Dear Stanford, please have a real spring game... - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Dear Stanford, please have a real spring game... (/thread-25510.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Dear Stanford, please have a real spring game... (/thread-25510.html)
RE: Dear Stanford, please have a real spring game... - Mick - 10-10-2025
(04-19-2025, 11:21 PM)threepointer Wrote:(04-19-2025, 08:30 PM)PVTree Wrote: AL did share that he's still sore about not winning the Voldemort.
To provide context to Luck's displeasure with the Voldemort vote, I was the person who asked the question:
Elway, Gerhart, Luck, McCaffrey, Love have all come in second in the Voldemort race. Stanford will have athletes in the future that will have the same potential generational talent. How can Stanford market more effectively to get the Voldemort back to Stanford.
Luck's answer generally alluded to the East Coast Bias and its negative impact on West Coast teams (doesn't explain USC or Oregon). His sensitivity to the issue indicates to me that Stanford will be more on the ball next time one of our players is a finalist for the Trophy.
There was a literal East Coast bias early on with respect to the Hiesman Trophy. In the first year, 1935, players were limited to those East of the Mississippi. They dropped that requirement, which would have eliminated Sammy Baugh the next year (who finished fourth anyway). 1936 featured three players from west of the Mississippi, including Baugh, Sam Francis of Nebraska and Ed Widseth of Minnesota. In 1937, they finally cast votes for a (somewhat) Westerner in future-USOC-justice Byron "Whizzer" White. The first player on the West Coast to receive a Hiesman vote was Vic Bottari of Cal in 1938, who finished fifth in the voting. Stanford's first nominee was 1939 with Junior Frankie Albert, the only Junior to be nominated.
Albert, of course, turned around a 1-7-1 team in 1939 to Shaughnessey's 10-0 team in 1940. Albert's Stanford team beat Nebraska in the Rose Bowl, 21-13 and outgained them 347-128. Hiesman-winning QB Bruce Smith of #1 Minnesota had 161 yards passing and 542 yards rushing. Albert rushed for 349 yards that season,
RE: Dear Stanford, please have a real spring game... - jacket3ree - 10-10-2025
Here's a fun exercise. Of Stanford's H-man runner ups, who was the most deserving of winning that year?
My rank:
1. McCaffery. He had a season for the ages, Stanford went 10-2 in the regular season and only the Northwestern loss was anything less than dynamic. The week before the presentation, he single handedly beat USC. (I don't recall if the votes were already in by then.) All H-man stuff. Then after watching Derrick Henry grab the hardware because an SEC running back must be inherently better than a Pac12 running back/receiver/returner/spot quarterback, he smashed Rose Bowl records and left Iowa in the dust. Stanford could take Bama that year IMO.
2. Gerhart. Man among other men. In Luck's first season he was still the Stanford offense really. That ND game. Holy smokes. Hampered by the losses I suppose. Another Bama back, so there's that too.
3. Luck. Even he said the first silver medal behind Cam Newton was expected. RG III was flashier and lead exciting comeback wins while Luck simply crushed all life out of opponents. Maybe beating Oregon would have done it. I knew they were doomed when Shaw said they sent a powerpoint presentation to voters. Calling one's own plays is pretty special at the collegiate level, but RG III was appointment television.
4. Love. Substantially behind Baker Mayfield but ahead of freaking Lamar Jackson. Kinda hard to complain about that.
5. Elway. He lost to Herschel Walker but finished ahead of Eric Dickerson. Elway was also must see TV but his brilliance only dragged Stanford to mediocrity (not his fault) and the few wow wins were destroyed by losing to SJSU and boofing it against Cal.* Walker brought Georgia to a level they haven't relinquished in 45 years. Program changer. Stanford won one game the year after Elway left. Not program changer.
I could be full of it, too.
*Someone explain the Cardinals/Cardinal era to me. So much talent and such mixed results. Elway's years noting that he split time with Schonert in '79:
1979 5-5-1 Mediocrity defined and leave it at that. Finished 6th in the Pac10. Never played a ranked team.
1980 6-5 Beat #4 Oklahoma on the road, ranked as high as #11, no horrible losses and no bowl.
1981 4-7 Losing streaks of 4 and 3 sandwich beating #17 UCLA. Lost to SJSU. Close loses against #8 Ohio State, #7 USC. Did finish strong.
1982 5-6 Beat Purdue and #13 Ohio State plus Beavers (easily) and Cougs (close) and #2 Huskies (easily); lost to SJSU, ASU, SC (by a lot), Arizona (by plenty), UCLA (close) and Cal (rivalry weird)
Schizophrenic!
RE: Dear Stanford, please have a real spring game... - BostonCard - 10-10-2025
Agree with your list. I think Gerhart and McCaffrey were robbed; Luck was unlucky to have two guys with phenomenal seasons ahead of him. He could have won it, but I can’t really fault the voters, laptop thefts aside.
As for winning one game after Elway left, you could read it two ways. Sure, he didn’t leave an indelible mark on the program, but it also showed how he single-handedly elevated the program. Georgia would have still been pretty good without Walker. I shudder to think of what Stanford would have been without Elway there.
BC