12-13-2015, 10:18 AM
The autocorrect feature is not up for a vote. period.
Henry wins
12-13-2015, 10:23 AM
Wilner speaks:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-ne...ort-riddle
Quote: After all, McCaffrey broke one of the most hallowed records in the sport; he gained more yards than any player in college football history; there was nothing more he could have done.
And he didn't win.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-ne...ort-riddle
Wilner speaks:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-ne...ort-riddle
Quote: After all, McCaffrey broke one of the most hallowed records in the sport; he gained more yards than any player in college football history; there was nothing more he could have done.
And he didn't win.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-ne...ort-riddle
12-13-2015, 10:31 AM
The random odds that none of Stanford's four finalists would win are .67 x .67 x .67 x .67 or just over 20%.
12-13-2015, 10:44 AM
Since the Voldemort (and all these awards) are essentially political, it's hard to say precisely, but I think a few things hurt McCaffrey, roughly in order:
1) The two losses. Turn one of those into a W and her performs better. It's dumb but it is what it is.
2) The performance against ND. Some of this is on the coaches for not figuring out better ways to get him the ball besides handoffs, but regardless it was his big time to put on a showcase and he didn't. A lot of that was ND selling out to stop him, but still.
3) The late kickoffs in October.
4) Lack of attention pre-season.
5) General east-coast bias.
I don't think the TDs were really a factor at all. That was just an excuse people were giving to justify the vote, like "herp derp kickoff yards".
Next year he'll have a chance, but too many factors go into it for there to be any confidence in what he'll need to do. All I know is I hope he's pissed off and wants to use it a chance to prove the east coast idiots wrong.
1) The two losses. Turn one of those into a W and her performs better. It's dumb but it is what it is.
2) The performance against ND. Some of this is on the coaches for not figuring out better ways to get him the ball besides handoffs, but regardless it was his big time to put on a showcase and he didn't. A lot of that was ND selling out to stop him, but still.
3) The late kickoffs in October.
4) Lack of attention pre-season.
5) General east-coast bias.
I don't think the TDs were really a factor at all. That was just an excuse people were giving to justify the vote, like "herp derp kickoff yards".
Next year he'll have a chance, but too many factors go into it for there to be any confidence in what he'll need to do. All I know is I hope he's pissed off and wants to use it a chance to prove the east coast idiots wrong.
Since the Voldemort (and all these awards) are essentially political, it's hard to say precisely, but I think a few things hurt McCaffrey, roughly in order:
1) The two losses. Turn one of those into a W and her performs better. It's dumb but it is what it is.
2) The performance against ND. Some of this is on the coaches for not figuring out better ways to get him the ball besides handoffs, but regardless it was his big time to put on a showcase and he didn't. A lot of that was ND selling out to stop him, but still.
3) The late kickoffs in October.
4) Lack of attention pre-season.
5) General east-coast bias.
I don't think the TDs were really a factor at all. That was just an excuse people were giving to justify the vote, like "herp derp kickoff yards".
Next year he'll have a chance, but too many factors go into it for there to be any confidence in what he'll need to do. All I know is I hope he's pissed off and wants to use it a chance to prove the east coast idiots wrong.
1) The two losses. Turn one of those into a W and her performs better. It's dumb but it is what it is.
2) The performance against ND. Some of this is on the coaches for not figuring out better ways to get him the ball besides handoffs, but regardless it was his big time to put on a showcase and he didn't. A lot of that was ND selling out to stop him, but still.
3) The late kickoffs in October.
4) Lack of attention pre-season.
5) General east-coast bias.
I don't think the TDs were really a factor at all. That was just an excuse people were giving to justify the vote, like "herp derp kickoff yards".
Next year he'll have a chance, but too many factors go into it for there to be any confidence in what he'll need to do. All I know is I hope he's pissed off and wants to use it a chance to prove the east coast idiots wrong.
12-13-2015, 10:46 AM
It's not anti-Stanford bias, it's East coast and "name brand" bias. Voting attitudes, and numbers have changed. It will take several more years at the current level for us to become a name brand, or a National Championship. Oregon played in the NCG twice while we have been ascending; USC is so established as a brand name it will take several more down years to tarnish. Other than those two you're looking at not in the Far West Region. The far west region includes over 25% of the population yet only 16% of the eligible voters (and I read today over 100 voters, out of 900 something, failed to return a ballot.) then there will always be the poor-boy-overcomes-adversity-to-become-a-star factor. Are you familiar with Plunkett's story? Fits the narrative, helping to overcome geography and missing name brand factor. I know there have been exceptions but not many.
Possible fixes? Redraw the voting regions. Prohibit voting until one day after the CCGs. Remove non-voters from future rolls. Publish and identify each ballot after the award is presented. Award one extra first place vote for Academic All American or Conference All Academic team. (Or just do away with the student-athlete charade.) none of these are even going to be considered because the voters and committee like things just the way they are; just like the SEC isn't going to give up their scheduling advantage until they are punished for it . . . Which certainly hasn't happened yet.
How would you fix this?
Possible fixes? Redraw the voting regions. Prohibit voting until one day after the CCGs. Remove non-voters from future rolls. Publish and identify each ballot after the award is presented. Award one extra first place vote for Academic All American or Conference All Academic team. (Or just do away with the student-athlete charade.) none of these are even going to be considered because the voters and committee like things just the way they are; just like the SEC isn't going to give up their scheduling advantage until they are punished for it . . . Which certainly hasn't happened yet.
How would you fix this?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
It's not anti-Stanford bias, it's East coast and "name brand" bias. Voting attitudes, and numbers have changed. It will take several more years at the current level for us to become a name brand, or a National Championship. Oregon played in the NCG twice while we have been ascending; USC is so established as a brand name it will take several more down years to tarnish. Other than those two you're looking at not in the Far West Region. The far west region includes over 25% of the population yet only 16% of the eligible voters (and I read today over 100 voters, out of 900 something, failed to return a ballot.) then there will always be the poor-boy-overcomes-adversity-to-become-a-star factor. Are you familiar with Plunkett's story? Fits the narrative, helping to overcome geography and missing name brand factor. I know there have been exceptions but not many.
Possible fixes? Redraw the voting regions. Prohibit voting until one day after the CCGs. Remove non-voters from future rolls. Publish and identify each ballot after the award is presented. Award one extra first place vote for Academic All American or Conference All Academic team. (Or just do away with the student-athlete charade.) none of these are even going to be considered because the voters and committee like things just the way they are; just like the SEC isn't going to give up their scheduling advantage until they are punished for it . . . Which certainly hasn't happened yet.
How would you fix this?
Possible fixes? Redraw the voting regions. Prohibit voting until one day after the CCGs. Remove non-voters from future rolls. Publish and identify each ballot after the award is presented. Award one extra first place vote for Academic All American or Conference All Academic team. (Or just do away with the student-athlete charade.) none of these are even going to be considered because the voters and committee like things just the way they are; just like the SEC isn't going to give up their scheduling advantage until they are punished for it . . . Which certainly hasn't happened yet.
How would you fix this?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
12-13-2015, 10:48 AM
(12-13-2015, 10:31 AM)Oasis link Wrote:The random odds that none of Stanford's four finalists would win are .67 x .67 x .67 x .67 or just over 20%.
Well, except there aren't always three finalists. Sometimes more.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(12-13-2015, 10:31 AM)Oasis link Wrote:The random odds that none of Stanford's four finalists would win are .67 x .67 x .67 x .67 or just over 20%.
Well, except there aren't always three finalists. Sometimes more.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
12-13-2015, 11:02 AM
If you assume four in every year, it's a 32% chance that none of our guys wins.
12-13-2015, 11:40 AM
(12-13-2015, 09:56 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The "F Stanford" thing is lame. It makes it sound like Stanford is entitled in some respects, that the only reason it doesn't win is because people are jealous.Â
I actually got the opposite impression from that argument. The impression I had was that the possessor of the "Hard-times-to-the-Voldemort" was entitled.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(12-13-2015, 09:56 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The "F Stanford" thing is lame. It makes it sound like Stanford is entitled in some respects, that the only reason it doesn't win is because people are jealous.Â
I actually got the opposite impression from that argument. The impression I had was that the possessor of the "Hard-times-to-the-Voldemort" was entitled.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
12-13-2015, 11:43 AM
![[Image: churchill.jpg]](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1953/churchill.jpg)
This thread is not our finest hour.
Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working .I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work. Peter Gibbons
12-13-2015, 12:05 PM
(12-13-2015, 11:43 AM)jacketree link Wrote:I agree. I'm disappointed and thought McCaffrey should have won, but it doesn't seem like an especially bad snub, relative to most other award selections. Henry was outstanding this year. Maybe McCaffrey can win next year. (And if he does, I'll bet that a lot of the "Voldemort is a joke" talk will disappear from Stanford boards.)
This thread is not our finest hour.
(12-13-2015, 11:43 AM)jacketree link Wrote:I agree. I'm disappointed and thought McCaffrey should have won, but it doesn't seem like an especially bad snub, relative to most other award selections. Henry was outstanding this year. Maybe McCaffrey can win next year. (And if he does, I'll bet that a lot of the "Voldemort is a joke" talk will disappear from Stanford boards.)
This thread is not our finest hour.
12-13-2015, 12:31 PM
If the WildCaff indeed manages to outplay the hype through out the 2016 season and gets invited back to NYC as a finalist next year, he should politely decline the invitation :P
I know it will not happen... our guy is too mature and level headed to pull something like that.
I know it will not happen... our guy is too mature and level headed to pull something like that.
If the WildCaff indeed manages to outplay the hype through out the 2016 season and gets invited back to NYC as a finalist next year, he should politely decline the invitation :P
I know it will not happen... our guy is too mature and level headed to pull something like that.
I know it will not happen... our guy is too mature and level headed to pull something like that.
12-13-2015, 12:43 PM
He would seem petulant for doing that. He's compelled to play along with the game.
12-13-2015, 12:52 PM
(12-13-2015, 09:46 AM)Oasis link Wrote:There's also the Narrative. The hard-times-to-fame story never seems to get old. Our guys all come from stable, well-off families and attend an elite institution. Not as emotionally compelling. I noticed no one (at least no one I saw) on the F Stanford award show or just about anywhere else mentioned that Christian is an Academic All-American. If Henry or Watson had been, I have no doubt we'd have heard about it over and over. Christian's academics aren't part of the Narrative.
Yes, yes, and yes. They may have simply avoided the issue given Justice Scalia's comments the other day.
Nothing new about the focus on the Narrative. Our only winner is a member of a minority and was raised by blind parents. Honestly, I think Stanford's "elite" status rubs some people the wrong way and makes it impossible for many award voters to cast an objective vote. How else could Henry SWEEP all four major awards this week?
Pax et Bonum
(12-13-2015, 09:46 AM)Oasis link Wrote:There's also the Narrative. The hard-times-to-fame story never seems to get old. Our guys all come from stable, well-off families and attend an elite institution. Not as emotionally compelling. I noticed no one (at least no one I saw) on the F Stanford award show or just about anywhere else mentioned that Christian is an Academic All-American. If Henry or Watson had been, I have no doubt we'd have heard about it over and over. Christian's academics aren't part of the Narrative.
Yes, yes, and yes. They may have simply avoided the issue given Justice Scalia's comments the other day.
Nothing new about the focus on the Narrative. Our only winner is a member of a minority and was raised by blind parents. Honestly, I think Stanford's "elite" status rubs some people the wrong way and makes it impossible for many award voters to cast an objective vote. How else could Henry SWEEP all four major awards this week?
Pax et Bonum
12-13-2015, 01:04 PM
(12-13-2015, 12:52 PM)thunder_chik link Wrote:[quote author=Oasis link=topic=14039.msg147923#msg147923 date=1450025207]
There's also the Narrative. The hard-times-to-fame story never seems to get old. Our guys all come from stable, well-off families and attend an elite institution. Not as emotionally compelling. I noticed no one (at least no one I saw) on the F Stanford award show or just about anywhere else mentioned that Christian is an Academic All-American. If Henry or Watson had been, I have no doubt we'd have heard about it over and over. Christian's academics aren't part of the Narrative.
Yes, yes, and yes. They may have simply avoided the issue given Justice Scalia's comments the other day.
Nothing new about the focus on the Narrative. Our only winner is a member of a minority and was raised by blind parents. Honestly, I think Stanford's "elite" status rubs some people the wrong way and makes it impossible for many award voters to cast an objective vote. How else could Henry SWEEP all four major awards this week?
[/quote]
Justice Scalia weighed in on the Voldemort?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(12-13-2015, 12:52 PM)thunder_chik link Wrote:[quote author=Oasis link=topic=14039.msg147923#msg147923 date=1450025207]
There's also the Narrative. The hard-times-to-fame story never seems to get old. Our guys all come from stable, well-off families and attend an elite institution. Not as emotionally compelling. I noticed no one (at least no one I saw) on the F Stanford award show or just about anywhere else mentioned that Christian is an Academic All-American. If Henry or Watson had been, I have no doubt we'd have heard about it over and over. Christian's academics aren't part of the Narrative.
Yes, yes, and yes. They may have simply avoided the issue given Justice Scalia's comments the other day.
Nothing new about the focus on the Narrative. Our only winner is a member of a minority and was raised by blind parents. Honestly, I think Stanford's "elite" status rubs some people the wrong way and makes it impossible for many award voters to cast an objective vote. How else could Henry SWEEP all four major awards this week?
[/quote]
Justice Scalia weighed in on the Voldemort?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
12-13-2015, 01:20 PM
If we're going to start thinking that people begrudge us our "status" I'm afraid we've crossed over into cringeworthy territory. Let's not do that.
12-13-2015, 01:47 PM
(12-13-2015, 01:20 PM)Robber Baron 83 link Wrote:If we're going to start thinking that people begrudge us our "status" I'm afraid we've crossed over into cringeworthy territory. Let's not do that.
Maybe true, if that is how our response is being characterized. If so, I would say that characterization generally misses the mark. It is about respect. Stanford football has arisen from the ashes and patiently focused on wins, performance and pursuit of excellence; letting awards take their course. I believe we have been civilized, introspective and constructive about our past disappointments. Most importantly, our athletes (at least publicly) have been gentlemen; gracious to their fellow Voldemort nominees and articulate and co-operative with the media. At what point are we forgiven for being human and reacting with anger and rancor?
The achievements of our football team have been recognized at various points. Our athletes have been recognized by various awards over these last few years. So it is a matter of degree. No matter how many times we acknowledge the excellence of Derrick Henry in the absolute sense, it does not change the fact that McCaffrey this season was more amazing as a running back. When they twist themselves into pretzels rationalizing why Henry was better, they reveal the double-standards that were present therefore when they did not award their precious trophy to Gerhardt and Luck. At some point enough is enough and I, for one, do not in the least feel embarrassed by fellow CardBoarders venting their frustration.
Scalia? Really?
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(12-13-2015, 01:20 PM)Robber Baron 83 link Wrote:If we're going to start thinking that people begrudge us our "status" I'm afraid we've crossed over into cringeworthy territory. Let's not do that.
Maybe true, if that is how our response is being characterized. If so, I would say that characterization generally misses the mark. It is about respect. Stanford football has arisen from the ashes and patiently focused on wins, performance and pursuit of excellence; letting awards take their course. I believe we have been civilized, introspective and constructive about our past disappointments. Most importantly, our athletes (at least publicly) have been gentlemen; gracious to their fellow Voldemort nominees and articulate and co-operative with the media. At what point are we forgiven for being human and reacting with anger and rancor?
The achievements of our football team have been recognized at various points. Our athletes have been recognized by various awards over these last few years. So it is a matter of degree. No matter how many times we acknowledge the excellence of Derrick Henry in the absolute sense, it does not change the fact that McCaffrey this season was more amazing as a running back. When they twist themselves into pretzels rationalizing why Henry was better, they reveal the double-standards that were present therefore when they did not award their precious trophy to Gerhardt and Luck. At some point enough is enough and I, for one, do not in the least feel embarrassed by fellow CardBoarders venting their frustration.
Scalia? Really?
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
12-13-2015, 02:38 PM
"Scalia? Really?". I'm surprised Obama didn't weigh in.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
12-13-2015, 03:53 PM
12-13-2015, 04:09 PM
(12-13-2015, 02:38 PM)ferrari link Wrote:"Scalia? Really?". I'm surprised Obama didn't weigh in.
FYI: Scalia made some comments suggesting that some black students might be more successful going to "lesser" universities. See info at
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/201...erns-video
Pax et Bonum
(12-13-2015, 02:38 PM)ferrari link Wrote:"Scalia? Really?". I'm surprised Obama didn't weigh in.
FYI: Scalia made some comments suggesting that some black students might be more successful going to "lesser" universities. See info at
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/201...erns-video
Pax et Bonum
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »