[fishman]

I find it pretty surprising that some people feel that naming an endowed position after Andrew Luck is somehow premature, undeserved or inappropriate.

First of all, naming rights at virtually all nonprofit institutions are essentially a fundraising commodity for sale to anyone willing to pay the price.  The purchaser/donor can choose the person - your Aunt Milllie, Uncle Herman, himself, herself - for whom the building, position, chair, etc. is to be named (with consent) as long as it isn't some notorious character.  So a generous donor chooses to honor Andrew Luck - what's the big deal?  This is just ordinary fundraising, and Stanford as an institution is exceptionally good at it. 

What's more, I would submit that Andrew Luck is a completely appropriate, if not exemplary, person to honor by endowing a coaching position.

He's:

•one of the greatest Stanford football players of all time
•an outstanding student at a very challenging school - 3.5 GPA!
•a young man of demonstrably solid values
•an articulate, accessible and approachable spokesman and individual
•a great representative of Stanford in the sports world and beyond
•a highly respected teammate among his peers
•a modest, self effacing guy despite all the above attributes.

There are plenty of buildings, including at the athletic complex, that are named after individuals who were not exactly paragons of virtue.  Even if Andrew were not such an exceptional person and athlete, it's a very nice gesture by the donor and a well-deserved honor for Andrew and calling it premature, inappropriate, etc. just misunderstands the whole process of naming and endowments.

[fishman]

I find it pretty surprising that some people feel that naming an endowed position after Andrew Luck is somehow premature, undeserved or inappropriate.

First of all, naming rights at virtually all nonprofit institutions are essentially a fundraising commodity for sale to anyone willing to pay the price.  The purchaser/donor can choose the person - your Aunt Milllie, Uncle Herman, himself, herself - for whom the building, position, chair, etc. is to be named (with consent) as long as it isn't some notorious character.  So a generous donor chooses to honor Andrew Luck - what's the big deal?  This is just ordinary fundraising, and Stanford as an institution is exceptionally good at it. 

What's more, I would submit that Andrew Luck is a completely appropriate, if not exemplary, person to honor by endowing a coaching position.

He's:

•one of the greatest Stanford football players of all time
•an outstanding student at a very challenging school - 3.5 GPA!
•a young man of demonstrably solid values
•an articulate, accessible and approachable spokesman and individual
•a great representative of Stanford in the sports world and beyond
•a highly respected teammate among his peers
•a modest, self effacing guy despite all the above attributes.

There are plenty of buildings, including at the athletic complex, that are named after individuals who were not exactly paragons of virtue.  Even if Andrew were not such an exceptional person and athlete, it's a very nice gesture by the donor and a well-deserved honor for Andrew and calling it premature, inappropriate, etc. just misunderstands the whole process of naming and endowments.