with youth comes the tendency not to bring that potential every week. Give these boys a couple of years, and just you wait.

Yates showed some flashes of that last year. As did Tate. Butch Davis doesn't have the highest football IQ, but the man can flat out recruit. I tell you, if the rest of the ACC Coastal doesn't get it's act together, the other teams in this division are going to be looking up at a baby blue sky in a few years...

Your basic grounds are correct, and I join you: there needs to be fair, across-the-board punishment. I've even said so earlier in this thread. Lalich should be gone. Brooks should have been cut WELL before the time Groh eventually did cut him. You seem to imply (via the word "enough") that there are several incidents that UVA has been inconsistent with. Except for two (Lalich and Brooks), Groh has been fairly swift and just in what he's done. But these are two incidents too many. "A bigger joke than it already was"? You do mean the football program, right? If so, I'd agree insofar as he's slowly, painfully turning the football program into a big joke. If you mean more than that, as in the university itself or the sports program as a whole, then I vehemently disagree. If you mean the latter meaning, I'd be happy to refute that in laborious detail. But if you mean the former, then we're square. Heads need to roll in Charlottesville. Many, many heads.

LOL. But in all seriousness, sloppy conditions favor the bigger, stronger lines over the agile yet smaller ones.

I'd even go so far to say that the team who scores the most points by the end of the fourth quarter has the best shot of winning.

Very good post. I strongly disagreed with how we handled the Brooks situation, and compared to how UVA treated Bradshaw, it looks poor on Groh. Your points have a lot of merit. Brooks should've been gone with that very first possession charge, before all the other charges had the chance to come to light. But most of the time, despite the man's obvious shortcomings, Groh handles these situations right according to the honor that UVA loves to preach. He did with Bradshaw. He also did with Sewell, Fitzgerald, Brown, J'Courtney Williams, and Vince Redd. He certainly didn't with Brooks, and I don't believe he did with Lalich. Both should have been/should be gone, and that goes back to one of the points of my original post, which is how UVA's Administration has usurped so much authority that it's now infringing even on Groh himself. I don't know a lot of people who ran while drinking underage. I didn't. But again, I'm not too fleet of foot, either ;). Edit: And it's good to be back, BigBlue! Thanks! Nothing like getting the juices flowing, eh?

See my post above why I don't "completely agree" with CPF. Hagans's only disciplinary troubles came when he was a freshman, in 2002. Obviously, Matt Schaub was the starter in 2002, which invalidates one of the basic premises of your claim, but I'll continue. His last three years, he was as close to a model citizen as we could ask for. An emblem of overcoming his physical limitations to rise to the moment. I wish the UVA players today each had as much heart as Hagans did. But, this problem was handled "in-house" (suspension), and Hagans wasn't a repeat offender afterward. Yes, Groh had the male anatomy required to punish Hagans, and it was the RIGHT move. BIG difference between Hagans's infraction and Bradshaw's multiples at UVA. I don't agree with all Groh's decisions; I never have, and I'll likely never will. But at least explain the full story, rather than simply arbirtarily stating part of the facts because you're taking up for the local boy.

You're just upset that I know far more about the "situation" than you arrogantly claimed I did. No need to get your "feelings hurt" because I epically called you out there. You know what people say about assuming? I think it properly applies here. Also, that's a VERY broad generalization you make about UVA students/alums. I know many people on this board from Graham, Richlands, and Bluefield alike that'd be willing to stand up and dispute this baseless claim. That's like me saying that all Hokie football fans turn into Carolina basketball fans in January. Is it true for a few? Oh, yes. Is it true for 1/3 of them? No. It's a stereotype that I find totally inaccurate and unnecessary than to smear a whole collective group with. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me throw several cogs into your "argument", if I can even call this seemingly illogical sequence of words an argument. I'll start with the easier ones. First, Jameel Sewell was as highly recruited as Peter Lalich. Rivals rated Sewell as the 5th-best duel-threat QB in the 2006 draft class. Lalich was the 6th-best pocket-QB in the 2007 draft class. So, your assumption here, like so many other you've made, is flawed. Second, and may I quote Seth Greenberg here, you are "certifiably insane" if you think the resisting arrest and falsifying information is completely irrelevant here. If you see my prior post, I give you legal analysis which disputes both claims, yet you simply claim that it's irrelevant. I can say that the sky is green all day long, but it certainly doesn't mean it's true! Let's not kid ourselves here, Groh took into account what happened AFTER Bradshaw was caught with the beer. As do prosecutors and judges when assessing criminal penalties. It is impossible to say, as the situation didn't present itself, but there's a chance that if Bradshaw had merely got caught with a beer in his hand and admitted it without the ensuing drama, he'd have suited up for UVA that fall. It's unbelievably short-sighted to claim that what Bradshaw did AFTER he was caught was a "moot point". Third, You're merely assuming (and you know the adage above) that Lalich received preferential treatment solely based on the fact that he has far less melanin in his skin than does Bradshaw. Let me bring up the situation of Ahmad Brooks. 5-star recruit in Groh's highly disappointing 2002 draft class. Given chance (academics) after chance (possession of marijuana) after chance (underage possession of alcohol) after chance (violating team rules). They kept him around far too long, another position on which I disagree with Groh. They FINALLY let him go before his senior season after a second possession of marijuana charge. What does this have to do with anything? Brooks was BLACK. So a double-standard based on color is positively ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting such a thing based solely on the fact that Lalich is white and Bradshaw is black. FYI, you don't throw around race lightly in the United States unless you can DEFINITIVELY back it up. Even on a message board dedicated to reasonable discussion. Fourth, following from point three, there is arguably a double standard, and you glossed over it without examining it. You ALMOST hit it, but you strayed away from it in your crusade in point three. So, because you utterly failed to make the argument, let me make it for you. Lalich and Brooks were highly-ranked recruits. Both had imperfect records coming to UVA, but both were given multiple chances. Bradshaw was not a highly-touted recruit, and was yanked less than three days into his UVA journey. You would then argue that there IS a double standard, based on how talented the guys were and how highly recruited they were. I would then argue that Sewell, Brown, and Fitzgerald, all ranked 4-star players by at least one recruiting service, were sent away from UVA on the first serious transgression that came down the pipe. I would then try to convince you that there may be a double standard, but it is by no means universal and is reliant upon disciplinary measures imposed by the football team behind closed doors. That how an argument works: you give me evidence to support your point, I give you evidence refuting your claims and supporting my point, and we have a friendly debate. I can't do that without evidence from you, brother. Fifth, you obviously didn't read or fully comprehend my previous post, or you'd know the answer to the question why an unnamed recruit got kicked off the team for "drinking", while the starting QB is still on the team for getting caught with a beer. If I may segue, Lalich was charged with a probation violation stemming from his off-field troubles this summer. You also conveniently neglect that Lalich isn't making the trip to Connecticut this weekend. It's humorous that you don't consider either of these to be a reprimand, because Lalich's court date on 9/26 and in-house punishment certainly suggest otherwise. Perhaps it was evading police. Perhaps it was giving another person's name when being caught. Perhaps it was the fact that this, coupled with Bradshaw's prior conduct (which I cannot and shall not disclose), told Groh and Associates that they might be better off letting him go. Some buzzwords: "gravity of the offense", "retributive theory of punishment", "general deterrence". Go back and read my prior post, and this answers this dispute you have brought up again. Sixth, if you think that I'm a blue blood, you're barking up the wrong tree, dude. I'm the son of a third generation truck driver and a secretary. I've borrowed $200K+ that I'm going to be spending the rest of my life paying back. I don't have a trust fund, but again, this goes to your baseless smear of those associated with UVA. And I don't know it all, and it's not that hard to admit. I'm terrible with math, and I'm not very good with sciences. But I am VERY good at logic, and if you post something as asinine as this is, I'm going to blast you for it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My dad told me once: "never take a pea-shooter to a battle of wits". I think you'd be wise to follow this advice, too.

I know more about the Bradshaw situation that you could dream about. I'd bet my house on it. Suffice it to say that I proudly interned in the Tazewell County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court this summer. It would be a Class 2 Misdeameanor to divulge any information regarding Bradshaw's conduct pre-UVA, so I am bound by the Code of Virginia and my own honor to keep silent on that. Yes, what Bradshaw did while at UVA was worse than what Lalich did. It obviously was! Both were charged with underage possession of alcohol. Lalich didn't resist arrest and give falsified information to the police when caught (on public record). By simple deduction, unless resisting arrest and falsifying information is completely meaningless, Bradshaw's offenses were far graver than Lalich's singular offense. Lalich's infraction was a fairly common misdeameanor, especially on a college campus, but regardless, I think we all agree that, if valid, it should be punished. So, if you compare the severity of the offenses and take into account the retributive theory of punishment (where one gets his/her "just desserts"), Bradshaw deserved a harsher punishment than Lalich did. Bradshaw's punishment also served an aim of general deterrence, sending a message to other football recruits that such action upon arriving at UVA is unacceptable. And I apologize for the lawyer speak. Do I think Lalich should be kicked off the team? Actually, based on Lalich's prior record, yes I do, and I disagree with Groh's decision. But I'm not the pilot, and I'm not the chessmaster. The UVA Honor Code is one of the most revered traditions at the University, one which I'd be willing to bet that you don't know as much about as you may claim. You may, but I doubt it. It's worked to "success", kicking Jeffrey Fitzgerald and Mike Brown straight out of UVA in the offseason. Only Brown's was disclosed, but grand larceny SHOULD be disclosed. Lalich's offense, as underage possession of alcohol, is not an honor offense as it currently stands. Should it be? I say yes, but with the tolerance of alcohol on college campuses, you know what route that's going... It doesn't hurt my feelings. I've got thicker skin than that. I know we're an embarassment right now, and it's easy to admit. But you should at least show a less hostile demeanor in how you present your statements, else you look like a misguided Hokie fan with a Bunyan-sized ax to grind.

I lost an uncle to lung cancer just last month, so I know the pain. My prayers are with you, too.

Happens all too often, I'm afraid. The preferential treatment talented athletes receive, from the pee-wee leagues all the way up, and we've seen it abroad and close-to-home. I wish more parents/coaches would do exactly as you did, but it just doesn't happen. I hope he gets it straightened out. He's got far too much potential to languish like he has been.

Will never happen. Do you think Beamer's going to retire and leave that monstrous heap of a contract (expires in 2015) on the table? No, and VT's not going to buy him out of it, either.

The million-dollar question. IMO, he's got mental issues. Issues that he needs psychiatric/medical help with.

Racism, not quite. That's an accusation you don't want to be throwing around without mounds of evidence to back it up. If the UVA administration is NOT one thing, it's not racist in the manner you suggest. And I have the evidence to back that up and will post it when asked. Double-standard? Arguable. But Lalich didn't resist arrest and didn't give a name that wasn't his when he was caught, either. Lalich didn't have as many skeletons in his closet, either, but he was by no means squeaky-clean. Worthy of discipline, nonetheless? Yes. But who knows what happens behind closed doors. It's even been suggested that the reason he won't play this weekend is that he can't travel out-of-state due to the conditions of his probation violation. But yes, we are an embarassment. I wish I could defend this against this snide remark, but I can't. We are, and I can't deny it. The administration goes right over Groh's head and mandates what needs to be done. The administration jacks up the price of season tickets to an absurdly high level without an increase of talent on that field. The administration takes away our privilege of having ANY signs at games. What message does that send to the fans? Other coaches? Recruits? The national media? It's beyond disgusting to me as a fan. We need a cataclysmic shift at UVA.

Definitely understand that, and it's a great point indeed. That's why I can't make it to all of them. But I will make it to 2 this year.

Here's an article which accurately reams the UVA Administration for its unprofessional handling of Peter Lalich's probation violation which broke last week. May I say, it's DEAD on, and I hope that a few heads roll in the administration because of it. Article: http://virginia.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=848969 Text: Chris Wallace CavsCorner.com Publisher Virginia announced Wednesday night that sophomore quarterback Peter Lalich would not play in the Cavaliers' game at Connecticut on Saturday night. A carefully scripted press release was issued by the University's media relations department, including quotes from head coach Al Groh, athletic director Craig Littlepage and Lalich about the matter, with the overwhelming theme being that the move was in everybody's best interest. How stupid they must think we are? Lalich's legal issues have been well-documented, although they haven't always been accurately documented. He was cited for underage drinking in July and subsequently placed on one-year probation. In late August, documents that should have been sealed stating an admission by Lalich that he had violated the terms of his probation were obtained by the Daily Progress. The report, filed by Lalich's probation officer, led to the sophomore signal caller being ordered to appear in court on Sept. 26 for a hearing on the matter. Now, nearly a week after this incomplete story broke and four days after Lalich started under center against Richmond, action has been taking regarding this matter. What? Oh, and did we mention that Lalich was trotted out in front of the media on Tuesday to clear his name, while his coach took reporters to task for jumping to conclusions about the situation. So what exactly has happened in the last 24 hours? There's nothing in the press release about what has changed, and according to our sources, the answer to that question is that nothing has changed. How stupid they must think we are? Plain and simple, this decision wasn't made by Groh or Lalich, it was made by the administration at the University of Virginia, which year in and year out shows in HD that it has not a clue. And that's not a guess folks, it's a fact, as a source close to the situation laid it out just like that for CavsCorner earlier this evening. This, of course, is the same administration that considers football jocular and honors players from opposing teams at halftime, while all the while bilking its fan base for more cash on an annual basis. Someone should make a sign in protest. Oh wait … never mind. The reality is that Groh has proven through the years that he has a handle on things when it comes to firmly and fairly dealing with disciplinary measures involving his players. The fact that Groh didn't sit Lalich last Saturday was a clear indication that the head coach was comfortable with where things stood regarding this matter. He was also comfortable enough to back his quarterback on his call-in show Monday night and to do the same the following day at his press conference. The reality is that further charges against Lalich are unlikely to be a result of this situation, as one source has told CavsCorner that Lalich's probation officer isn't even requesting that the sophomore quarterback's probation be revoked. And as Lalich said himself on Tuesday, he hasn't violated the terms of his probation. Ah, but the good 'ole administration wanted to make a statement about how things are done – facts of the case or the head coach's track record be damned. And let's not forget that the football team's preparation for an important game this week got tossed a spit ball in the process. The way this situation has been handled, especially the timing, is an embarrassment to the University, and you simply can't spin it in any other direction. But really, is anyone surprised? It's becoming the rule and not the exception every time the administrators within the athletic department choose to get involved – in almost anything. A commitment to excellence? Yeah right.

You do it because you support the team, good or bad. Fair-weather support doesn't exist to me, and that's what you've just described.

18-11 as a starting QB in the NFL. Better than Jay Cutler or Matt Leinart...