[needle]

Maybe this former Stanford associate AD would be a candidate? Maybe not.

 When word broke Thursday morning that UC Davis Director of Athletics Kevin Blue had resigned to become chief sports officer for Golf Canada in his hometown of Toronto, colleagues provided an avalanche of praise for the administrator’s tenure on campus.

“Other than disappointment in that we’re losing a great guy, I think you have to celebrate the accomplishments that he had in such a short time,” explained economics professor Scott Carrell, who doubles as faculty athletics representative.

“He came in with a vision that was centered around the student-athlete experience, particularly about being the No. 1 school in the country for student-athlete outcomes.”  

https://www.davisenterprise.com/sports/a...3d091.html

[needle]

Maybe this former Stanford associate AD would be a candidate? Maybe not.

 When word broke Thursday morning that UC Davis Director of Athletics Kevin Blue had resigned to become chief sports officer for Golf Canada in his hometown of Toronto, colleagues provided an avalanche of praise for the administrator’s tenure on campus.

“Other than disappointment in that we’re losing a great guy, I think you have to celebrate the accomplishments that he had in such a short time,” explained economics professor Scott Carrell, who doubles as faculty athletics representative.

“He came in with a vision that was centered around the student-athlete experience, particularly about being the No. 1 school in the country for student-athlete outcomes.”  

https://www.davisenterprise.com/sports/a...3d091.html

[PVTree]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

[PVTree]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

[76lsjumb]

Stanford AD Bernard Muir has annocued he will be stepping down from his position

https://x.com/SSN_Stanford/status/1894170344484737142

While it might be true, I will wait for an official university announcement. This is not an official Stanford account.

yes, if it happens I would expect the plan was to announce tomorrow morning and it leaked this afternoon, quick responses are not what the University is good at so I would not expect anything official tonight

You may be right, but, given that every "formal announcement" by the Athletic Department for the past couple of years has read like it was almost certainly written by ChatGPT, they must have the world's slowest computers over there in Arrillaga...

[76lsjumb]

Stanford AD Bernard Muir has annocued he will be stepping down from his position

https://x.com/SSN_Stanford/status/1894170344484737142

While it might be true, I will wait for an official university announcement. This is not an official Stanford account.

yes, if it happens I would expect the plan was to announce tomorrow morning and it leaked this afternoon, quick responses are not what the University is good at so I would not expect anything official tonight

You may be right, but, given that every "formal announcement" by the Athletic Department for the past couple of years has read like it was almost certainly written by ChatGPT, they must have the world's slowest computers over there in Arrillaga...

[Giants]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

IMO…. Rule 1 - Never give extra points to alums when considering candidates for positions of this magnitude.  Hire the best candidate regardless of where they earned their degree.  Stanford, Yale, Cal State (fill in the blank) or any other four year institution - it makes no difference.  It is the experience they acquired and the results they produced after their college years that matter.

[Giants]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

IMO…. Rule 1 - Never give extra points to alums when considering candidates for positions of this magnitude.  Hire the best candidate regardless of where they earned their degree.  Stanford, Yale, Cal State (fill in the blank) or any other four year institution - it makes no difference.  It is the experience they acquired and the results they produced after their college years that matter.

[82lsju]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck - not sure having his son work for him (even if dotted line) is a great look, and he's not done all that much relevant to the new world order of college sports since leaving WVU IN 2014
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) - not sure a 77 year old would be my top pick given you'd like to think whoever is the new AD will be in the job ~10 years (assuming they are not a flop)
-Bob Bowlsby - he's currently 73 so would not be a top pick, see Mike Montgomery
-Tara Vanderveer - she reportedly retired partially due to not embracing the transfer portal and NIL so seems a poor match, and she's also on the old end of the list at 71, see Mike Montgomery
-John Lynch 
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

[82lsju]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck - not sure having his son work for him (even if dotted line) is a great look, and he's not done all that much relevant to the new world order of college sports since leaving WVU IN 2014
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) - not sure a 77 year old would be my top pick given you'd like to think whoever is the new AD will be in the job ~10 years (assuming they are not a flop)
-Bob Bowlsby - he's currently 73 so would not be a top pick, see Mike Montgomery
-Tara Vanderveer - she reportedly retired partially due to not embracing the transfer portal and NIL so seems a poor match, and she's also on the old end of the list at 71, see Mike Montgomery
-John Lynch 
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

[PalmTree]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck - not sure having his son work for him (even if dotted line) is a great look, and he's not done all that much relevant to the new world order of college sports since leaving WVU IN 2014
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) - not sure a 77 year old would be my top pick given you'd like to think whoever is the new AD will be in the job ~10 years (assuming they are not a flop)
-Bob Bowlsby - he's currently 73 so would not be a top pick, see Mike Montgomery
-Tara Vanderveer - she reportedly retired partially due to not embracing the transfer portal and NIL so seems a poor match, and she's also on the old end of the list at 71, see Mike Montgomery
-John Lynch 
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

I was about to say the same in re some of those named being recently retired or close-to retirement + understood the same about TVD.  That aside, I did want to mention an alum, Jamie Zaninovich, '93, MBA '01 - he was formerly Pac 12 deputy commissioner/COO and the WAC commissioner

[PalmTree]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck - not sure having his son work for him (even if dotted line) is a great look, and he's not done all that much relevant to the new world order of college sports since leaving WVU IN 2014
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) - not sure a 77 year old would be my top pick given you'd like to think whoever is the new AD will be in the job ~10 years (assuming they are not a flop)
-Bob Bowlsby - he's currently 73 so would not be a top pick, see Mike Montgomery
-Tara Vanderveer - she reportedly retired partially due to not embracing the transfer portal and NIL so seems a poor match, and she's also on the old end of the list at 71, see Mike Montgomery
-John Lynch 
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

I was about to say the same in re some of those named being recently retired or close-to retirement + understood the same about TVD.  That aside, I did want to mention an alum, Jamie Zaninovich, '93, MBA '01 - he was formerly Pac 12 deputy commissioner/COO and the WAC commissioner

[Jamesy]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

IMO…. Rule 1 - Never give extra points to alums when considering candidates for positions of this magnitude.  Hire the best candidate regardless of where they earned their degree.  Stanford, Yale, Cal State (fill in the blank) or any other four year institution - it makes no difference.  It is the experience they acquired and the results they produced after their college years that matter.

I agree but wilners article says they're prioritizing Stanford experience. https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/24/f...anford-ad/

[Jamesy]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

IMO…. Rule 1 - Never give extra points to alums when considering candidates for positions of this magnitude.  Hire the best candidate regardless of where they earned their degree.  Stanford, Yale, Cal State (fill in the blank) or any other four year institution - it makes no difference.  It is the experience they acquired and the results they produced after their college years that matter.

I agree but wilners article says they're prioritizing Stanford experience. https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/24/f...anford-ad/

[TooMuchTV]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

IMO…. Rule 1 - Never give extra points to alums when considering candidates for positions of this magnitude.  Hire the best candidate regardless of where they earned their degree.  Stanford, Yale, Cal State (fill in the blank) or any other four year institution - it makes no difference.  It is the experience they acquired and the results they produced after their college years that matter.

I agree but wilners article says they're prioritizing Stanford experience. https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/24/f...anford-ad/

I read that as Wilner’s advice.

[TooMuchTV]

Some Stanford affiliated names that come to mind: 
-Oliver Luck
-Ed McCaffrey
-Mike Montgomery (his chalk talk was great) 
-Bob Bowlsby
-Tara Vanderveer
-John Lynch
-Ken Williams

I don't follow the work of non Stanford alums in sports management so I'm unable to mention anyone.

IMO…. Rule 1 - Never give extra points to alums when considering candidates for positions of this magnitude.  Hire the best candidate regardless of where they earned their degree.  Stanford, Yale, Cal State (fill in the blank) or any other four year institution - it makes no difference.  It is the experience they acquired and the results they produced after their college years that matter.

I agree but wilners article says they're prioritizing Stanford experience. https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/24/f...anford-ad/

I read that as Wilner’s advice.

[GoodGrief]

Freakin’ love Josh Jon Levin (thanks for the correction, 82lsju) as our president so far. + Andrew Luck and -Muir is a great start. 

Also, it’s pretty darned clear what Fullmetal was saying, and it wasn’t that we should have kept Muir.

[GoodGrief]

Freakin’ love Josh Jon Levin (thanks for the correction, 82lsju) as our president so far. + Andrew Luck and -Muir is a great start. 

Also, it’s pretty darned clear what Fullmetal was saying, and it wasn’t that we should have kept Muir.

[BostonCard]

Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be.  Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.

So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?

I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with.  I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions).  But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better.  I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue).  It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.  Many people felt that Shaw had overstayed his welcome and were happy when he stepped aside.  Now a couple years into the Taylor era, it is not entirely clear that things have improved any.

I don't think Muir leaves a high bar to clear (even though there are a handful of sports outside of the major ones where he has made some pretty good hires).  But that does not mean that his replacement will clear it, and it is not unreasonable for fullmetal to point that out.

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC

[BostonCard]

Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be.  Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.

So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?

I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with.  I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions).  But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better.  I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue).  It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.  Many people felt that Shaw had overstayed his welcome and were happy when he stepped aside.  Now a couple years into the Taylor era, it is not entirely clear that things have improved any.

I don't think Muir leaves a high bar to clear (even though there are a handful of sports outside of the major ones where he has made some pretty good hires).  But that does not mean that his replacement will clear it, and it is not unreasonable for fullmetal to point that out.

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC

[ADPinWDC]

'Bout time for a change... 
[2010, Andrew Luck clobbers USC defender on fumble recovery...]   
https://www.instagram.com/coachbrohaly/r...3lDEARX7J/

---

Is Mike Montgomery actually interested at age 77?  
Former Stanford, Cal MBB coach Mike Montgomery says schools are ‘not keeping up’ with college changes
After leading both Stanford and Cal to their greatest recent heights,
Mike Montgomery says the Bay Area schools have not adapted to the new college sports landscape
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/02/s...e-changes/

[ADPinWDC]

'Bout time for a change... 
[2010, Andrew Luck clobbers USC defender on fumble recovery...]   
https://www.instagram.com/coachbrohaly/r...3lDEARX7J/

---

Is Mike Montgomery actually interested at age 77?  
Former Stanford, Cal MBB coach Mike Montgomery says schools are ‘not keeping up’ with college changes
After leading both Stanford and Cal to their greatest recent heights,
Mike Montgomery says the Bay Area schools have not adapted to the new college sports landscape
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/02/s...e-changes/

[82lsju]

Freakin’ love Josh Levin as our president so far. + Andrew Luck and -Muir is a great start. 

Also, it’s pretty darned clear what Fullmetal was saying, and it wasn’t that we should have kept Muir.

Jon Levin

[82lsju]

Freakin’ love Josh Levin as our president so far. + Andrew Luck and -Muir is a great start. 

Also, it’s pretty darned clear what Fullmetal was saying, and it wasn’t that we should have kept Muir.

Jon Levin

[BrevinsBest]

I don’t think I’ve seen any discussion on this board, but isn’t it just a little possible that the athletic cuts were pushed from someone above Bernard?

He should have been forced to resign after the failed attempt to cut Stanford sports. The fact that it didn’t happen then is a glaring example of poor leadership from MTL, Drell and the BoT.

Thankfully, we are in a new era of Stanford leadership. I want an AD who will fight for Stanford sports, not fight to kill them.

[BrevinsBest]

I don’t think I’ve seen any discussion on this board, but isn’t it just a little possible that the athletic cuts were pushed from someone above Bernard?

He should have been forced to resign after the failed attempt to cut Stanford sports. The fact that it didn’t happen then is a glaring example of poor leadership from MTL, Drell and the BoT.

Thankfully, we are in a new era of Stanford leadership. I want an AD who will fight for Stanford sports, not fight to kill them.

[StanfordMatt]

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC

I agree with this sentiment. I'll also point out that Bowlsby's hire came at a different time in college athletics.

College athletics has been big business for a long time now but these days it's business with a capital B. Any pretense is out the window. Old-time AD's with backgrounds in college athletics like Tom Holmoe (BYU) and Rick Hart (SMU) are being eschewed in favor of the Fortune 500 CEO mold. Private equity is a topic that is coming up on a daily basis in conversations among ADs.

The incredibly tricky dynamic for Stanford Athletics to navigate in this new world is that it has one foot in and one foot out of the water. We sold half of our soul and signed up for the brutal logistics that came along with ACC membership. At the same time, we're presumably still committed to fielding 36 varsity programs which is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

Everyone likes to think that they are unique but there is some truth to the idea when it comes to Stanford Athletics. Familiarity with the environment wouldn't be the worst thing for the new AD.

[StanfordMatt]

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC

I agree with this sentiment. I'll also point out that Bowlsby's hire came at a different time in college athletics.

College athletics has been big business for a long time now but these days it's business with a capital B. Any pretense is out the window. Old-time AD's with backgrounds in college athletics like Tom Holmoe (BYU) and Rick Hart (SMU) are being eschewed in favor of the Fortune 500 CEO mold. Private equity is a topic that is coming up on a daily basis in conversations among ADs.

The incredibly tricky dynamic for Stanford Athletics to navigate in this new world is that it has one foot in and one foot out of the water. We sold half of our soul and signed up for the brutal logistics that came along with ACC membership. At the same time, we're presumably still committed to fielding 36 varsity programs which is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

Everyone likes to think that they are unique but there is some truth to the idea when it comes to Stanford Athletics. Familiarity with the environment wouldn't be the worst thing for the new AD.

[needle]

The only fact about the draconian measures publicly championed by Muir is that no one believes his stated rationale for the cuts, which was that Stanford lacked the resources to field top notch teams in sports like field hockey and wrestling.

“We made this decision only after exhausting all viable alternatives. It recently became painfully clear that we would not remain financially stable and support 36 varsity sports at a nationally competitive level, which is what we so desire.”

https://stanforddaily.com/2020/07/08/spo...ions-muir/



Muir chose to put his name on that lie, so the “rest of the story” is irrelevant to how he’ll be viewed forever by Stanford sports fans.

[needle]

The only fact about the draconian measures publicly championed by Muir is that no one believes his stated rationale for the cuts, which was that Stanford lacked the resources to field top notch teams in sports like field hockey and wrestling.

“We made this decision only after exhausting all viable alternatives. It recently became painfully clear that we would not remain financially stable and support 36 varsity sports at a nationally competitive level, which is what we so desire.”

https://stanforddaily.com/2020/07/08/spo...ions-muir/



Muir chose to put his name on that lie, so the “rest of the story” is irrelevant to how he’ll be viewed forever by Stanford sports fans.

[fullmetal]

I don’t think I’ve seen any discussion on this board, but isn’t it just a little possible that the athletic cuts were pushed from someone above Bernard?

Muir has always had a cut-sports-first approach to budget issues.
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19/ber...-fatalist/

[fullmetal]

I don’t think I’ve seen any discussion on this board, but isn’t it just a little possible that the athletic cuts were pushed from someone above Bernard?

Muir has always had a cut-sports-first approach to budget issues.
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19/ber...-fatalist/

[PVTree]

I'm wondering if Andrew Luck being hired as the football GM  was a blow to the ego and the catalyst for leaving.

As an FYI, I heard from someone within DAPER that it's not all sunshine and rainbows with AL. I was told that he's not listening to the experienced people and relying on advice from football buddies without any sports management experience. 

Don't know if that's only one person's opinion or if it goes deeper than that. For now, I will give Andrew the benefit of the doubt that he's earned, and even if it's true, it may not be a bad idea to go with outside opinions.

[PVTree]

I'm wondering if Andrew Luck being hired as the football GM  was a blow to the ego and the catalyst for leaving.

As an FYI, I heard from someone within DAPER that it's not all sunshine and rainbows with AL. I was told that he's not listening to the experienced people and relying on advice from football buddies without any sports management experience. 

Don't know if that's only one person's opinion or if it goes deeper than that. For now, I will give Andrew the benefit of the doubt that he's earned, and even if it's true, it may not be a bad idea to go with outside opinions.

[fullmetal]

The only thing I'd be worried about w.r.t. AL's tenure is his ability to navigate the boosters and handle all the different egos.  But other than that, what are the experienced people in the athletic department going to tell him to do?  That the status quo is okay?  I feel like each sport's coaches can make their own case for what resources they need for their respective teams to win.  Hopefully AL relies on the numbers folks to tell him the long- and short-term forecasts for the department's numbers.

But my immediate take on DAPER opinions is of course they're not going to like Andrew coming in and proposing change.  It's going to be up to them to make the case to Luck that things need to be a certain way.  If they don't make a good enough case, then I expect Andrew will not go their way.  DAPER has to be (institutionally) in favor of minimal change, and Andrew probably sees the need for change in a few places if not more.

I'm not saying that AL will be making immediate and brilliant decisions, but I am saying that we need to consider the risk-averse nature of DAPER and their interest in minimizing change as we listen to what comes out.  This also tells us that DAPER is not ready to "disagree and commit" with Luck, which is not great if they're planning to drag their feet and sabotage efforts to change (dramatic, I know).

[fullmetal]

The only thing I'd be worried about w.r.t. AL's tenure is his ability to navigate the boosters and handle all the different egos.  But other than that, what are the experienced people in the athletic department going to tell him to do?  That the status quo is okay?  I feel like each sport's coaches can make their own case for what resources they need for their respective teams to win.  Hopefully AL relies on the numbers folks to tell him the long- and short-term forecasts for the department's numbers.

But my immediate take on DAPER opinions is of course they're not going to like Andrew coming in and proposing change.  It's going to be up to them to make the case to Luck that things need to be a certain way.  If they don't make a good enough case, then I expect Andrew will not go their way.  DAPER has to be (institutionally) in favor of minimal change, and Andrew probably sees the need for change in a few places if not more.

I'm not saying that AL will be making immediate and brilliant decisions, but I am saying that we need to consider the risk-averse nature of DAPER and their interest in minimizing change as we listen to what comes out.  This also tells us that DAPER is not ready to "disagree and commit" with Luck, which is not great if they're planning to drag their feet and sabotage efforts to change (dramatic, I know).

[BostonCard]

Tom Brady is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time, and the has more knowledge about football in his pinky finger than this entire board in aggregate will possess but he sucks as a sportscaster.

Andrew Luck is the greatest Stanford QB of all time and may or may not turn out to be an excellent Gm, but success in one is no basis for assuming success in the other. I have no basis for making a positive or negative comment on Luck so that’s not an indictment of him as a GM. 

BC

[BostonCard]

Tom Brady is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time, and the has more knowledge about football in his pinky finger than this entire board in aggregate will possess but he sucks as a sportscaster.

Andrew Luck is the greatest Stanford QB of all time and may or may not turn out to be an excellent Gm, but success in one is no basis for assuming success in the other. I have no basis for making a positive or negative comment on Luck so that’s not an indictment of him as a GM. 

BC

[chrisk]

The only thing I'd be worried about w.r.t. AL's tenure is his ability to navigate the boosters and handle all the different egos.  But other than that, what are the experienced people in the athletic department going to tell him to do?  That the status quo is okay?  I feel like each sport's coaches can make their own case for what resources they need for their respective teams to win.  Hopefully AL relies on the numbers folks to tell him the long- and short-term forecasts for the department's numbers.

But my immediate take on DAPER opinions is of course they're not going to like Andrew coming in and proposing change.  It's going to be up to them to make the case to Luck that things need to be a certain way.  If they don't make a good enough case, then I expect Andrew will not go their way.  DAPER has to be (institutionally) in favor of minimal change, and Andrew probably sees the need for change in a few places if not more.

I'm not saying that AL will be making immediate and brilliant decisions, but I am saying that we need to consider the risk-averse nature of DAPER and their interest in minimizing change as we listen to what comes out.  This also tells us that DAPER is not ready to "disagree and commit" with Luck, which is not great if they're planning to drag their feet and sabotage efforts to change (dramatic, I know).

It's Luck's job to change the numbers, not accept the status quo from the finance people. A big part of his job is raising revenues from football and fundraising for scholarships and House settlement.

[chrisk]

The only thing I'd be worried about w.r.t. AL's tenure is his ability to navigate the boosters and handle all the different egos.  But other than that, what are the experienced people in the athletic department going to tell him to do?  That the status quo is okay?  I feel like each sport's coaches can make their own case for what resources they need for their respective teams to win.  Hopefully AL relies on the numbers folks to tell him the long- and short-term forecasts for the department's numbers.

But my immediate take on DAPER opinions is of course they're not going to like Andrew coming in and proposing change.  It's going to be up to them to make the case to Luck that things need to be a certain way.  If they don't make a good enough case, then I expect Andrew will not go their way.  DAPER has to be (institutionally) in favor of minimal change, and Andrew probably sees the need for change in a few places if not more.

I'm not saying that AL will be making immediate and brilliant decisions, but I am saying that we need to consider the risk-averse nature of DAPER and their interest in minimizing change as we listen to what comes out.  This also tells us that DAPER is not ready to "disagree and commit" with Luck, which is not great if they're planning to drag their feet and sabotage efforts to change (dramatic, I know).

It's Luck's job to change the numbers, not accept the status quo from the finance people. A big part of his job is raising revenues from football and fundraising for scholarships and House settlement.