OT - Stanford names OC position after Andrew Luck

Submitted by Butterfield on May 22nd, 2012 at 4:13 PM

If you hadn't heard, the position formerly known as Stanford Offensive Coordinator is now the
"Andrew Luck Director of Offense".  The name change was brought about by a large, and anonymous, donation. 

Besides it being strange that a offensive coordinator is called something other than an offensive coordinator, how must current ALDO Pep Hamilton feel about now having his title memorialize a guy he coached.  Also, in the unlikely but nevertheless possible event that Luck pulls a Ryan Leaf at the NFL level, how stupid does that title seem?  I'm pretty sure Penn State is happy they don't have a Cameron (Ex-Tiger on the brain) Aaron Maybin Emperor of Linebackers and WVU thrilled they don't have a Pac-Man Jones Minister of the Secondary. 

 http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/052212aaa.html 

 

 

Comments

david from wyoming

May 22nd, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^

Most head coach positions are endowed at privet schools. Most positions are also named after someone. I think all of Stanford football scholarships are endowed as well. I would assume all Stanford sport scholarships are endowed, now that I think about it.

Moleskyn

May 22nd, 2012 at 4:18 PM ^

Yeah, seems a bit premature, odd, etc.

Also, a large, anonymous donation? Named for a guy who was just recently the first overall pick in the draft? Who just got a very nice signing bonus? Coincidence? I think not!

Butterfield

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:08 PM ^

It doesn't change stats, but it changes your impression of a person and whether they were a success or failure in life, not just one level of life.  To keep going back to Ryan Leaf, he was successful at the collegiate level, unsuccessful at the NFL level, and unsuccessful at the "decent human being" level.  I'm can't say for certain but I'd guess that WSU would rather him be forgotten about despite his collegiate success. 

bacon1431

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:38 PM ^

Just because Woods has his life in a mess doesn't mean Luck is destined for or even likely to end up that way. It's like saying Brady Hoke is destined for a scandal because of Jim Tressel. Reputation for being an honest, caring guy, teacher-like, "gets" The Game.....

Alot of guys that have a reputation for being a nice guy are nice guys. Some end up being dicks.

And to further rant, there are quite a few Michigan guys that didn't achieve great success at the NFL. Heck, RVB probably won't be a big time NFL guy but I for sure will remember him fondly.

Butterfield

May 22nd, 2012 at 6:12 PM ^

Here is the comment that I was responding to, verbatim:

"Have you heard anything other than Andrew Luck being a pretty darn nice and smart guy? I would bet he isn't going to become a jerk overnight if he isn't one now."   "

If you don't get how Tiger Woods is relevant in the response, I'm sorry. 

bacon1431

May 22nd, 2012 at 7:57 PM ^

I doubt they care. It's about $, and as long as he doesn't turn out to be Ryan Leaf - which he almost definitely won't, it'll be fine. Nobody thought there was a risk in naming things after Paterno until....yeah. But I don't think you can blame them one bit when they were initially thinking of doing it, which was undoubtedly years ago. There's a risk in putting anyone's name on things because everybody is human. But I don't think you should hold it against Luck that he's a kid. No red flags have come up thus far, his dad is a former player and current AD, he was a Heisman candidate, #1 overall pick. He's used to the limelight already. Add to it that nobody is going to refer to their OC as anything other than the OC and it doesn't really matter.

Caesar

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:05 PM ^

I see what you're saying. Basically, it's that NFL performance will ultimately determine Luck's value to Stanford.There's certainly something to that.

But even if he doesn't do a thing in the NFL, his body of work in college has arguably put Stanford football in a great place--a place they probably wouldn't be at without him. Yes? No? 

Butterfield

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:10 PM ^

Yes.  But nobody gets things named after them before they've started a career.  It's just risking future embarassment in the event that Luck becomes a punchline to a joke. 

david from wyoming

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:14 PM ^

Objectively, Luck is the best college QB Stanford has ever had. I see no problem with an alum (that most likely doesn't give a hoot about the NFL) wanted Luck's name to be attached to this endowment.

As an aside, if you have a few extra millions floating around, you can name an endow at Michigan after yourself. It isn't a big deal and it happens all the time. This one just happens to be named after a number one overall draft pick.

FreddieMercuryHayes

May 22nd, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^

I mean, as long as the OC doesn't have to introduce himself as anything other than the OC, then I guess it's cool to give a donation to the school with some ridiculous formal title given to the OC.  But it is still all kinds of weird.  No one knows how good Luck will be even how his life will turn out.  Does Elway even have some football position endowed after him at Standford?  And even if Luck does turn out to be the next Tom Brady, why name a coaching position after him.  Can't you put up a statue and endow a scholarship or something?  Retire the jersey?

Bloodoo

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:23 PM ^

The point is that Luck could end up a complete bust in the NFL, while Elway is a proven commodity. As it is, the idea of naming the OC after someone is somewhat nonsensical to me. But if you're going to do it, go with a sure thing.

Then again, I could be wrong. The Shane Morris Director of Offense does have a nice ring to it...

Brhino

May 22nd, 2012 at 4:55 PM ^

I haven't followed Andrew Luck or Standford all that closely, so feel free to tell me if I'm making some incorrect assumptions...

...but isn't Andrew Luck a really good quarterback?  Doesn't having him make an offensive coordinator's job substantially easier, because he can just ask his really good quarterback to do what he's naturally good at doing?  Doesn't that, in effect, mean that having a really good quarterback naturally inflates the results obtained by an offensive coordinator, thus obscuring the ability to tell how good the coordinator actually is?  He's not personally responsible for the development of the quarterback (unless he's also the quarterbacks coach).  He's just the lucky (no pun intended!) guy that happens to have this great weapon in his arsenal.  So why name a coordinator position for a really skilled player?

JHendo

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:08 PM ^

Not to be outdone, OSU's head coaching position will henceforth be named the Clarrett/Pryor Director of Keeping Shady Shit on the D.L.