Facebook Twitter Google+ Wake ForestNotre Dame Virginia TechLouisville Florida StateGeorgia TechLouisville 2015-16 Syracuse ACC Men’s Basketball Opponents DukeLouisvilleGeorgia Tech Comments PittsburghNotre DameVirginia Home and RoadHomeAway The Atlantic Coast Conference released its 2014-15 and 2015-16 matchups Tuesday morning. Syracuse is entering its second season in the ACC after finishing 28-6 and losing to Dayton in the Round of 32 of the NCAA Tournament in its first year in the conference.SU will play a home-and-home with Duke, Boston College, Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech in the 2014-15 season. Syracuse and Duke split the home-and-home in 2013, with the home team winning both games. The Orange will also travel to North Carolina for the first time since 1983.Syracuse will host Louisville for the first time since 2013, when SU lost 58-53 to the Cardinals. This year’s game will mark the first time the two schools face off as ACC foes, as Louisville is entering its first year in the conference.The Carrier Dome will also play host to Florida State, Miami, Virginia and Wake Forest, all of which SU traveled to last year. Syracuse beat Florida State, Miami and Wake Forest on the road in 2014, but lost to the eventual ACC regular-season champion Cavaliers by 19 in the team’s most lopsided loss of the season.The Orange’s trip to UNC will mark the first time the teams square off on Tobacco Road as ACC foes. SU will also travel to former Big East rival Notre Dame, Clemson, Georgia Tech and North Carolina State.AdvertisementThis is placeholder textIn 2015-16, Syracuse will play a home-and-home with Boston College, Florida State, North Carolina and Pittsburgh. SU will host Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Notre Dame and Virginia Tech, and will travel to Duke, Louisville, Miami and Virginia.2014-15 Syracuse ACC Men’s Basketball Opponents PittsburghMiamiNorth Carolina North CarolinaNC StateMiami Virginia TechVirginiaNC State Boston CollegeFlorida StateClemson Boston CollegeClemsonDuke Published on April 22, 2014 at 11:45 am Contact Trevor: firstname.lastname@example.org | @TrevorHass Home and RoadHomeAway
While the Summer Olympics officially ended over two months ago, repercussions from one game in particular in the women’s soccer competition still haven’t faded away.The game, played between the U.S. women’s national soccer team and Canada’s women’s team in the semifinal of the Olympic competition, would not be decided until stoppage time on a last-second goal by forward Alex Morgan.Earlier in the game, this ending never would have seemed possible. Canada had taken the lead three different times throughout the game, but referee Christiana Pederson made two questionable calls in the second half. The second was a disputed penalty kick given for a handball in the box that gave U.S. forward Abby Wambach a chance to tie the score at three, and both went against Canada and ultimately aided the U.S. in its comeback bid.After their semifinal matchup, the Americans would eventually go on to win the gold medal, while Canada had to settle with bronze.In a close game decided by a referee’s less-than-perfect calls, it seems reasonable that the Canadian players would be frustrated by the result, especially after leading for most of the game. After all, how many chances do you get at an Olympic gold medal?Unfortunately for Canadian forward Christine Sinclair, FIFA’s governing body decided Friday they didn’t see things quite the same way.Quotes from Sinclair in postgame press conferences expressed obvious discontent with the refereeing in the critical semifinal game and quickly went viral across the globe.“We feel like we didn’t lose, we feel like it was taken from us,” Sinclair said. “It’s a shame in a game like that, that was so important, the referee decided the result before it started.”Certainly not a scathing, personal attack on the referee by any means, Sinclair’s harsh words for the referee were enough to earn her a four-game ban from the Canadian national team and a reported $3,500 fine from FIFA’s international governing body in what FIFA called “unsporting behavior towards match officials.”The incident poured gasoline on an already intensifying debate as pressure on soccer referees has increased in recent years.Over time, as the game continued to speed up with each successive generation of players to rise through the ranks, referees have been forced to handle the growing task that is regulating a professional soccer game.Many different proposals have surfaced in response to the growing strain put on the referees to make the right call, including instant replay, goal line technology and using more referees in the game.Unfortunately, most of these proposals have remained just that – proposals – as FIFA has made it clear in the last several years they think changing the way games are officiated would destroy the “beautiful game.”While this portion of the argument is understandable – more referees and video replay would slow down a game that is famous for its fluid play – when FIFA chose to forgo most of these ideas to solve the refereeing problems (they have experimented with replay for very specific cases), they also made a decision to increase the likelihood that referees will continue to make poor calls.So when Pederson’s iffy calls didn’t go Canada’s way and ultimately cost them the game, it seems only fair that Sinclair should have the right to protest. She did, after all, single-handedly keep her team in the game.Instead, by punishing Sinclair for her comments, FIFA essentially chose to support, if not promote, mediocrity in its sport.After all, aren’t referees paid to make those calls correctly?Just look at the situation in reverse.Had Sinclair played poorly in the semifinal game, missing key goal scoring opportunities or playing bad passes, it is likely that she would have been benched or possibly even dropped from the team.FIFA’s reaction, while a sign of solidarity with its referees, completely frees the officials from any accountability for their actions. Instead of punishing the referee for her poor refereeing or at least giving her a warning, FIFA made a scapegoat out of Sinclair and didn’t deal with the actual problem.To put this disciplinary decision into perspective, you need not look further than English men’s soccer player John Terry, who received a similar four-match ban from the English Football Association a few weeks ago after he used racial slurs against an opposing player in an English Premier League match.The two players received the same punishment, yet Terry’s actions were in direct violation of FIFA’s “say no to racism” campaign, a valiant cause for a sports body with a diverse set of racial backgrounds on teams all over the world. On the other hand, Sinclair merely vocalized an opinion that most soccer fans and players would agree with: Referees should be held accountable for their mistakes.Still, the game certainly doesn’t need knee-jerk reactions and subsequent referee firings by FIFA – and there is something to be said for the drama element that human error brings to the game. But referee criticism by coaches and players needs to be allowed as a way to hold referees accountable for the problem will only intensify in the coming years.Nick is a junior majoring in journalism and political science. Do you agree with FIFA’s decision? Is refereeing becoming a problem in soccer? Send Nick an email at email@example.com or send him a tweet @npdaniels31.
Municipality Center Sarajevo in the collaboration with the Public institution of the Center for sport and recreation organize this winter a free ski school for Primary school students from the Municipality Center Sarajevo. The aim of this project is to enable students to spend as much time outside enjoying in winter sports during their winter holidays. Other aim is to help them learn how to ski.The selection of students will be done in the collaboration with schools and parents. The ski classes will be held according to weather conditions, on Igman and Bjelašnica. The ski school will be held in two shifts, the first from the 7th January till 11th January 2012, and the second from 14th till 18th January 2013.The Municipality Center Sarajevo has secured forty ski equipment packages. Children will have organized transport to Igman or Bjelašnica, sandwiches and warm beverages.
Squatters whose structures are being torn down in Fendell on the property of University of Liberia (UL) say they were misled by the government’s record of ‘warnings without action’ in the past that caused them not to leave when they were told to do so.They said the government has shown remarkable leniency on its properties occupied by squatters and therefore they assumed no one would have really demanded the land they occupied for more than ten years. Among the structures were some very decent buildings, which housed businesses that provided a variety of goods and services for students attending the Fendell campus. Owners of the structures said they spent thousands of dollars to build.In a tour of the area yesterday, several squatters told the Daily Observer that they were aware that the land belonged to the University of Liberia.“I have been living here for more than ten years,” said Hawa Sumo, 40, a grandmother, “and now with my nine family members we don’t have anywhere to go.”Madam Sumo agreed that she, along with the others, were told to leave the land because the owners wanted to take it back.“I wanted to leave and I thought they would give us something to help us to relocate,” she said.David Johnson, 51, said he was resided on the land for more than ten years. He said he was not present when the caterpillar came to destroy his brick house and therefore lost everything.“I was out and when I came back everything was gone and my house was no more,” said Johnson, who happens to be a builder. There are seven members in his family.Also affected is Anthony Xwisdyu, 50, who has worked with the University of Liberia Police for the last 18 years. He has six family members, including a 4-year-old and a one-year-old.The two men yesterday joined others to scavenge from what was left from the forceful destruction of their mud-brick houses.“We are taking the zincs and beams that we can use elsewhere,” Johnson said.Madam Musu Nyepah, 50, has lived on the property for three years and recently completed her brick structure with her children.“We made the bricks and sold some of them to use the money to buy sticks for the house,” she said, “now all is gone.”She admitted she was informed that she was residing on a property that belonged to the University of Liberia.“I never thought they would come and break our houses down,” she said, though she also admitted having been informed to leave the property.Mr. Blama Allison, known in the community as a tailor, because he made dresses for many, is chairman of the Fendell Junction Community. He has lived on the property for 16 years and when he realized that the UL authorities were serious, managed to build another home, away from the current one, for his family.“I knew it was going to come to this,” he said, but noted that information about the property, particularly from people claiming to own it, was deceptive, but he could not convince residents to make other choices.He said, “I never went to court over the dispute, but we were always told that everything was fine and so many did not care to act with urgency.”Many of those affected packed their personal effects, including mattresses and cooking utensils and chairs, on pick-up trucks and drove away to wherever they could find a place.With a team of anti-riot police present, the caterpillar moved from one house to another, bringing them down as former owners looked on in shock and shame.Many also worried about the future of their children’s education, since now they have to find accommodation elsewhere that might change the schools their children must attend.Several others said their situation would not have been bad if the government and UL authorities had made that decision more than ten years ago, and appealed to the government to ease their frustration by at least providing them some financial compensation.“So that we could use the money to start a new life elsewhere,” an older woman said.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)