Recent Comments

Yeah, but we beat anOSU when they won the national title. We also beat Michigan in a bowl game as Danny Coale caught that ball.

I don't think the term limits would stand up. A lot of schools don't even have any limits. Tech had nobody willing to take the role so they were proposing an exception to allow him to serve again.

It was listed on Reddit for all the truth behind that. I posted above, I might not like Spanberger but Youngkin is completely unqualified to be the President of the New River Valley Community College let alone VT.

Yeah we might have an argument if we could have beaten the bottom of the barrel B1G teams in the past.

i am taking my son (9) down to atlanta for czechia-south africa

Hey I'll be there too! Going with some family since we're all based in the Atlanta area

They'd have to win that to advance to the round of 16 where they would most likely be up against Belgium - I don't think the US is likely to beat any teams from Europe. Especially a team as strong as Belgium.

I went to the Belgium-USMNT game in Atlanta. We were on the front foot the entire first half and quite unlucky to not have a 1 or 2 goal lead at half. Tons of chances that we should be putting away more often than not.

I hated Poch's tactics to wholesale sub at half. The subs were a downgrade in talent and also completely neutered the attack. Give the starters at least 60 minutes together, and then start rotating a few players. No reason to still be "tinkering" to this extent so late in the cycle imo.

If Poch is smart about how he sets this team up, and realistic about what roles each player in the squad can perform, we have the talent to compete. I don't think he's made it easy on himself with some of the squad selections though.

This is how I read it. I think there will be more narrative-y leaks/dicussions around this over the next few weeks, especially if Roc continues to fight it, but I think putting more detail into the letter that cites the statutes just gives more toeholds to attack. "I say you did this, therefore I say you're gone, as per the statute" is clean and leaves very little room for action in court. "You did A, B, C and D, and I think that those consitute, blah blah blah" gives you A, B, C and D, along with their histories and contexts to attack, if you're on the other side.

Would it be better for us, people watching from the outside with an interest in the outcomes here, to get more details? Sure. I'm clearly curious. But from a legal standpoint, doing the bare minimum and giving the fewest points to attack feels like the obvious choice.

Let's be honest that 2029 game in Blacksburg will get canceled for some reason. As you said that is just how things go with us and Big10 teams apparently.

getting into legal weeds here:

The legalese (emphasis my own):

D. The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his[sic] reasons for removing any member pursuant to subsection C at the time the removal occurs. The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in subsection C.

Here's what you said.

A fair/objective reading of section D is that it requires a written statement as to how he engaged in conduct that violates section C

Nowhere in the clause does it require a statement "as to how he engaged in conduct that violates section C". It simply says a statement of his[sic] reasons shall be set forth. Spanberger issued a statement and gave her reason, pursuant to subsection C as (again, emphasis my own):

Your conduct has violated the Code of Conduct for Commonwealth Appointees to Boards, Authorities, & Commissions, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors' Code of Ethics, and the governing statutes requiring board members to act in accordance with the best interests of Virginia Tech.

Now, lets go back to subsection C (again, emphasis my own):

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection E or any other provision of law, the Governor may remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty any member of the board of any public institution of higher education and fill the vacancy resulting from the removal.

Spanberger cites two codes and gives her reason as a violation of those codes which would constitute either malfeasance or gross neglect of duty, both mentioned in subsection C. You don't have to like it, but the way the law is laid out, she adhered to it.

At this point I am just going to say it. The Big10 is chicken shit scared to play VT. Prove me wrong. I present the Wisconsin series, the Michigan series, the Penn St series, and now the Maryland series. And you present...?

Exactly. And the first sentence of part D states that she has to publicly lay out said reasons. The question is does her stating her reasons in general satisfy that. I'm not arguing it does or doesn't. I'm just saying if I was a lawyer arguing for him, I would argue that the law is too vague for her letter to satisfy that stipulation. And if I was arguing for the governor, I would argue that it did and the second sentence of part D you highlighted makes their argument moot anyway. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's an argument. I'm just saying they left enough unsaid in the law to give way to different interpretations.

Even if he doesn't, the shenanigans at UVA plus the perceived rush to push out Sands and hire a replacement before the board turnover makes it smell fishy. And that isn't taking into account any behind the scenes info that may exist

Pages