“Hondo’s Toy” - Adjustments for 0 HRA Pitchers in SOM Baseball

 

Ted Abernathy, Our Inadvertent Hero

Link to all Strat-O-Matic Baseball Content

It’s that time of year, again, when a young man’s fancy turns to baseball, and old men argue about Strat-O-Matic rules and details. The discussion came up on Hondo’s Strat Forum about Ted Abernathy, a right handed pitcher who gave up no home runs to left handed batters in 143 batters faced in the 1967 NL.  The question is should he be able to “control” these left handed hitters on their cards, the same way batters are controlled on pitcher cards by the W and N designations. I’m generally against this, as I am most things contrary to the model - but let’s wait a bit.  

My usual objections to these kinds of adjustments, which are by the way very, very popular with replayers, are three-fold. 

A) Allowing 0 HRA is being treated as a Superpower, that is, an ability to change another player’s hitting, usually using twenty-sided dice, by denying him home runs (adjusting his card).  My contention is in most cases this 0 HRA pitcher’s scenario is mere random variation, that is, in any population of pitchers there will be a sub population of pitchers of normal talent who allow 0 Home runs for a more extended period, because, while it is unusual for this to happen, it’s not impossible. 

- The Example I gave was the 1978 AL, a league I know pretty well.  Two pitchers in the 1978 AL gave up  0 home runs on more than 143 BFP, including Victor Cruz of Toronto and Don Stanhouse of Baltimore, who made it to 352 batters faced, which is a pretty good number.  But there’s this part of me that also thinks that if you sent Jim Rice up there, he of the 400 total bases in 1978, that you couldn’t say, “Hey, you can’t homer off me, I’m Don Stanhouse.”  That’s perhaps a bridge too far. 

It’s imposing a deterministic view- “this result is zero in real life, so it has to be zero in the game”- on a game construct that’s meant to model possibilities. If you’re allowing Justin Verlander to face Babe Ruth in a game, there’s no real life data for that.  It’s all a model. 

I’m also of the opinion that a pitcher with 1 home run allowed in say 100-150 innings would be more of a unicorn than 0 HRA in 143 batters faced, so the use of a 0 home runs allowed standard is actually a bit arbitrary.  

B) The game’s general model does not allow one group of outcomes to cross over and affect another group of outcomes. What I mean by this is in real life the combination of Ozzie Smith and Terry Pendleton (and to some degree Tommy Herr) was absolute poison to right handed batters who tried to pull pitches and hit them on the ground in St Louis in 1985.  In some baseball models this would be reflected in their hitting capabilities and not just (as it is in Strat) on small sub segments on the pitcher’s cards. (I think Sherco actually did this with range and positioning).  

To me Ozzie’s fielding actually was a superpower, but it’s bounded very carefully in our game. A 0 home runs allowed pitcher who is allowed to negate batter’s home runs is not bounded at all, he impacts even a sixty-two home run hitting 2024 Aaron Judge. 

C) The entire model assigning cause and blame for hits and outs to pitchers, batters, and fielders, is just a construct, it did not come down from On High from the Burning Bush. I’m not saying it’s bad.  But there are constraints and compromises in any such model, and it’s against my nature to assign any one batting or pitching scenario to have any more weight than it needs in any simulation. 

So - let’s do just that.  Hondo actually did something interesting - he posed the question a different way, a way that made me less argumentative. He asked under what conditions would such a 1-20 twenty sided dice roll (adjustment roll) might be applicable, and what should it be?  That’s an entirely different question; it could be restated as “at what point, in terms of batters faced, does this scenario, 0 home runs allowed, become significant?  How do we apply relevant data to this? “

Now that question has a statistical model, you can use reliability analysis or AQL lot size type “0 defects” models, where the whole point is to sample for acceptance or denial based on the possible presence of a single “defect”.  A defect, here would be a home run, and what you’re testing for (or against) is the base frequency with which these were allowed.  

Let’s look at the 1967 National League: 

(Note: I’m using pitcher’s BFP and hitter’s PA more or less equivalently;  I know they are not exactly equivalent. BFP includes AB, W, H and reached on errors. Plate appearances include official AB, walks, hit by pitch, sac bunts and flies, and teaching base on fielder’s choices. They’re close, close enough for this estimate.)

The Data:  1967 NL

                              PA.      HR

Rhb versus rhp    24970   485

Rhb versus lhp.   14690.  276

Rhb:                    39660.   762         0.019213

LHB versus rhp.   17474.  282

LHB vs lhp.          3746.    56

LHB:                    21220.   338.       0.015928

At the batter level, right handed batters have more power in the 1967 NL.

 

Okay let’s look at this at the pitcher level:

1967 NL

                              PA.      HR

Rhb versus rhp    24970   485

LHB versus rhp.   17474.  282.    0.016138*

Right handers      42444.  767.     0.018071

Rhb versus lhp.   14690.  276

LHB vs lhp.          3746.    56

Left handers         18436.  333.    0.018062

choices.

So now you have two choices: 

A) level of confidence (90 percent, 95, 98, 99), in which case if you selected an outcome at that confidence you could be wrong on the cause Les and less frequently.  90 pct would be 1 in ten times, 99 pct would be one in 100. 

B) which of the above instances are the right percentages. Since we are looking at a right handed pitcher versus left handed batters I’ll choose 0.016138

Okay now let’s calculate the zero defects sample size, or the number of plate appearances with 0 HRA where we start to look at significance. Note that it’s about 4.2 PA per IP as a rough estimate; this is easily calculated from the league’s summary data. 

90 percent = ln(1-.90) / ln(1-0.016138) or 142 (dimensionless) 

(we don’t have a specific IP for Abernathy versus just left handers but if we did, this is about 34 IP with 0 HRA)

95 percent = ln(1 - 0.95) / ln (1-0.016138) or 184

98 percent = ln(1/0.98) /  ln (1-0.016138) or 240 

99 percent = lb(1/0.99) / ln (1-0.016138) or 283.  

As you look at higher significance the pitcher needs to face more and more batters in order for the 0 HRA to be significant at any given home run rate.  

Now let’s see what we get when we use my favorite toy to convert these findings to look at possible 20 sided die results for each level of significance. The favorite toy is an estimator that is going to place the probability of the adjustment at 50 percent for the first point that is significant at 95 percent confidence, and it can estimate the surrounding data based on that midpoint: 

At 90 percent confidence:

Opp BFP with 0 HRA : 

50 :  (142 from above /50) minus 0.5 = 2.33 times 20 = 47

47 is greater than 20, no adjustment to batter’s cards

This would be only 12 IP with no HR

100:  ((142 /100) - 0.5) = 0.915 times 20 or 18.

You would use 1-18 as an adjustment at 90 percent confidence for a pitcher with 100 homerless BFP.  Thus is about 24 homerless IP. 

143: ((142/143) -0.5) = 0.489 times 20 or 10. 

Ted Abernathy would be a 1-10 adjustment at 90 percent confidence

200: ((142/200) - 0.5) = 0.208 times 20 or 4

A pitcher with 200 BFP would use a 1-4 adjustment 

A pitcher with 250 BFP with 0 HRA would be 0.066 times 20 or 1.  The adjustment would be 1 in 20 on a 20 sided die.

Let’s try 95 percent confidence, often used as a standard 

50: (184/50 - 0.5)  = 3.18 times 20 equals 64

No adjustment 

100: (184/100 - 0.5) = 1.34 times 20 equals 27 

No adjustment 

143: (184/143 - 0.5) = 0.788 times 20 equals 16

Ted Abernathy versus LHB would use a 1-16 adjustment at 95 percent confidence.  Note the adjustment is higher (more favorable to a batter) at 95 percent confidence, but the chance there is another special cause would be half what it was at 90 percent. 

200: (184/200 - 0.5) = 0.421 times 20 = 8 

A pitcher with 200 BFP versus lhp with 0 HRA would be 1-8 for an adjustment to batters 

250: (184/250 - 0.5) = 0.236 or 5; 1-5 on a 20 sided die.

Let’s try 98 pct confidence: 

50: (240/50 -0.5) = 4.31 times 20 = 86 no adjustment 

100: 1.90 times 20 = 38 no adjustment 

143: 1.18 times 20 = 24 no adjustment

200: 0.702 times 20 = 14 1-14 on a 20 sided die 

250: 0.461 times 20 = 9 1-9 on a 20 sided die. 

Using this very high bar Abernathy would have no correction. 

99 pct: (Abernathy only) 

283/143 - 0.5 = 1.48 times 20 no adjustment 

So which one should you use? I think this is up to the user, but an interesting result happens if we use the 184 figure- this is the minimum level where significance could be presumed under this model. 

At 90 percent 

142// 184 - 0.5 equals .269, times 20 equals 5 1-5 on a 20 sided die for a batter home run- this is a pretty strong offset. It reduces batters card home runs by 75 percent. 

At 95 percent: 

184/ 184 - 0.5 or .5 times 20 = 10.  What this is saying is a significant result should mean a 1-10 adjustment, a 50 percent reduction.  This is the reference model for the Favorite Toy, the first significant point is a 50 percent reduction or 1-10. But it’s up to the user what their comfort level is. 

At  98 percent:

240/ 184 - 0.5 or 0.806 times 20 = 16.  The first level at which significance is observed results in a mild offset of a 20 percent reduction of the batter’s numbers (1-16). 

At 99 percent: 

283/184 - 0.5 or 1.04 times 20 = 21.  184 homerless BFP provides no adjustment but a slightly higher number would. 

If it was me, I would calculate the 98 percent numbers and use them to calculate my offsets. This way you can be reasonably sure the significance limits are met. For the Abernathy case it would be no adjustment. But I could also see using the 1-16 adjustment of the 95 percent confidence level calculation. 

Review- Steps:

Calculate the HR/PA fur the scenario you wish to adjust;

Select significance, 90, 95, 98 or 99

Calculate the sample level (ln 1- significance) / (ln 1- hr/pa) 

Calculate the 1-20 twenty sided die adjustment 

((Sample level / BFP with 0 HRA) - 0.5) times 20

Fred Bobberts 3/12/2025

“Northern Lights” Strat-O-Matic Pro Football cards for the 2025 CFL Season

 

Led by DB Rolan Milligan, Jr., Saskatchewan celebrates their win in the 112th Grey Cup

“Northern Lights”

Strat-O-Matic Pro Football cards for the 2025 CFL Season

CARDS Link to 2025CFL_print_rev4_v1_9_1.pdf

2025-Rosters.docx

QB Starts and CFL Schedule_2025.xlsx

Specific CFL_Penalties_and_Ejections_2a.pdf

Ejections_Chart for Game Misconduct Fouls (CFL Specific)

Fumble returns, Int returns, Rouges

CFL Final Raw Data

SOM PRO FOOTBALL LINKS

1981 CFL Retro Cards

For Stephen Beardslee, the genius behind the look and feel. 

Changes

It has been said that a quick turnaround in CFL team fortunes is often preceded by the hire of a hot offensive guru at head coach to match up with a new QB prospect.  This has been true in Ottawa in 2024 and Montreal in 2025, and it may prove true in Edmonton in 2026.  But it is also true that injuries and free agent losses can close a competitive window in Canadian Football just as quickly.  Nowhere was this more true than in Toronto, where off-season and post-Grey Cup raids on both sides of the Argo’s lines and the season-long 2025 absence of QB Chad Kelly denied the Boatmen a chance to repeat as champions.  Winnipeg lost its receiving depth, as standout WR Kenny Lawler’s move to Hamilton raised the bar for the Tiger-Cats and QB Bo Levi Mitchell. Excellent leaders such as Dru Brown of Ottawa and Zach Collaros of the Blue Bombers spent a lot of time on the sidelines, costing the Redblacks a possible playoff berth and the Blue Bombers a shot at their sixth straight Western Division title. Changes in both lineups and team fortunes were a constant in the 2025 CFL. 

In 2025, CFL Teams filled the sky with footballs 

Reappraisal

But for once in mid-season the big changes occurred off the field.  On September 22, 2025, CFL Commissioner Stewart Johnston announced that meaningful rules changes would be instituted over the next two seasons through a phased approach. The most significant modifications would come in 2027 with the goalposts being moved to the back of the end zone and the field being re-sized. In anticipation of these structural changes, and beginning in 2026, the rouge would be modified and adjustments would be introduced to ensure a more consistent game flow. 

CFL Commissioner Stewart Johnson

Reprisal 

These proposals started a firestorm of commentary, as people sought to both predict and place motives behind the actions. The overwhelming fear was that the Canadian game was being “Americanized” in an effort to make US Expansion a stronger possibility. A smaller field with more US friendly rules might be leveraged to place a tenth team somewhere in the Lower 48.  While expansion to a tenth team has long been the dream of many CFL fans, their ideal target locations would be somewhere in the Canadian Maritimes or in Saskatoon, out West. The idea that potential expansion might not include a National site thus infuriated long time fans of the Canadian sport. Rising political friction between the two nations had made this possibility untenable for many Canadians. 

There was more to it than just expansion, though. Canadian fields are used at the high school and collegiate level as well, and it was unclear at the time of the announcement what the plan might be for preparing and transitioning the existing lower levels of Canadian competition.  While the players came down on both sides of the issue, no less a critic than “Kid Canada”, Nathan Rourke, the BC quarterback and the preeminent Canadian-born CFL star, pointed out the real objection most people had was the lack of consultation with the various stakeholders before the decision was made. 

Resolution

The search for consensus in decision making is definitely uniquely Canadian; it will be interesting to see how these changes play out now that they are on paper and will soon take place on the field. 2025 is thus the last season we have with the nine traditional teams and (more or less) the traditional CFL rule set. The controversies did nothing to ruin the playing of the postseason- the Divisional games saw four outstanding and close contests, and the final between Montreal and Saskatchewan was a tremendous watch.  The victorious Roughriders of course are a classic franchise and are well-supported by their fan base, and their win put a bow on what had been an entertaining and competitive 2025 CFL season. 

Hamilton 11-7 

The 26 year winless streak continues.  The Tiger-Cats rode Eastern All Star QB Bo Levi Mitchell and a ball hawking defence to host the Eastern Finals, where it took the tough and opportunistic Montreal defence to hold them off 19-16 and deny them a Grey Cup appearance; the ‘Cats now still haven’t won the Cup since 1999.  Still, it was a great regular season.  Bo Levi Mitchell adeptly utilized former Winnipeg free agent Tim Lawler, who caught passes for over 1,400 yards and 14 scores, as well as his fellow receivers Tim White and Kiondre Smith, who also tallied over 1,000 yards each, to post a 5,000 yard passing season with a CFL- leading 36 passing major scores. Tailback Greg Bell chipped in 1,008 yards on the ground to give the team four thousand yard players. On defence Julian Howsare hounded enemy passers and the Hamilton secondary, led by All- Canada backs Jamal Peters and Stavros Katsontonis feasted on them, as the team led the CFL in interceptions.  

Hamilton’s Bo Levi Mitchell led the CFL in 2025 in passing yards and major scores

Montreal 10-8

The 2025 10-8 record for the Alouettes is deceptive; Montreal had some horses.  They had won the Cup in 2023 and finished 12-5-1 in 2024 before an error-prone loss to Toronto in the Eastern Finals, so much was expected from them in 2025. Behind new QB Davis Alexander the team won its first three games including the Eastern Final rematch with the Boatmen 28-10 in Week One. But Davis suffered from the injury bug, and after a 5-2 start the team stumbled behind three different backup quarterbacks to drop to 5-7, close to possible elimination. Through it all Canada’s top defence held firm.  Led by All- Canada LBs Tyrice Beverette  and Darnell Sankey, and safety Marc-Antoine DeQuoy, the Montreal defence allowed the least yards on the season. And when Alexander returned, the Alouettes started playing their usual brand of crisp error free football, as he spread the ball around to a group of talented receivers, led by All-Canada selection Tyler Snead, Tyson Philpot and Charleston Rambo. 

Montreal held off Winnipeg 42-33 in the East Semis and dropped Hamilton in a close one in the East Finals 19-16 to head to the Grey Cup to face Saskatchewan.  In Winnipeg in the Cup, Alexander thew three uncharacteristic interceptions in his first loss of his CFL career, and another late fumble cost the ALs the title. 

The Alouettes Defence, led by LB Tyrice Beverette, held firm all year. 

Toronto 5-13

What a difference a year makes! Defending champion Toronto lost starting QB Chad Kelly to a devastating injury before the 2024 Grey Cup, and perennial understudy QB Nick Arbuckle won the Championship with an MVP performance. But the off-season was disastrous for the Argos, as teams raided the Boatmen for experienced linemen and backs.  The depleted roster dropped close contests early in the year to start 2-8 in spite of a good year from Arbuckle. He threw for over 4000 yards and 26 touchdowns, but received little help from Canada’s worst running game or a defence that allowed 583 points. While Derek Slewa played an exciting brand of football in his first professional year at safety and on returns, and “Touchdown Jake” Herslow caught nine majors in six games, and rookie Kevin Mital had 102 receptions to tie for the lead in the CFL, problems up front doomed the Argos to a last place finish in rushing yards and sacks allowed.  Only a miracle 63 yard catch with one second remaining by Dejon Brissett to set up a Labour Day comeback win against the rival Tiger-Cats kept the defending champs from falling into the East’s basement. 

Ottawa 4-14

One year after winning a 2024 spot in the Eastern Playoffs, injuries, turnovers, and poor special teams play doomed the RedBlacks to last place in the East at 4-14.  The team featured a pair of Eastern All-Star receivers in Eugene Lewis and Justin Hardy, and a good young quarterback in Dru Brown, but Brown was frequently injured and threw more interceptions than is normally helpful, finishing at two wins and seven losses in his starts for the year. It was his backup, Dustin Crum who had the better season, as he won two of his six starts on his “no holds barred” scrambling ability. In both of his wins Ottawa came from behind; coining the term “Crumback”, which owing to its popularity, may be with us for awhile.  The offence did not get much help from runners William Stanback or Daniel Adeboboye, but I would not count either out in 2026. A lot of talent dots this roster, particularly on the defensive line, and if they can improve their league- worst pass rush and shore up their offensive line, they could be a winner once again. 

Both Geno Lewis and Justin Hardy made the 2025 East All Star team for Ottawa. 

Saskatchewan 12-6

Melonheads rejoice! The Saskatchewan Roughriders had lost the 97th Grey Cup in 2009 against the Alouettes due to a "too many men on the field" penalty on the final play, a costly (and infamous) illegal substitution that gave Montreal  kicker  Damon Duval a second chance at a game-winning field goal, which he made to win 28-27 after missing the first attempt. But they did not fail in the key moments in the 2025 112th Grey Cup. Nursing a 25-17 lead and with the Als inside their five, the Roughriders defence avenged that loss and forced and recovered a fumble by Montreal short yardage specialist Shea Patterson to clinch their first Grey Cup win since 2013. 

Saskatchewan’s roster was dotted with experienced players who, over their careers, have seen it all. Led by 39 year old signal caller Trevor Harris, who completed 72.3 pct of his passes for 4569 yards and 24 scores.  Harris has now been in the CFL for 13 years and has found a home in Saskatchewan and his intelligent and cerebral approach drove the Roughriders to championship heights.  Harris was able to leverage 1,000 yard receivers Dohnte Meyers and Keesean Johnson, allowing the team to overcome injuries to Mitchell Picton and Sam Emilus. The Riders had three All Canadian linemen up front in Jamarcus Hardrick, Jacob Brammer, and Logan Fenland, and they opened running lanes for A.J. Ouellette, who rushed for 1,222 yards and 8 major scores on the ground.  With so much veteran talent Saskatchewan was able to post the key major scores to gain the leads in both the Eastern Finals and the Grey Cup, and their defence, the best in the West and Canada’s toughest against the run, was able to make good in each contest to win the Championship. 

Saskatchewan’s rugged defence forced the biggest play of the 112th Grey Cup, a short yardage fumble at the goal line. 

BC 11-7

The Lions had two seasons- an early slow start that saw them drop to below .500 at 5-7, and then a 6-0 finish keyed by their defensive emergence and an explosive passing attack.  The defence was keyed by their pass rush, led by defensive player of the year Mathieu Betts, who topped the league in sacks with 15, just three short of his own CFL record; the passing attack was led by Nathan Rourke, the first Canadian quarterback to win the Most Outstanding Player award since Russ Jackson claimed it while playing with the old Ottawa Rough Riders in 1969.  

The 2025 MOP, BC Quarterback Nathan Rourke

BC added in two All-Canada receivers in Keon Hatcher and Justin McInness, plus a very dangerous downfield receiver in Ayden Eberhard and the underrated Stanley Berryhill III.  Jarell Broxton is one of the league’s best tackles, and James Butler (1,213 yards and 11 major scores) and Zander Horvath gave defences a running threat to worry about, too. BC was the only Canadian team to average over 8.0 yards a play, but their inability to run out the clock late against Saskatchewan cost them the Western Division Final and a Grey Cup berth. 

Calgary 11-7

With one off season move, it looked like the Stampeders might be on their way to the Grey Cup.  Following a November trade of draft picks with the Lions they picked up “Big Play V.A.”, thirty two year old former Oregon star QB Vernon Adams. Adams played in 17 regular-season games in 2025, posting an 11-6 record. He completed 280 of 429 passes – a 65.2-per cent success rate – for 4,247 yards, 21 touchdowns, and 14 interceptions. It was the second 4,000-yard season of his career. Adams also carried the ball 40 times for 332 yards, two touchdowns and a pair of two-point conversions.  The Stamps already had the CFL’s top runner by yards in Dedrick Mills, and a talented defensive front and secondary.  Mills, a 5’10’’ 238 pound back from Nebraska, gained 1,409 yards rushing with 11 major scores.  

Vernon Adams, Jr.

With their dangerous balance of running, downfield passing and defence the Stampeders raced out to an 8-3 start, just a half game behind Saskatchewan, and it looked like a home playoff game in McMahon Stadium was in the bag. Then the wheels game off- in one three game stretch Adams threw for only 6 touchdowns versus 11 interceptions, and the league saw fewer of his beautiful moon-ball deep shots to receivers Jalen Philpot, Dominique Rhymes, and Damien Alford. While Adams regained his form in time to clinch a postseason berth, the stumble allowed BC to overtake Calgary for second place and to take the Western Division Semi Final game for BC Place in Vancouver. There a late Stamps special teams fumble allowed Rourke and Co. to escape to the Western Final on a walkoff field goal. Calgary will be dangerous in any replay, though, they have the defence and offence to compete with anyone.

Winnipeg 10-8

In a league of offensive fireworks, Winnipeg still preferred to win in the old-fashioned CFL way- on special teams and defence. They possessed the CFL’s most dangerous long range kicker in Sergio Willis, who could fire through FGs from mid field. The return game was anchored by the CFL’s best return man, Trey Vaval; Vaval led the West in punt returns and average; among his many accomplishments was setting the CFL game yardage record for missed Field Goals on September 20 (199). The Minnesota Vikings liked Vaval so much they worked him out in the middle of the season.  The Bomber defence could stop the run and the pass, and they possessed a great all-around back in Brady Olviera (1,163 rushing yards, 61 catches for 546 yards - and he can block!) Add in excellent coaching, and a proven commodity in QB Zach Collaros along with a change of pace in scrambling reserve QB (and former NY Jet) Chris Streveler and Winnipeg had enough to make another playoff run, albeit in the East as a crossover team. But time and free agency had eroded their receiving corps and offensive line, and their reign of six straight Grey Cup appearances came to a close with a tough loss to Montreal in the Eastern Semifinals. 

Edmonton Elks 7-11

The Elks may have finished in fifth place in the West but they have a dynamic roster, led by veteran QB Cody Fajardo and RB Justin Rankin, a former Kent State player who scored 9 majors in runs while he added in 56 catches for 713 yards and four more TDs.  Rankin led the CFL in yards from scrimmage at 1,739 and he averaged a whopping 7.0 yards per touch.  Rankin had the CFL’s longest run in 2025 at 90 yards, and he was a threat to go the distance, either on passes or on the ground, every time he touched the ball. Edmonton also had the combined yards leader, Javon Leake, who tallied 2,424 yards on runs, catches, and returns (134.7 yards per game). 

Edmonton started the season 1-5 before a late August win streak and some solid play play in September brought them to 7-9 in early October, and on the brink of a possible playoff spot. Two tough losses to BC and Calgary ended those dreams, but Edmonton had built a solid foundation for the future. 

Fred Bobberts

Original Date of Publication: Jan 26, 2026

“My Maryland” Cards for the 1977 Hall of Fame Game (Maryland and Minnesota) for SOM College Football

Zip file of Cards for 1977-Maryland-Final-SOM-Cards.zip

Zip file of Cards for 1977-MINNESOTA-FINAL-SOM-Cards.zip

Strat-O-Matic College Football Posts on this Blog:

“My Maryland” Cards for the 1977 Hall of Fame Game for SOM College Football.  

Maryland sporting a 5-2 look against the 

Golden Gopher Veer.

The 1977-78 Hall of Fame Bowl (then called the Hall of Fame Classic) featured the Maryland Terrapins and the Minnesota Golden Gophers and it was played on December 22, 1977, in Birmingham, Alabama.  Both teams carried 7-4 records into the game, which marked Maryland’s 5th straight post-season bowl, but the first for Minnesota since 1962.

“That’s something Maryland has going for It,” Coach Cal Stoll of Minnesota said at the time, “For many of their players, it will be the third or fourth post-season game. But I think we have enough leadership on this team that they’ll know how to handle it.  Unfortunately the game didn’t exactly go the Gophers way.  Minnesota lost 17-7, with running back George Scott scoring two touchdowns for Maryland. 

For the Gophers, QB Mark Carlson led an opportunistic offense, and defensive tackle Steve Midboe received the team's Most Valuable Player award. Kicker Paul Rogind and Midboe were named All-Big Ten first team. Defensive tackle Mark Merrill, center Mark Slater and defensive back Bobby Weber were named All-Big Ten second team. Offensive lineman Dennis Fitzpatrick, offensive lineman Bryson Hollimon, defensive lineman Stan Sytsma and corner back Bob Weber were named Academic All-Big Ten. Coach Cal Stoll, in his sixth year at the helm, had one keynote win on their schedule, a 16-0 upset win at home against then #1 ranked Michigan to win the Little Brown Jug. It was the first time Michigan had been held scoreless in over 200 consecutive games. 

I definitely remember this one. 

Coach Jerry Claiborne’s Maryland was a touchdown favorite over the upset-minded Gophers. They had finished in a tie for third place in the Atlantic Coast Conference, and outscored their opponents 254 to 179.  (Minnesota had actually been outscored).  The team's statistical leaders included QB Larry Dick with 1,351 passing yards, George Scott with 894 rushing yards, and Vince Kinney with 505 receiving yards. The Terrapins had started 1-3 but they righted the ship, and only a tough 10-7 loss to North Carolina ended their hopes for more conference glory. 

The 1977 Hall of Fame Classic got started with Minnesota gaining the early upper hand.  Golden Golphers tailback Marion Barber rushed for a one-yard touchdown in the opening quarter to give his team a 7-0 lead. Barber is the father of former Minnesota and Dallas Cowboys running back Marion Barber III.  Maryland shut out Minnesota over the final three quarters and only allowed the Golden Gophers to accumulate 69 yards of total offense in the second half.

The Terps received two second quarter rushing touchdowns from tailback George Scott. Scott rushed 75 yards on 24 carries in the Maryland victory in Birmingham.  Kicker Mike Sochko added a 32-yard field goal in the first quarter.

The Terps held the advantage in both rushing yards (120-113) and passing yards (211-155). The Golden Gophers actually recorded 17 first downs to just 15 for the Terps, but Maryland was able to keep them off the scoreboard.

Claiborne would go on to be the second-winningest coach at Maryland as he put together a 77-37 mark during his 10 seasons with the program.   The Terps would only have one losing season over the next four years before Claiborne left for Kentucky.