Welcome to the Friday Feedback, which was a game-time decision today. Slight and misunderstood accident with a lawn mower last night where I went to remove grass from the exhaust and a rock got loose and flew into the middle finder on my right hand at approximately 213 mph. It looks like my big toe right now.

Yes, the mower was on … insert lecture here. Yet I soldier on and didn’t even announce my decision to publish on Twitter. Key strokes are to be cherished today. Onto the Feedback. As always, comments appear as posted. I’ve already given you comedy with my deformed finger and questionable ability to make domestic decisions.

Spatial Angel said:

Virginia Tech is ACC to most people, but to old WVU fans, they are just Virginia Tech. I’d take that game anywhere, any time.

Just about everyone else would, too, but WVU is, under ordinary circumstances, going to avoid two ACC schools, or two schools from the came conference … ie, Marshall and East Carolina. Also, Bill Stewart has given strong indications in recent years Virginia Tech won’t enter into a series with WVU.

Patchy said:

I don’t care if they sell moonshine inside but I have been one for whom the reentry issue is the ONLY issue.

Luck is nothing if not a politician and therefore he seeks a win-win…for himself. He’d like the beer policy to succeed but if it fails he will appear to be the hero by shutting it down after one year or even mid-season (never mind that it was his idea). But the reentry policy – which is/was the target all along – won’t be changed and Luck et al will pretend it’s merely a side issue.

I presume you mean he won’t change it after the 2011 season … because the re-entry is done. Nothing has been announced, but the BoG doesn’t need approval to do away with the practice.

Jeff in Akron said:

For what its worth, I believe that Luck actually wants to sell beer for the additional revenue. Mike certainly has more info than I do and I can’t argue with any of his points. I just have a hunch that Luck knew this would pass before he proposed it, remember he was once on that same BoG. As an attorney he had to know where he stood going in, and if he just wanted to stop people from leaving at half time he would/could have done that.

The can of worms that will exist if the BoG doesn’t allow beer sales is the luxury boxes. In a blue collar state, how can the BoG allow people in the luxury boxes to drink their scotch during a game and not allow the average fan to have a pull on his pint? With an apparent long range goal of adding more luxury suites, and allowing spirits in those suites, the BoG could be alienating the majority of their fan base, while setting a dangerous precedent. A precedent that could ultimately blow up in their faces and cause more problems than they are solving.

On the smoking issue, as a long time smoker I understand that not everyone likes second hand smoke, and I agree that smoking is a choice. If you choose not to smoke, you should not have to endure second hand smoke. My only issue with the entire issue of non-smoking is, how can it be unconstitutional to open an establishment for smokers only when it is perfectly legal, and often the law, to open establishments that are non-smoking? I believe each of us has the right to make that decision on our own. I have no problem with Milan Puskar Stadium, and the general campus as a whole, becoming non-smoking. However, the more democratic route would be to establish smoking sections on said campus.

Good topic, but I highly doubt that, if the policy isn’t passed, WVU will put a prohibition on alcohol in the suites. Simply put, those people pay too much money to lose that luxury. As for smoking and constitutionality, it’s a whole new world, but as best as I can tell people do have a choice: Don’t smoke. Not saying it’s fair or right. I’m just saying.

SheikYbuti said:

Wait until the lake Carp start using the phone to call Hiroshima, inquiring about roster spots.

But seriously, folks, to be a fly anywhere in the vicinity of that boat the moment that phone hit the water. . . . Maybe Huggs was phoning Ronco to order a new Pocket Fisherman?

Agreed. I’d have to imagine Huggins was with friends and/or family who didn’t, um, let him off the hook so easily.

SheikYbuti said:

Mike, the DM ought to let you write the headlines for your own stories, and not just your blog entries. I feel so much better about the entire issue than when I first saw the underlying piece yesterday.

It’ll be part of my contract negotiations in July. I also made a major error in that story — totally forgot to include Dan Jennings. He’s the 10th player, though he still won’t “hurt” WVU because he finished the spring semester. Long, stupid story short, I keep a list of players who leave WVU and who leave other schools who either once had an interest in WVU or could, conceivably, be interested in WVU — like Aaric Murray. When Jennings left, I was hurrying to Louisville and then Cincinnati. And remember, there was an indefinite period where we thought maybe he’d comeback. So I never added Jennings to my list, presumably because I treat that thing like that doomsday clock. Treadmill for me.

Sam said:

There is talk that his father is ill and he wants to be closer to home for that reason. Is that accurate? And if it is, can anybody really blame him for leaving?

Yes. No.

Homer said:

I hope his meddling HS coach also alerted David Stern and told him to spread the news. STOP THE PRESSES! 3 PPG shooting guard transfers to school that isn’t sure it wants him

Imminent.

jtmountaineer said:

Hard to disapprove of this move if a family illness is involved, though I do wonder if the decision would have been different, given the relative proximity of Morgantown to Philadelphia, if he had clicked or progressed more the last two years. A good kid and I wish him well, but I am confused by the lack of notification of coach and school prior to announcing the move elsewhere.

Obviously this begs the question: will we use or bank the newly available scholarship?

First paragraph is worth considering. As for the second, hard to say. I wonder if you want to bring in another freshman or juco because the number is large enough as it is. Maybe you pocket it to break up the classes since WVU has only two seniors next season. Three scholarships would be nice, right? That said, even though you don’t just add to add, the signing period has ended and some good players are still out there. You can also fish for a transfer who has to sit out next season, too.

Foul Shot said:

You would always hope that Pep would have that big game and then he would be on the way to being a starter and big time contributor.
But, he could never seem to knock down two or three jumpers in a row and get his and Hugs confidence.
Yes, he was great with the steals in the first round this past March vs. Clemson, but overall, it was a disappointing two year run based on the hype of being Mr. PA Hoops coming in.

Just never put it together a few games in a row. That, as much as the ending against Clemson, is his lasting impression.

The Artist Formerly Known as EER96 said:

Noah Cotrill, come on down!

On scholarship?

ffejboc said:

Regarding Cottrill, I don’t think it’s a coicidence that a familiar, steadying influence like walk-on Paul Herbert Williamson is joining the Mountaineer team. I guess we shall see.

Possible.

ShiekYbuti said:

OK, (ir)regardless of how the rest of this turns out, let’s get one thing straight: Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier, and even mighty Memphis ARE mid-majors. WVU may not “consider” them as such, because each has performed in recent years on a par with many of the better teams from high-major (read: BCS) leagues, but all them are members of so-called “mid-major” leagues, to-wit, the WCC, the Horizon, the Atlantic 10, and Conference USA.

Carry on.

Agreed. Interesting how schools make the distinction, though.

pknocker40 said:

And didn’t Calhoun state that the opponent would create excitement among the fans? How does Kent State, Akron, or even St. Joe’s accomplish that? Temple seems more logical given some of the nostalgic posts from the old-timer

I’m probably to blame for this: It was one quote from one story in January I keep resuscitating.

Bill said:

Richmond?
Dayton?

Those would work.

SheikYbuti said:

BREAKING NEWS: According to Casazza, the Mississippi State Bulldogs are the Mysterious Mid-Major (in conformance with our new, reality-bending, plain English-ignoring definition, 9-7 in the SEC West qualifies for reclassification).

Check the paper tomorrow. Exclusive!

rekterx said:

Mike, please tell whoever it is in the athletic department that some of us have already settled on Temple and that they to get on this ASAP.

Will do.

glibglub said:

Did Talley get his degee? If so, he’s a prime candidate for jersey retirement, wouldn’t you say? Key component of Coach Nehlen’s program, consensus All-American, CF HoF, Pro Bowler, 4 Super Bowls. Man, what a great player he was.

It’s interesting because the requirements say he may have his jersey retired. The number retirement is vague because it needs a player to be in “the national Hall of Fame of his/her respective sport.” Is that the college hall or the pro football hall? Might not matter in January, when Talley should make the pro football HoF.

SheikYbuti said:

I’m guessing that this is purely an administrative position (like the compliance director) and doesn’t count against our quota of assistant coaches? In other words, I would suppose that the successful candidate won’t be in recruits’ homes, pitching the school. As I understand the posting, the coordinator will attend to the logistical details, process the paperwork, and keep the staff apprised of any external changes to the rules or procedures.

Correct. This would be the guy in charge of the dry erase board that has the game plan for football recruiting. He might not put the plan together or assemble the personnel, but he’ll maintain compliance order, configure logistics for travel and visits and keep up on players and their stats and decisions and injuries and all the things like that.

The Artist Formerly Known as EER96 said:

My sources say it will NOT be Brady Ackerman.

I can confirm exactly that.

BeatPitt said:

So this isn’t just Pat Kirkland’s vacant position?

Good question. The best answer is yes. And no. Kirkland had been the coordinator of recruiting operations, which was a more specific version of his previous title: Director of high school relations. A lot of his work was camps and clinics and — this is true — coordinating with the compliance office because he did so much with visits and prospect records as well as all the paperwork and red tape associated with the coaches and their recruiting work and travels. At the same time, WVU always had an assistant coach who was the head of recruiting. That appears to be off the board and the new Pat Kirkland will quite likely be associated with just recruiting and the entirety of that business.

Parks said:

Isn’t it safe to say that the public vote down the line like that has less to do with the decision. Hasn’t the general public generally voiced opposition more than approval in the past. Those that are in favor of it (which polls I’ve seen on sites seem to be a 61/49 split, siding with approval) wouldn’t necessarily find it a big deal to send something as someone who is absolutely against it.

That point was conveyed to me at the start of the public comment period.

KMS said:

I’ve spent most of my morning (being the only one in the office) reading through several of these comments. Many of which, were quite entertaining. I think that when a proposed change of this nature is brought to the table, you will always hear more from those who oppose rather than the opposite. Even though the vast majority were against the policy, it seemed that the best written and most logical responses came from those who approve. Yes, I wrote a response of approval and I am not including mine in this category. Most of the responses against the policy seemed to be against alcohol consumption in general, which is a personal opinion, but has no merit in this debate. Many responses stated that they didn’t want to have to deal with drunks in the game because there are enough in the parking lot. Where do you think these drunks go when the game starts? My favorite, came from an elderly lady (whom I’m sure is sweet as pie), stated her disapproval and also complained of fans standing to cheer and the speaker system being too loud causing the fans to just be “louder”. While I’m sure she bleeds gold and blue like the rest of us, there is a time when you need to realize that it may be better to stay home and watch the game. I think that that board has a tough decision on their hands, but I still believe the logical decision is to implement the policy in a trial period for the 2011 season. If it proves to be profitable and keeps fans in their seats (with no increase in drunken fan incidents), which I believe it will, then AD Luck will have found a new source of revenue to increase our competitiveness on a national level.

Entertaining reading, for sure. It’s fine-toothed comb time for the governors. Also, I counted 22 people who comment here who commented there … and that’s just the email addresses/names I recognized. Good to know.

rekterx said:

I haven’t read all of the dissenting voices. But I have not seen anyone offer an argument against the testimony of the many who maintain that selling beer at their stadiums has increased the control over alcohol related incidents.

I have only seen people say that they were against beer at the stadium and then offer no reasons other than their disagreement.

This is a no-brainer. The BoG should say that while people voiced their resistance to the idea they never offered information which ran counter to the experience of institutions which sell beer. Therefore … let’s tap a keg!

Yeah, really, all of those dissenters can type long letters with big words — or if you’re Ed Dicken, small words with big letters — but did we see someone unplug the premise that WVU can control behavior?

Dave said:

It’s funny to read the opposite sides … some say “everyone is doing it,” then you find articles like this one I found a sports news site:

“The proposal follows a national trend toward “dry” stadiums at Western Athletic Conference schools such as Boise State, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State and Utah, as well as a number of schools in the Pacific-10 Conference.”

There is another coin where people argue that selling beer is fine because people are going to drink regardless and the flip side (from an Anheuser Busch rep) says, “Prohibiting beer sales … will do nothing to solve the problem,” he said. So … selling it won’t make a difference and to stop selling it won’t make a difference.

Good stuff.

… so sell it and make money, right?

Mike4352 said:

So the question becomes … which will cause the worse behavior?

Letting folks exit(and re-enter) at will to chug as much beer/liquer as they can in 10 minutes, after a day full of tail-gating with beer bought in large quantities for very cheap?

Not letting folks exit (or re-enter) and after they get in, if they want beer they gotta buy it from beer vendors for $5.00 a pop, also after a full day of tail-gating.

Personally, I don’t think either is gonna be worse than the other … but if I had to choose, I’d choose option number two … atleast WVU Sports gets some benefit from that option.

Which is what’s going to happen, I believe. If there are evils, the profitable one is the lesser one.

NotSoFastMyFriend said:

Nothing like 320+ comments over 30 days to really gauge public sentiment…

I have a better idea: hand out 60,000 ballots on the first game day, punch Yes or No, return ballot to the ushers. Announce the total at next home game. Voila. A real public opinion on the matter.

Regardless, I stand by my wanting to have beer* sold in the stadium.

*Just have Yuengling or Guinness available and I’ll be happy.

Aggressive apathy. It just seems like going through the motions.

Josh24601 said:

“Drunk thug fest?” Sold!

(Incidentally, I submit the phrase as a darkhorse candidate to become the name of the HolgoMotion.)

Enjoy the rapture weekend! DTF!