When people think of total, all-around excellence in athletics, certain schools come to mind. Stanford, of course, they win the Director's Cup every year. Texas. Michigan. UCLA. Might grind some gears to hear it said, but, North Carolina.
This year, with a third-place finish in the standings, the elite now includes Virginia.
One thing that really stuck out to me during the whole college application process was the notion that colleges aren't necessarily looking for a well-rounded student, they're looking for a well-rounded student body. It was one of those things that sort of hits you and makes perfect sense, and it really breaks the mold of what you're thinking as a high school junior. You know, the 4.0 student, class president, athlete, volunteer-everywhere type will have his or her pick of schools, right? The point was really driven home when that exact person in our high school class didn't get accepted at UVA. If you do something, and do it really, really well, and aren't a total fuck-up in the rest of your life, you probably stand a better chance at getting in where you really want to go.
Schools want that person because a world-class university excels at everything it does. Pointy-headed academics don't always want to believe it, but it's the well-rounded university - full of people that excel at what they do - that is really worth its salt, and that includes athletics. Where would Oxford and Cambridge be without their boat race?
So it's really a point of special pride that UVA has earned itself that third-place finish. It's not just what that Onion t-shirt says, about the team from my geographical area being superior to the team from yours. It's an affirmation, really: that UVA has made a concerted effort to be a world-class university, and that effort paying off, is really gratifying. It dovetails nicely with the alumni magazine article on President Casteen, who retires officially in a month. Casteen has his detractors, almost all of them football fans, but what the University has accomplished under his leadership is really astounding, and the sum of it all is this: since the University's founding, some 191 years ago, there may never have been a better time than right now to take pride in being an alum, and that is really saying something.
Certainly there's never been a better time to be a fan, unless you're just in it for the football. (In that case you've seen better days.) But the department as a whole just wrapped up its best year ever. Ever. Third in the standings puts us behind Stanford, who wins it every year, and a few woulda-coulda-shouldas behind Florida, and well over 100 points ahead of UCLA. Where are the points coming from?
Fall:
Women's cross country: 45
Men's cross country: 45
Field hockey: 83
Women's soccer: 64
Men's soccer: 100
Winter:
Women's basketball: 25
Women's swimming & diving: 69
Men's swimming & diving: 67.5
Men's indoor track & field: 52
Wrestling: 60
Spring:
Baseball: 64
Women's golf: 63
Men's golf: 65.25
Women's lacrosse: 60
Men's lacrosse: 83
Rowing: 100
Softball: 25
Women's tennis: 50
Men's tennis 83
Men's outdoor track & field: 49.5
We're 57 points behind Florida; I'm sure you don't need much of an imagination to find ways we could have made those points up, but it matters not. You can count 10 men's sports and 10 women's sports in this competition; we have exactly that many scoring points for us, and none that we had to leave out. 10 teams in the top 10 nationwide, and 2 team national championships. And the gap between us and Stanford narrows a little bit - not a huge amount, but noticeable all the same - if you only count the sports we both participate in.
So there's much to be proud of here. And we're not done handing out awards: you'll notice the poll for Cavalier of the Year is still open, and will be through Monday evening. If you haven't done so already, vote for one of the athletes that helped make UVA athletics what it is today!
Showing posts with label casteen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label casteen. Show all posts
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
three totally unrelated things
Got two things I've been sitting on for a little bit and then one that can't wait til tomorrow, because it's about tomorrow's game with Arkansas and that's important stuff.
Blog stats
I don't do a lot of horn-tooting or self-promotion, but since the birthday celebration is still going on in the form of the poll which you should vote in if you haven't already, I thought it'd be fun to offer up a little bit of a peek into the blog's first year. Specifically, geographically speaking.
In one year of existence this blog is a lot better traveled than I am, and I've been around. Google Analytics reports hits from every continent not populated solely by penguins and slightly nutty scientists, and 51 countries around the globe as well as all 50 states - though, Montana and Wyoming record exactly one each. Top five states: DC (it counts separate, yes), North Carolina, Georgia, New York, and, obviously, Virginia, which accounts for 40% of all hits on the blog. I bet you're surprised.
Drilling down a bit by city, Charlottesville accounts for 41% of all hits from Virginia and 17% of all total hits. I bet you're totally surprised. Other than Charlottesville, within Virginia the top five cities are Richmond, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Glen Allen, and Arlington; nationwide (again, besides Charlottesville) the top five are NYC, Washington, Richmond, Norfolk, and Atlanta by just a smidge over Chesapeake and Philadelphia; this last, I suspect, is almost entirely the work of a certain very classy three-man operation, because there aren't that many Hoos in Atlanta, are there?
Casteen
By now it's no secret that the president of the University plans to retire. That little bit of news showed up on Friday in the inboxes of those on any kind of alumni mailing list. By now also, the opinion of the fanbase in general is completely clear and follows this rule almost entirely without exception: if you did not attend the University, you see John Casteen as an obstacle to athletic success and are happy to see him go, even celebratory; if you are an alum, you may or may not agree with the obstacle thing but you aren't in a celebratory mood.
As a proud alum, naturally, I fall into the second category. I have always been very pleased with Casteen's commitment to student self-governance, a pillar of the University's principles. Simply put, he doesn't meddle - a temptation too great for many university presidents to overcome. I don't know how many university presidents open the doors of their residence for an open-house for incoming first years, but I was always impressed that Casteen did. I believe John Casteen is a man of integrity and honor - the latter, obviously, a very important distinction at UVa - and I salute him for his stewardship of the finest University in the land.
I'm going to take this one step farther, though. Here's the thing. In most situations that engender strong opinions, I might think your opinion is wrong but I don't think you're wrong to have that opinion, if you follow. For example, I didn't think either Leitao or Groh deserved to be fired after these last seasons, I think Groh was right to have Vic Hall at cornerback these last few years, and I hate the idea of a college football playoff. Obviously, not everyone agrees. I may argue, but opinions are opinions and people have them, and I don't begrudge them. Usually. I make an exception here: if you are in the camp that's happy to see Casteen go because you think he's been holding back the football and basketball teams, you're wrong. Not necessarily wrong that he's meddling with the teams (I don't know for sure nor do I greatly care to what extent he does) but wrong to have this opinion in the first place. Casteen's job is the school. It's irresponsible to judge him based on athletics. It's not wrong to form an opinion of the man and take into account his dealings with the athletic department; it is wrong, and frankly unacceptable, to condemn him for those alone. "It's a great day to be a Hoo" because Casteen is leaving; that is a sentiment I cannot accept.
Omaha
Tomorrow, Arkansas; we've already eliminated two Big West teams and one SEC team, so it's only fitting that we continue the pattern and make it an even two here, two there.
Much talk was on the baseball board at TheSabre yesterday of Arkansas's inability to hit a baseball; my considered opinion is that their game against LSU was terribly misleading. Lest we forget, the Razorbacks dropped 10 runs on Fullerton; 16 in two games against Florida State; and 38 in three regional games including 28 in two games against national #7 seed Oklahoma. These guys did nothing but hit until they ran into LSU.
The other bad news is they look to have most of their pitchers available, although that also counts as good news because their pitching is crummy. They don't have a starter with an ERA under 4. Then again, we're probably starting Poutier and don't have most of our best pitchers available either; the lesson here is don't you dare forget to tune in tomorrow at 7 because it's gonna be a barn-burner.
Our own pitching situation is a little tenuous. Hultzen might be available for an inning or so, but if it comes to that we're in trouble anyway. Ideally here's what happens. Tyler Wilson more or less breezed through his inning against Fullerton and should be good for two more tomorrow. Packer and Arico can hold down one each as well; that's the last four. If Poutier starts (I don't know for sure, but I assume he will; like any good coach, O'Connor is being coy about this) and lasts five innings we're golden; we have those three to work four innings, not to mention Carraway who could be good for a couple and Shane Halley in emergency duty. In an ideal world, we'd hang thirteen runs on Arkansas in the first and be able to ride Poutier for a long time - like, seven innings - and maybe even use someone like Halley who has yet to unglue his butt from the bench. In a best-case scenario, I think we get four or five innings from Poutier and scratch out the rest between Packer, Wilson, Arico, and if necessary, Carraway; in a best-best-case, some of those innings are five-pitch quickies and we don't even have to use at least one of those guys. Then we have Hultzen and Morey available to start against LSU in what hopefully turns into a two-game series.
Blog stats
I don't do a lot of horn-tooting or self-promotion, but since the birthday celebration is still going on in the form of the poll which you should vote in if you haven't already, I thought it'd be fun to offer up a little bit of a peek into the blog's first year. Specifically, geographically speaking.
In one year of existence this blog is a lot better traveled than I am, and I've been around. Google Analytics reports hits from every continent not populated solely by penguins and slightly nutty scientists, and 51 countries around the globe as well as all 50 states - though, Montana and Wyoming record exactly one each. Top five states: DC (it counts separate, yes), North Carolina, Georgia, New York, and, obviously, Virginia, which accounts for 40% of all hits on the blog. I bet you're surprised.
Drilling down a bit by city, Charlottesville accounts for 41% of all hits from Virginia and 17% of all total hits. I bet you're totally surprised. Other than Charlottesville, within Virginia the top five cities are Richmond, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Glen Allen, and Arlington; nationwide (again, besides Charlottesville) the top five are NYC, Washington, Richmond, Norfolk, and Atlanta by just a smidge over Chesapeake and Philadelphia; this last, I suspect, is almost entirely the work of a certain very classy three-man operation, because there aren't that many Hoos in Atlanta, are there?
Casteen
By now it's no secret that the president of the University plans to retire. That little bit of news showed up on Friday in the inboxes of those on any kind of alumni mailing list. By now also, the opinion of the fanbase in general is completely clear and follows this rule almost entirely without exception: if you did not attend the University, you see John Casteen as an obstacle to athletic success and are happy to see him go, even celebratory; if you are an alum, you may or may not agree with the obstacle thing but you aren't in a celebratory mood.
As a proud alum, naturally, I fall into the second category. I have always been very pleased with Casteen's commitment to student self-governance, a pillar of the University's principles. Simply put, he doesn't meddle - a temptation too great for many university presidents to overcome. I don't know how many university presidents open the doors of their residence for an open-house for incoming first years, but I was always impressed that Casteen did. I believe John Casteen is a man of integrity and honor - the latter, obviously, a very important distinction at UVa - and I salute him for his stewardship of the finest University in the land.
I'm going to take this one step farther, though. Here's the thing. In most situations that engender strong opinions, I might think your opinion is wrong but I don't think you're wrong to have that opinion, if you follow. For example, I didn't think either Leitao or Groh deserved to be fired after these last seasons, I think Groh was right to have Vic Hall at cornerback these last few years, and I hate the idea of a college football playoff. Obviously, not everyone agrees. I may argue, but opinions are opinions and people have them, and I don't begrudge them. Usually. I make an exception here: if you are in the camp that's happy to see Casteen go because you think he's been holding back the football and basketball teams, you're wrong. Not necessarily wrong that he's meddling with the teams (I don't know for sure nor do I greatly care to what extent he does) but wrong to have this opinion in the first place. Casteen's job is the school. It's irresponsible to judge him based on athletics. It's not wrong to form an opinion of the man and take into account his dealings with the athletic department; it is wrong, and frankly unacceptable, to condemn him for those alone. "It's a great day to be a Hoo" because Casteen is leaving; that is a sentiment I cannot accept.
Omaha
Tomorrow, Arkansas; we've already eliminated two Big West teams and one SEC team, so it's only fitting that we continue the pattern and make it an even two here, two there.
Much talk was on the baseball board at TheSabre yesterday of Arkansas's inability to hit a baseball; my considered opinion is that their game against LSU was terribly misleading. Lest we forget, the Razorbacks dropped 10 runs on Fullerton; 16 in two games against Florida State; and 38 in three regional games including 28 in two games against national #7 seed Oklahoma. These guys did nothing but hit until they ran into LSU.
The other bad news is they look to have most of their pitchers available, although that also counts as good news because their pitching is crummy. They don't have a starter with an ERA under 4. Then again, we're probably starting Poutier and don't have most of our best pitchers available either; the lesson here is don't you dare forget to tune in tomorrow at 7 because it's gonna be a barn-burner.
Our own pitching situation is a little tenuous. Hultzen might be available for an inning or so, but if it comes to that we're in trouble anyway. Ideally here's what happens. Tyler Wilson more or less breezed through his inning against Fullerton and should be good for two more tomorrow. Packer and Arico can hold down one each as well; that's the last four. If Poutier starts (I don't know for sure, but I assume he will; like any good coach, O'Connor is being coy about this) and lasts five innings we're golden; we have those three to work four innings, not to mention Carraway who could be good for a couple and Shane Halley in emergency duty. In an ideal world, we'd hang thirteen runs on Arkansas in the first and be able to ride Poutier for a long time - like, seven innings - and maybe even use someone like Halley who has yet to unglue his butt from the bench. In a best-case scenario, I think we get four or five innings from Poutier and scratch out the rest between Packer, Wilson, Arico, and if necessary, Carraway; in a best-best-case, some of those innings are five-pitch quickies and we don't even have to use at least one of those guys. Then we have Hultzen and Morey available to start against LSU in what hopefully turns into a two-game series.
Monday, April 6, 2009
j'accuse? non. je fais seulement un conjecture
'Cause I got another post left about it. Yes, I'm talking about basketball coaches; no, I'm not talking about the assistant coach speculation. I honestly can't bring myself to care very much. Would it be nice if a UVA alum was hired? Sure, that'd be cool. I trust Bennett to know what he wants in an assistant coach though and I'm not interested in bringing the hammer of criticism that he "doesn't get" UVA, Virginia, and/or the mid-Atlantic if his last hire or two aren't regional enough. And I certainly don't care whether he's in Detroit, Pullman, Charlottesville, or Sri Lanka on any given day. Somehow I can muster up the patience to wait for a third assistant coach to be hired. And given the fact that 100% of people following UVA basketball failed to accurately predict the head coach, I'm not going to get sucked into the speculation business this time around. If you can't get enough of the guessing game, have a gander at Jeff White who's better at turning up the nuggets of sweet sweet rumoronium than I am.
Now, this isn't the first time that directly contradictory information has come out about this whole search (remember the spooky midnight tour?) and it won't be the last time directly contradictory information comes out about any coaching search. On the one hand you have the party line from the executive associate athletic director: "There were no other offers on the table. Ever." On the other, you have Adam Gottschalk. There was an offer, Gottschalk says, and he's backed up by the St. Paul Pioneer Press which says Tubby "could have had" the job.
The sum and gist of Gottschalk's story is that Tubby was basically one step from coming on down until the offer was torpedoed by President Casteen. Naturally, he and Oliver can't both be telling the truth. Even if you read "offer" to mean as official and legal as possible, in writing and in triplicate and all that, Oliver very clearly says "This (meaning Bennett) was the first choice." He even acknowledged the Tubby rumors and dismissed them out of hand. It's as unequivocal a statement as you can get.
It's tempting to believe Gottschalk, because Casteen has been the target of fans' ire before. And what you read in the newspaper is never ever ever ever ever the whole story, ever. The problem with Gottschalk's argument, though, is the way he frames it: "Still, it’s just a strong rumor, based on fact, mixed with conjecture, so take it for what it’s worth."
Then he proceeds to tell the story, without bothering to tell us what's fact and what's conjecture. Which is annoying. How seriously am I supposed to take this? Should I read it and get all lathered up and fire off invectives at Casteen? How seriously does Gottschalk believe it? I think he probably believes it pretty strongly, which is about as strong a statement I can say about it because in giving himself an out (in order to keep the University from drying up his sources) he waters down his message. And in the end I can't take it seriously. There's a reason Émile Zola wrote "J'accuse" (I accuse) and not "Je devine" (I guess). If Gottschalk has an accusation, he needs to make the accusation, stick by it, and not mix his fact with his conjecture so that nobody can tell the difference and so he can weasel out of it if taken to task. Accuse or don't. If he's afraid of losing his job or his "ins" at the University, he should shut up and stop aiming spitballs at the institution. Because it's not fair to Casteen, even if he did sink a Tubby offer, to have people who read Gottschalk's blog coming up with their own ideas of what happened because Gottschalk doesn't have the cojones to stick by a story or the good common sense to keep his mouth shut when there isn't one. Sometimes good journalism isn't about what you print, it's what you don't.
As for me, I can only wonder why Casteen would agree to build a gleaming, nine-figure, professional-quality arena in a very prominent place on Grounds and then cheap out on a coach costing 2.4% of that. If Casteen and the academic eggheads "were not comfortable with UVa (a school that fashions itself after the Ivy leagues) being a school that would pay any coach 3.2 million dollars per season" why would they be comfortable building a huge new arena with a big videoboard and ohbytheway speaking of videoboards, adding a new one to the football stadium? It doesn't make sense and for that reason (as well as those reasons already stated), I take Gottschalk's story with a grain of salt. A really huge, extra-salty grain of salt.
Edit: hey, a little something footbally, too. This was actually dug up by ESPN's Heather, and should in the slightest be taken as schadenfreude. Seriously. But it seems Peter Lalich is not having such a good spring over in Corvallis.
Now, this isn't the first time that directly contradictory information has come out about this whole search (remember the spooky midnight tour?) and it won't be the last time directly contradictory information comes out about any coaching search. On the one hand you have the party line from the executive associate athletic director: "There were no other offers on the table. Ever." On the other, you have Adam Gottschalk. There was an offer, Gottschalk says, and he's backed up by the St. Paul Pioneer Press which says Tubby "could have had" the job.
The sum and gist of Gottschalk's story is that Tubby was basically one step from coming on down until the offer was torpedoed by President Casteen. Naturally, he and Oliver can't both be telling the truth. Even if you read "offer" to mean as official and legal as possible, in writing and in triplicate and all that, Oliver very clearly says "This (meaning Bennett) was the first choice." He even acknowledged the Tubby rumors and dismissed them out of hand. It's as unequivocal a statement as you can get.
It's tempting to believe Gottschalk, because Casteen has been the target of fans' ire before. And what you read in the newspaper is never ever ever ever ever the whole story, ever. The problem with Gottschalk's argument, though, is the way he frames it: "Still, it’s just a strong rumor, based on fact, mixed with conjecture, so take it for what it’s worth."
Then he proceeds to tell the story, without bothering to tell us what's fact and what's conjecture. Which is annoying. How seriously am I supposed to take this? Should I read it and get all lathered up and fire off invectives at Casteen? How seriously does Gottschalk believe it? I think he probably believes it pretty strongly, which is about as strong a statement I can say about it because in giving himself an out (in order to keep the University from drying up his sources) he waters down his message. And in the end I can't take it seriously. There's a reason Émile Zola wrote "J'accuse" (I accuse) and not "Je devine" (I guess). If Gottschalk has an accusation, he needs to make the accusation, stick by it, and not mix his fact with his conjecture so that nobody can tell the difference and so he can weasel out of it if taken to task. Accuse or don't. If he's afraid of losing his job or his "ins" at the University, he should shut up and stop aiming spitballs at the institution. Because it's not fair to Casteen, even if he did sink a Tubby offer, to have people who read Gottschalk's blog coming up with their own ideas of what happened because Gottschalk doesn't have the cojones to stick by a story or the good common sense to keep his mouth shut when there isn't one. Sometimes good journalism isn't about what you print, it's what you don't.
As for me, I can only wonder why Casteen would agree to build a gleaming, nine-figure, professional-quality arena in a very prominent place on Grounds and then cheap out on a coach costing 2.4% of that. If Casteen and the academic eggheads "were not comfortable with UVa (a school that fashions itself after the Ivy leagues) being a school that would pay any coach 3.2 million dollars per season" why would they be comfortable building a huge new arena with a big videoboard and ohbytheway speaking of videoboards, adding a new one to the football stadium? It doesn't make sense and for that reason (as well as those reasons already stated), I take Gottschalk's story with a grain of salt. A really huge, extra-salty grain of salt.
Edit: hey, a little something footbally, too. This was actually dug up by ESPN's Heather, and should in the slightest be taken as schadenfreude. Seriously. But it seems Peter Lalich is not having such a good spring over in Corvallis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)