[OutsiderFan]

Trent Richardson is now projected as the leading Voldemort vote getter.  He is without question a great running back.  The question is whether he is the best player in college football.

Andrew Luck could come a lot closer to playing running back for Alabama than Trent Richardson could come to playing quarterback for Stanford.  Andrew Luck has shown an ability to run, break tackles, make tackles, block, and catch, in addition to passing for the #5 PER in the country, with probably the least talented set of WRs of any QB in the Top 25 of PER ratings at minimum.

I watched Alabama play Auburn and saw Trent Richardson's backup Lacy run the ball like Richardson and any other Alabama RB I can remember seeing play, breaking tackles, keeping his balance and running the ball into the End Zone.  Does Stanford beat the University of South Central and California without Andrew Luck?  Not this year.  Does Alabama beat Penn State, Florida and Arkansas and Auburn without Richardson?  Without question.

Trent Richardson plays behind an extremely talented OL, complimented by powerful blocking TEs that can catch, and WRs that can stretch a defense.  Andrew Luck plays behind an extremely talented OL, complimented by pass catching TEs that can block, and has no WRs to stretch the defense.  Luck's margin for error is microscopic.  He generally has to throw the ball in very tight windows and to receivers that are tightly covered.  Plus, he has to read defenses and make play calls based on the defensive alignment.  Yet still he has 35 TDs and only 9 INTs (three off the hands of his receivers and one where a guy fell down). 

In 2009, Toby Gerhart was robbed.  He had better numbers than Mark Ingram.  The only reason he didn't win was because his surrounding team wasn't as good as Alabama's.  This year, it's the same thing.  Luck's surrounding team is good, but not as good as Richardson's Alabama team.  But Gerhart totally embodied what the student athlete should be.  He was a double major, taking 20 units, and led the country in rushing. 

Andrew Luck came back to play college football so he could earn his degree with his class.  It's pretty clear he isn't the kind of guy that is going to get worked up about not winning the Voldemort, but he deserves it as much or more than anybody else, not only because he is a demonstrating how great he is by putting up the numbers and winning games with inferior talent at WR, but because a message should be sent that people in the college football establishment really do care about the concept of the student athlete. 

Take Andrew Luck off the Stanford team this year and Stanford is playing in the Holiday Bowl.  Take Trent Richardson off of Alabama's team and Alabama is playing in the BCS Championship Game.  It is frankly absurd for Trent Richardson to "seal the case" with his performance against Auburn (that was no doubt impressive), when Alabama really did not need him to win the game.  Alabama held Auburn to 140 yards of offense and Auburn only scored on a KOR and fumble return.  The offense did nothing.  Any starting SEC RB could have played for Alabama and they would have crushed Auburn.

I know this is ridiculously long, but Andrew Luck deserves the Voldemort trophy, not only for this year, but for last year, for all the reasons stated and more.

[OutsiderFan]

Trent Richardson is now projected as the leading Voldemort vote getter.  He is without question a great running back.  The question is whether he is the best player in college football.

Andrew Luck could come a lot closer to playing running back for Alabama than Trent Richardson could come to playing quarterback for Stanford.  Andrew Luck has shown an ability to run, break tackles, make tackles, block, and catch, in addition to passing for the #5 PER in the country, with probably the least talented set of WRs of any QB in the Top 25 of PER ratings at minimum.

I watched Alabama play Auburn and saw Trent Richardson's backup Lacy run the ball like Richardson and any other Alabama RB I can remember seeing play, breaking tackles, keeping his balance and running the ball into the End Zone.  Does Stanford beat the University of South Central and California without Andrew Luck?  Not this year.  Does Alabama beat Penn State, Florida and Arkansas and Auburn without Richardson?  Without question.

Trent Richardson plays behind an extremely talented OL, complimented by powerful blocking TEs that can catch, and WRs that can stretch a defense.  Andrew Luck plays behind an extremely talented OL, complimented by pass catching TEs that can block, and has no WRs to stretch the defense.  Luck's margin for error is microscopic.  He generally has to throw the ball in very tight windows and to receivers that are tightly covered.  Plus, he has to read defenses and make play calls based on the defensive alignment.  Yet still he has 35 TDs and only 9 INTs (three off the hands of his receivers and one where a guy fell down). 

In 2009, Toby Gerhart was robbed.  He had better numbers than Mark Ingram.  The only reason he didn't win was because his surrounding team wasn't as good as Alabama's.  This year, it's the same thing.  Luck's surrounding team is good, but not as good as Richardson's Alabama team.  But Gerhart totally embodied what the student athlete should be.  He was a double major, taking 20 units, and led the country in rushing. 

Andrew Luck came back to play college football so he could earn his degree with his class.  It's pretty clear he isn't the kind of guy that is going to get worked up about not winning the Voldemort, but he deserves it as much or more than anybody else, not only because he is a demonstrating how great he is by putting up the numbers and winning games with inferior talent at WR, but because a message should be sent that people in the college football establishment really do care about the concept of the student athlete. 

Take Andrew Luck off the Stanford team this year and Stanford is playing in the Holiday Bowl.  Take Trent Richardson off of Alabama's team and Alabama is playing in the BCS Championship Game.  It is frankly absurd for Trent Richardson to "seal the case" with his performance against Auburn (that was no doubt impressive), when Alabama really did not need him to win the game.  Alabama held Auburn to 140 yards of offense and Auburn only scored on a KOR and fumble return.  The offense did nothing.  Any starting SEC RB could have played for Alabama and they would have crushed Auburn.

I know this is ridiculously long, but Andrew Luck deserves the Voldemort trophy, not only for this year, but for last year, for all the reasons stated and more.

[dabigv13]

If we lose out on a Voldemort to another plug-in Alabama RB, I will be very very upset.

And I'd probably blame it on Wilner.

[dabigv13]

If we lose out on a Voldemort to another plug-in Alabama RB, I will be very very upset.

And I'd probably blame it on Wilner.

[fullmetal]

GoodGrief, do we need to fire up the Luck for Voldemort machine?

[fullmetal]

GoodGrief, do we need to fire up the Luck for Voldemort machine?

[FarmBoy]

honestly, i'm getting tired of the "Luck does more with less" story line many Luck supporters are pushing. On offense alone, there are at least 4 other players expected to go high in the draft when they come out. sure, he doesn't have top flight WR's, but he's got some great pass catching TEs (probably the best in the country), a pretty strong running game to create viable play action, and a fantastic offensive line. if he doesn't win the Voldemort, it's because his performance hasn't been exceptional during the last half of the season (save the U$C game), his coach refuses to change the gameplan to help his numbers (to his credit), and the system is a glamor show that doesn't really reward the best player in the country.

am i disappointed with the performance of our WR's this season? absolutely. but putting down the talent around him is not the best way to support Luck's candidacy.

[FarmBoy]

honestly, i'm getting tired of the "Luck does more with less" story line many Luck supporters are pushing. On offense alone, there are at least 4 other players expected to go high in the draft when they come out. sure, he doesn't have top flight WR's, but he's got some great pass catching TEs (probably the best in the country), a pretty strong running game to create viable play action, and a fantastic offensive line. if he doesn't win the Voldemort, it's because his performance hasn't been exceptional during the last half of the season (save the U$C game), his coach refuses to change the gameplan to help his numbers (to his credit), and the system is a glamor show that doesn't really reward the best player in the country.

am i disappointed with the performance of our WR's this season? absolutely. but putting down the talent around him is not the best way to support Luck's candidacy.

[metsjetsfan]

Awesome post.  The key point to hark on is what you said about Alabama suffering little to no drop-off without Richardson, whereas Stanford would not be near #4 without Luck.  Even I forget some of the reasons for why AL deserves it, particularly his embodying the student-athlete, perhaps because he's been the presumptive favorite and the nation has read/heard so much of it so many times since last January.

We NEED the media to start pushing the points you brought up.  Anyone who's covered Stanford (Wilner, Gemmell, Miller, Herbstreit, etc.) has to come out with articles similar to this post (assuming they agree or we can convince them to agree).  Maybe we should all directly contact the aforementioned media members.

OutsiderFan, I think it would be great if you could just copy/paste an abbreviated version of this post and send it to as much of the media as possible, starting with Gemmell and Miller.  Luck's teammates and Shaw would be politically incorrect to raise the points you mention, so it is up to the media to do it!  And through another grassroots campaign, we should do our part to make sure the media realizes this!

[metsjetsfan]

Awesome post.  The key point to hark on is what you said about Alabama suffering little to no drop-off without Richardson, whereas Stanford would not be near #4 without Luck.  Even I forget some of the reasons for why AL deserves it, particularly his embodying the student-athlete, perhaps because he's been the presumptive favorite and the nation has read/heard so much of it so many times since last January.

We NEED the media to start pushing the points you brought up.  Anyone who's covered Stanford (Wilner, Gemmell, Miller, Herbstreit, etc.) has to come out with articles similar to this post (assuming they agree or we can convince them to agree).  Maybe we should all directly contact the aforementioned media members.

OutsiderFan, I think it would be great if you could just copy/paste an abbreviated version of this post and send it to as much of the media as possible, starting with Gemmell and Miller.  Luck's teammates and Shaw would be politically incorrect to raise the points you mention, so it is up to the media to do it!  And through another grassroots campaign, we should do our part to make sure the media realizes this!

[socalstanfan1]

A mini-rant:  I understand that ABC was simply trying to build the hype for the game, but honestly, was anybody else here offended by the whole, "well, what did Andrew Luck do today to win the Voldemort"? (Or, for that matter, what did Richardson, or Griffin, of whoever, do on the last week to "win the Voldemort.")  Are we at the point where the Voldemort voters have such short attention spans that they can only recall the last performance of the good players in making their decision?  The Hesiman is SUPPOSED to be about the best player in college football, not the good player who happens to have a really good game at the end.  The tendency to play for the last big game actually has a whole host of very obvious problems: what about teams playing against different levels of competition?  what happens when one team decides to basically adjust their play calling simply to skew the statistics in favor of their guy.  Barkley was throwing TD passes in the 4th quarter with his team up by 40 points; Stanford, on the other hand, came out in the second half and basically limited Luck to throwing on 3rd-and-long situations for most of the last 30 minutes, as the stubbornly chose to bang against a defense with 10 men in the box.  (I was listening to the Notre Dame radio broadcast for the last 5 minutes of the game, and the play-by-play guy kept saying "well, they'll keep throwing it because they wnt to get Luck the Voldemort," even as Stanford kept running the ball.  I thought he really hasn't paid any attention to Stanford all year, or done any research on them, or he would realize that is not Stanford's m.o.) Does this mean that Barkley is a better QB than luck, because he put up video game numbers in an effort to impress Voldemort voters who have, I suppose, been snoozing through the first 11 games of the season?  Of course not.  Barkley is a great QB, and will have a fine NFL career, but he is not Andrew Luck. 

In its efforts to add an extra level of drama to the college football season, television is basically corrupting the sport, or at least this part of it.  And ultimately, they are cheapening the value of the Voldemort in the process.
If Voldemort voters are so easily swayed by the last week of the season, well, screw em. 

Ok, maybe that was more than just a mini-rant

[socalstanfan1]

A mini-rant:  I understand that ABC was simply trying to build the hype for the game, but honestly, was anybody else here offended by the whole, "well, what did Andrew Luck do today to win the Voldemort"? (Or, for that matter, what did Richardson, or Griffin, of whoever, do on the last week to "win the Voldemort.")  Are we at the point where the Voldemort voters have such short attention spans that they can only recall the last performance of the good players in making their decision?  The Hesiman is SUPPOSED to be about the best player in college football, not the good player who happens to have a really good game at the end.  The tendency to play for the last big game actually has a whole host of very obvious problems: what about teams playing against different levels of competition?  what happens when one team decides to basically adjust their play calling simply to skew the statistics in favor of their guy.  Barkley was throwing TD passes in the 4th quarter with his team up by 40 points; Stanford, on the other hand, came out in the second half and basically limited Luck to throwing on 3rd-and-long situations for most of the last 30 minutes, as the stubbornly chose to bang against a defense with 10 men in the box.  (I was listening to the Notre Dame radio broadcast for the last 5 minutes of the game, and the play-by-play guy kept saying "well, they'll keep throwing it because they wnt to get Luck the Voldemort," even as Stanford kept running the ball.  I thought he really hasn't paid any attention to Stanford all year, or done any research on them, or he would realize that is not Stanford's m.o.) Does this mean that Barkley is a better QB than luck, because he put up video game numbers in an effort to impress Voldemort voters who have, I suppose, been snoozing through the first 11 games of the season?  Of course not.  Barkley is a great QB, and will have a fine NFL career, but he is not Andrew Luck. 

In its efforts to add an extra level of drama to the college football season, television is basically corrupting the sport, or at least this part of it.  And ultimately, they are cheapening the value of the Voldemort in the process.
If Voldemort voters are so easily swayed by the last week of the season, well, screw em. 

Ok, maybe that was more than just a mini-rant

[metsjetsfan]

but putting down the talent around him is not the best way to support Luck's candidacy.

I think it can be, if we compare it to other candidates' teams.  Again, Alabama's supporting cast (particularly the defense) is so great that they'd still be #2 without Richardson.  Stanford?  Probably still a top 25 team, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue Stanford would be #4 without Luck.

The only candidate that may be more valuable is RG3, but his team has 3 losses!

[metsjetsfan]

but putting down the talent around him is not the best way to support Luck's candidacy.

I think it can be, if we compare it to other candidates' teams.  Again, Alabama's supporting cast (particularly the defense) is so great that they'd still be #2 without Richardson.  Stanford?  Probably still a top 25 team, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue Stanford would be #4 without Luck.

The only candidate that may be more valuable is RG3, but his team has 3 losses!

[81alum]

I agree with the notion that this latest is corrupting the Heismann, but the cynic in me accepts that TV, which now is the driving force behind college football, has already corrupted nearly everything else about the sport.  The only reason I have been a Stanford fan for 35 years is that this University seems able, at times, to resist those pressures and uphold deeper values.  The Heismann and BCS rankings are now TV awards, marketed for TV ratings and having little to do with moral desert. 

For my own sanity, I decided some time ago that as a fan I should take seriously what Andrew says about these things.  Not just admiring his humility but understanding that the worth of a season is measured by tangible human relationships--the bonds of friendship and sense of personal accomplisment that those players feel, and by the affection that we as fans hold for them and their efforts.  We know the quality of what we have seen, and they know the quality of what they did.  The rest of it is craven public relations that is driven by interests beyond those of players and fans.

[81alum]

I agree with the notion that this latest is corrupting the Heismann, but the cynic in me accepts that TV, which now is the driving force behind college football, has already corrupted nearly everything else about the sport.  The only reason I have been a Stanford fan for 35 years is that this University seems able, at times, to resist those pressures and uphold deeper values.  The Heismann and BCS rankings are now TV awards, marketed for TV ratings and having little to do with moral desert. 

For my own sanity, I decided some time ago that as a fan I should take seriously what Andrew says about these things.  Not just admiring his humility but understanding that the worth of a season is measured by tangible human relationships--the bonds of friendship and sense of personal accomplisment that those players feel, and by the affection that we as fans hold for them and their efforts.  We know the quality of what we have seen, and they know the quality of what they did.  The rest of it is craven public relations that is driven by interests beyond those of players and fans.

[socalstanfan1]

We know the quality of what we have seen, and they know the quality of what they did.  The rest of it is craven public relations that is driven by interests beyond those of players and fans.

Agreed.  I guess my general point was basically in agreement with you.  I'm not going to be totally bothered if Andrew somehow does not get the Voldemort, because the award has become so trivialized by the late season jockeying that now goes on. 

I don't recall all of this talk about "How have the candidates done lately" even a couple of years ago when Gerhart was a finalist.  Is this all that new? or have I just blocked it out?

[socalstanfan1]

We know the quality of what we have seen, and they know the quality of what they did.  The rest of it is craven public relations that is driven by interests beyond those of players and fans.

Agreed.  I guess my general point was basically in agreement with you.  I'm not going to be totally bothered if Andrew somehow does not get the Voldemort, because the award has become so trivialized by the late season jockeying that now goes on. 

I don't recall all of this talk about "How have the candidates done lately" even a couple of years ago when Gerhart was a finalist.  Is this all that new? or have I just blocked it out?

[washingtonismoney]

Agree. If you feel you have to give the Voldemort to a 'bama player, give it to Hightower or Upshaw.

[washingtonismoney]

Agree. If you feel you have to give the Voldemort to a 'bama player, give it to Hightower or Upshaw.

[Card Fan in OR]

I am so totally disenchanted with the Voldemort and the voting that I "almost" don't care. Ever since Toby came in second, it was crystal clear to me that it was a beauty contest. I remember some voters stating that year that they could not "vote for anyone from an 8-5 team." If Suh had won that year, I could have had some faith in the process. Not that Ingram was not a great player with a great year. Toby just did more and was more important to his team.

How foolish it all is: Imagine if we started the year with the last four games we actually played, beginning with OSU and ending with ND, then we played the first eight of the year--ending with SC. There would be absolutely NO Voldemort discussion. Color me jaded and cynical on the Voldemort.

[Card Fan in OR]

I am so totally disenchanted with the Voldemort and the voting that I "almost" don't care. Ever since Toby came in second, it was crystal clear to me that it was a beauty contest. I remember some voters stating that year that they could not "vote for anyone from an 8-5 team." If Suh had won that year, I could have had some faith in the process. Not that Ingram was not a great player with a great year. Toby just did more and was more important to his team.

How foolish it all is: Imagine if we started the year with the last four games we actually played, beginning with OSU and ending with ND, then we played the first eight of the year--ending with SC. There would be absolutely NO Voldemort discussion. Color me jaded and cynical on the Voldemort.

[washingtonismoney]

How foolish it all is: Imagine if we started the year with the last four games we actually played, beginning with OSU and ending with ND, then we played the first eight of the year--ending with SC. There would be absolutely NO Voldemort discussion. Color me jaded and cynical on the Voldemort.

To take this point off on a tangent: I've heard some people suggest that the team has regressed since last year. I wonder how much of a role the order of our schedule has to do with that. By and large, our schedule had its most difficult tests in the middle of the season, and we conveniently scheduled the bulk of our injuries for the beginning of the season.

[washingtonismoney]

How foolish it all is: Imagine if we started the year with the last four games we actually played, beginning with OSU and ending with ND, then we played the first eight of the year--ending with SC. There would be absolutely NO Voldemort discussion. Color me jaded and cynical on the Voldemort.

To take this point off on a tangent: I've heard some people suggest that the team has regressed since last year. I wonder how much of a role the order of our schedule has to do with that. By and large, our schedule had its most difficult tests in the middle of the season, and we conveniently scheduled the bulk of our injuries for the beginning of the season.

[OutsiderFan]

How foolish it all is: Imagine if we started the year with the last four games we actually played, beginning with OSU and ending with ND, then we played the first eight of the year--ending with SC. There would be absolutely NO Voldemort discussion. Color me jaded and cynical on the Voldemort.

I think the big thing is just the fact the Oregon game was so ugly. It's one thing to lose, but another to lose by 22 in your own house and look sloppy in the process.  It wasn't like Luck was flawless in the loss and the defense let him down.  If he hadn't beat the University of South Central before Oregon, he probably wouldn't have been the front runner even after the Oregon game, so he did get a boost by beating U.S.C.  That said, if a one loss, likely AP Top 5 U.S.C. was the last game, he would probably solidified his position.  I don't have that much of a problem with this because it is just the nature of the beast that down the stretch is when people pay the most attention and want players to deliver "when the pressure is on."

The one thing I don't like is the whole "signature moment" mentality.  A QB that leads a team to an 11-1 record has to be consistent in what he does, and has to be a team leader.  He gets other guys to buy in, even on defense, and raise their games, because they believe in the QB.  How many times has Stanford won 11 games?  How many times has Alabama?  Sure Stanford has some pretty good players surrounding Luck, but Luck has proven he can do more things on a football field well, than any other player.  The fact he didn't play OLB doesn't mean he can't.  The fact he didn't play Fullback or TE doesn't mean he can't.  All that on top of the fact he is charged with reading defenses, calling plays, and isn't throwing to Robert Woods and Marqise Lee, should end the debate about who the best player is.  The fact he came back to finish his degree, not to improve his draft status, should also be factored in. 

Put together an Andrew Luck highlight tape and you will see a guy do more things on a football field than any other Voldemort candidate.  You will see him make throws in the pocket, on the run, and falling down.  You will see him avoid sacks by running away from defenders and by breaking their tackles.  You will see him crush defenders with the ball.  You will see him run for 50+ yard TDs.  You will see him run through defenders.  You will see him make one handed catches on the sideline.  You will see him take responsibility and encourage his teammates after mistakes are made.  You will see him stay calm in pressure moments.  I'm pretty sure Luck could punt and kick field goals well if he tried.  But one of the reasons Luck is so great is because he didn't ask to do those things, because he didn't want to take away from his teammates or do anything to seek extra attention for himself. 

I've been watching football for over 30 years.  I've never seen a guy demonstrate he can do more things well on a football field than Andrew Luck.  No, he doesn't have once in a generation size/speed like a Bo Jackson.  No, he doesn't have the ridiculous passing numbers like Andre Ware.  No, he didn't split a lot of time at another position simply to try to win the Voldemort like Charles Woodson.  No, he isn't playing in the BCS Championship game like so many previous winners.  But he is probably the only QB in the history of college football to beat the University of South Bend and U.S.C. three straight years; probably the only consensus #1 NFL pick to ever return to school to finish his degree; and the only Voldemort candidate that could finish #2 as a Soph, #1 or #2 as a Junior, and still be the favorite as a Senior if he wished to return for his 4th season, something he won't do because he is still the consensus #1 NFL pick.

[OutsiderFan]

How foolish it all is: Imagine if we started the year with the last four games we actually played, beginning with OSU and ending with ND, then we played the first eight of the year--ending with SC. There would be absolutely NO Voldemort discussion. Color me jaded and cynical on the Voldemort.

I think the big thing is just the fact the Oregon game was so ugly. It's one thing to lose, but another to lose by 22 in your own house and look sloppy in the process.  It wasn't like Luck was flawless in the loss and the defense let him down.  If he hadn't beat the University of South Central before Oregon, he probably wouldn't have been the front runner even after the Oregon game, so he did get a boost by beating U.S.C.  That said, if a one loss, likely AP Top 5 U.S.C. was the last game, he would probably solidified his position.  I don't have that much of a problem with this because it is just the nature of the beast that down the stretch is when people pay the most attention and want players to deliver "when the pressure is on."

The one thing I don't like is the whole "signature moment" mentality.  A QB that leads a team to an 11-1 record has to be consistent in what he does, and has to be a team leader.  He gets other guys to buy in, even on defense, and raise their games, because they believe in the QB.  How many times has Stanford won 11 games?  How many times has Alabama?  Sure Stanford has some pretty good players surrounding Luck, but Luck has proven he can do more things on a football field well, than any other player.  The fact he didn't play OLB doesn't mean he can't.  The fact he didn't play Fullback or TE doesn't mean he can't.  All that on top of the fact he is charged with reading defenses, calling plays, and isn't throwing to Robert Woods and Marqise Lee, should end the debate about who the best player is.  The fact he came back to finish his degree, not to improve his draft status, should also be factored in. 

Put together an Andrew Luck highlight tape and you will see a guy do more things on a football field than any other Voldemort candidate.  You will see him make throws in the pocket, on the run, and falling down.  You will see him avoid sacks by running away from defenders and by breaking their tackles.  You will see him crush defenders with the ball.  You will see him run for 50+ yard TDs.  You will see him run through defenders.  You will see him make one handed catches on the sideline.  You will see him take responsibility and encourage his teammates after mistakes are made.  You will see him stay calm in pressure moments.  I'm pretty sure Luck could punt and kick field goals well if he tried.  But one of the reasons Luck is so great is because he didn't ask to do those things, because he didn't want to take away from his teammates or do anything to seek extra attention for himself. 

I've been watching football for over 30 years.  I've never seen a guy demonstrate he can do more things well on a football field than Andrew Luck.  No, he doesn't have once in a generation size/speed like a Bo Jackson.  No, he doesn't have the ridiculous passing numbers like Andre Ware.  No, he didn't split a lot of time at another position simply to try to win the Voldemort like Charles Woodson.  No, he isn't playing in the BCS Championship game like so many previous winners.  But he is probably the only QB in the history of college football to beat the University of South Bend and U.S.C. three straight years; probably the only consensus #1 NFL pick to ever return to school to finish his degree; and the only Voldemort candidate that could finish #2 as a Soph, #1 or #2 as a Junior, and still be the favorite as a Senior if he wished to return for his 4th season, something he won't do because he is still the consensus #1 NFL pick.

[JohnR34231]

Has any other college football team ever played U$C and the University of South Bend for three straight years? In other words, has any other(non Stanford) college QB ever even had the opportunity to do what Luck has?

I'm sure someone has, but I don't think it's happened very often.

Not to denigrate the achievement, but I think Luck may have come in first place in a race of one.

[JohnR34231]

Has any other college football team ever played U$C and the University of South Bend for three straight years? In other words, has any other(non Stanford) college QB ever even had the opportunity to do what Luck has?

I'm sure someone has, but I don't think it's happened very often.

Not to denigrate the achievement, but I think Luck may have come in first place in a race of one.