04-05-2013, 10:02 AM
And now there's a Willie Shaw Director of Defense
04-05-2013, 10:10 AM
It seems like a stretch to name a Defensive Coordinator position after someone who spent 6 total years coaching on The Farm and only 1 year as DC. I know he loves Stanford and his experience was formative for D Shaw, and it's a great story, but it doesn't warrant this kind of commemoration, in my opinion.
It seems like a stretch to name a Defensive Coordinator position after someone who spent 6 total years coaching on The Farm and only 1 year as DC. I know he loves Stanford and his experience was formative for D Shaw, and it's a great story, but it doesn't warrant this kind of commemoration, in my opinion.
04-05-2013, 10:10 AM
It seems like a stretch to name a Defensive Coordinator position after someone who spent 6 total years coaching on The Farm and only 1 year as DC. I know he loves Stanford and his experience was formative for D Shaw, and it's a great story, but it doesn't warrant this kind of commemoration, in my opinion.
It seems like a stretch to name a Defensive Coordinator position after someone who spent 6 total years coaching on The Farm and only 1 year as DC. I know he loves Stanford and his experience was formative for D Shaw, and it's a great story, but it doesn't warrant this kind of commemoration, in my opinion.
04-05-2013, 10:24 AM
So, are you saying that the athletic department should have turned the donor down?
04-05-2013, 10:24 AM
So, are you saying that the athletic department should have turned the donor down?
04-05-2013, 10:37 AM
Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
04-05-2013, 10:37 AM
Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
Or maybe, when accepting money, the AD can play a role to influence the donor in making sure the naming is appropriate and uses our best traditions. Ask the donor "why Willie?" If the Offensive is named after one of the greatest offensive players, maybe they could encourage the use of the names of one of our greatest defensive players (John Lynch?)
The AD doesn't just sit there with a thumb up it's bum and accept checks. Managing the "brand" of Stanford is part of its job.
This same discussion went on when a donor endowed an offensive coach's position and named it after Andrew Luck. Like it or not, the naming rights, whether it be for a coach's position, a display at a zoo, a building at a museum, etc. are a way of attracting major donations. The donor gets the right to name the position, building, etc. for whomever he/she chooses. Fairly often the name is that of the donor or maybe a family member and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their distinction in a particular field. David Shaw is the Bradford Freeman Director of Football, but Bradford Freeman is a private equity guy, not a coach. And just what position did Roscoe Maples play back in 1904?
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
This same discussion went on when a donor endowed an offensive coach's position and named it after Andrew Luck. Like it or not, the naming rights, whether it be for a coach's position, a display at a zoo, a building at a museum, etc. are a way of attracting major donations. The donor gets the right to name the position, building, etc. for whomever he/she chooses. Fairly often the name is that of the donor or maybe a family member and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their distinction in a particular field. David Shaw is the Bradford Freeman Director of Football, but Bradford Freeman is a private equity guy, not a coach. And just what position did Roscoe Maples play back in 1904?
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
This same discussion went on when a donor endowed an offensive coach's position and named it after Andrew Luck. Like it or not, the naming rights, whether it be for a coach's position, a display at a zoo, a building at a museum, etc. are a way of attracting major donations. The donor gets the right to name the position, building, etc. for whomever he/she chooses. Fairly often the name is that of the donor or maybe a family member and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their distinction in a particular field. David Shaw is the Bradford Freeman Director of Football, but Bradford Freeman is a private equity guy, not a coach. And just what position did Roscoe Maples play back in 1904?
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
This same discussion went on when a donor endowed an offensive coach's position and named it after Andrew Luck. Like it or not, the naming rights, whether it be for a coach's position, a display at a zoo, a building at a museum, etc. are a way of attracting major donations. The donor gets the right to name the position, building, etc. for whomever he/she chooses. Fairly often the name is that of the donor or maybe a family member and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their distinction in a particular field. David Shaw is the Bradford Freeman Director of Football, but Bradford Freeman is a private equity guy, not a coach. And just what position did Roscoe Maples play back in 1904?
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
Maybe it would be better to require chairs or other endowed positions to be named after a distinguished person in the field, but it's just a misconception to think that's the way it works. And an anonymous donor naming the DC's position after Willie Shaw rather than himself is, in my opinion, to be commended, not criticized.
04-05-2013, 10:50 AM
(04-05-2013, 10:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
(04-05-2013, 10:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
04-05-2013, 10:50 AM
(04-05-2013, 10:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
(04-05-2013, 10:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Yes, Yvonne. Clearly, that is the direct, and only, implication of what I'm saying.
You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
04-05-2013, 11:02 AM
Quote:You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
Yeah, perhaps I got up on the wrong side...but to be fair, Yvonne's post was fairly dismissive of my comment, so snark for snark is fair game, imo.
I agree that naming the position after someone relevant to the program is far superior to using the donor's name. But considering these names get used over and over again in press releases and news articles, using a name that has greater brand impact would be preferable. Every time an NFL fan searches for Andrew Luck, there's a chance they'll end up on an article about Stanford football, because of the position title. Few people will recognize Willie Shaw, let alone do an internet search.
Maybe the donor really gave an ultimatum of "it's Willie Shaw, or I take my money elsewhere!" but people ponying up that kind of money are clearly invested in the program and I suspect, willing to have a rational discussion about what would be "best" in the long run. But maybe in this case, it really is someone who played under Willie SHaw and would only have donated if it was names after him.
EIther way, I'll reserve my right to complain and wish it had been otherwise.
Quote:You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
Yeah, perhaps I got up on the wrong side...but to be fair, Yvonne's post was fairly dismissive of my comment, so snark for snark is fair game, imo.
I agree that naming the position after someone relevant to the program is far superior to using the donor's name. But considering these names get used over and over again in press releases and news articles, using a name that has greater brand impact would be preferable. Every time an NFL fan searches for Andrew Luck, there's a chance they'll end up on an article about Stanford football, because of the position title. Few people will recognize Willie Shaw, let alone do an internet search.
Maybe the donor really gave an ultimatum of "it's Willie Shaw, or I take my money elsewhere!" but people ponying up that kind of money are clearly invested in the program and I suspect, willing to have a rational discussion about what would be "best" in the long run. But maybe in this case, it really is someone who played under Willie SHaw and would only have donated if it was names after him.
EIther way, I'll reserve my right to complain and wish it had been otherwise.
04-05-2013, 11:02 AM
Quote:You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
Yeah, perhaps I got up on the wrong side...but to be fair, Yvonne's post was fairly dismissive of my comment, so snark for snark is fair game, imo.
I agree that naming the position after someone relevant to the program is far superior to using the donor's name. But considering these names get used over and over again in press releases and news articles, using a name that has greater brand impact would be preferable. Every time an NFL fan searches for Andrew Luck, there's a chance they'll end up on an article about Stanford football, because of the position title. Few people will recognize Willie Shaw, let alone do an internet search.
Maybe the donor really gave an ultimatum of "it's Willie Shaw, or I take my money elsewhere!" but people ponying up that kind of money are clearly invested in the program and I suspect, willing to have a rational discussion about what would be "best" in the long run. But maybe in this case, it really is someone who played under Willie SHaw and would only have donated if it was names after him.
EIther way, I'll reserve my right to complain and wish it had been otherwise.
Quote:You're a testy sumbitch, aren't you.
Yeah, perhaps I got up on the wrong side...but to be fair, Yvonne's post was fairly dismissive of my comment, so snark for snark is fair game, imo.
I agree that naming the position after someone relevant to the program is far superior to using the donor's name. But considering these names get used over and over again in press releases and news articles, using a name that has greater brand impact would be preferable. Every time an NFL fan searches for Andrew Luck, there's a chance they'll end up on an article about Stanford football, because of the position title. Few people will recognize Willie Shaw, let alone do an internet search.
Maybe the donor really gave an ultimatum of "it's Willie Shaw, or I take my money elsewhere!" but people ponying up that kind of money are clearly invested in the program and I suspect, willing to have a rational discussion about what would be "best" in the long run. But maybe in this case, it really is someone who played under Willie SHaw and would only have donated if it was names after him.
EIther way, I'll reserve my right to complain and wish it had been otherwise.
04-05-2013, 11:19 AM
If you read the press release it sure sounds like Derek Mason was all in favor of creating an endowed DC post at Stanford named after Willie Shaw. If you're grading on merit, it should be named after Mason. However, since Mason gives so much of the credit for his success to Willie Shaw, it makes sense to name it after W.S.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
If you read the press release it sure sounds like Derek Mason was all in favor of creating an endowed DC post at Stanford named after Willie Shaw. If you're grading on merit, it should be named after Mason. However, since Mason gives so much of the credit for his success to Willie Shaw, it makes sense to name it after W.S.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
04-05-2013, 11:19 AM
If you read the press release it sure sounds like Derek Mason was all in favor of creating an endowed DC post at Stanford named after Willie Shaw. If you're grading on merit, it should be named after Mason. However, since Mason gives so much of the credit for his success to Willie Shaw, it makes sense to name it after W.S.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
If you read the press release it sure sounds like Derek Mason was all in favor of creating an endowed DC post at Stanford named after Willie Shaw. If you're grading on merit, it should be named after Mason. However, since Mason gives so much of the credit for his success to Willie Shaw, it makes sense to name it after W.S.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football. Andrew Luck Director of Offense. Willie Shaw Director of Defense. They all sound a bit silly to me, but as was stated previously, whatever it takes to secure the funding.
04-05-2013, 11:49 AM
We stood in front of the Staples Center on Dec 31 at the Rose Bowl pep rally wondering when we should leave and where we could get a beer, and then Willie Shaw got on stage and brought the crowd to life. That speech made me think STANFORD should be in the BCS game to beat Alabama. That's my only impression of him, and if he's like that in general then count me as glad they named the DC job after him.
We stood in front of the Staples Center on Dec 31 at the Rose Bowl pep rally wondering when we should leave and where we could get a beer, and then Willie Shaw got on stage and brought the crowd to life. That speech made me think STANFORD should be in the BCS game to beat Alabama. That's my only impression of him, and if he's like that in general then count me as glad they named the DC job after him.
04-05-2013, 11:49 AM
We stood in front of the Staples Center on Dec 31 at the Rose Bowl pep rally wondering when we should leave and where we could get a beer, and then Willie Shaw got on stage and brought the crowd to life. That speech made me think STANFORD should be in the BCS game to beat Alabama. That's my only impression of him, and if he's like that in general then count me as glad they named the DC job after him.
We stood in front of the Staples Center on Dec 31 at the Rose Bowl pep rally wondering when we should leave and where we could get a beer, and then Willie Shaw got on stage and brought the crowd to life. That speech made me think STANFORD should be in the BCS game to beat Alabama. That's my only impression of him, and if he's like that in general then count me as glad they named the DC job after him.
04-05-2013, 11:52 AM
(04-05-2013, 11:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:Who spent more time in the Stanford football program, Willie Shaw or Bradford M. Freeman? So far as I know, Freeman never played a single down of Stanford football, and he certainly never coached. Yet David Shaw's formal title is Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football, because Freeman forked over a lot of bucks to Stanford.
Allowing donors to name endowments, buildings and whatever is a good way of attracting money. So long as we are not creating a Distinguished Charles Manson Chair of Population Control in the human bio department, I don't care.
Presumably, you would feel the same way if someone from the Silly Party wished to endow a coaching position [other than, say, on the men's basketball staff]:
http://puppatoons.wordpress.com/2009/03/...it-barrel/
(04-05-2013, 11:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:Who spent more time in the Stanford football program, Willie Shaw or Bradford M. Freeman? So far as I know, Freeman never played a single down of Stanford football, and he certainly never coached. Yet David Shaw's formal title is Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football, because Freeman forked over a lot of bucks to Stanford.
Allowing donors to name endowments, buildings and whatever is a good way of attracting money. So long as we are not creating a Distinguished Charles Manson Chair of Population Control in the human bio department, I don't care.
Presumably, you would feel the same way if someone from the Silly Party wished to endow a coaching position [other than, say, on the men's basketball staff]:
http://puppatoons.wordpress.com/2009/03/...it-barrel/
04-05-2013, 11:52 AM
(04-05-2013, 11:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:Who spent more time in the Stanford football program, Willie Shaw or Bradford M. Freeman? So far as I know, Freeman never played a single down of Stanford football, and he certainly never coached. Yet David Shaw's formal title is Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football, because Freeman forked over a lot of bucks to Stanford.
Allowing donors to name endowments, buildings and whatever is a good way of attracting money. So long as we are not creating a Distinguished Charles Manson Chair of Population Control in the human bio department, I don't care.
Presumably, you would feel the same way if someone from the Silly Party wished to endow a coaching position [other than, say, on the men's basketball staff]:
http://puppatoons.wordpress.com/2009/03/...it-barrel/
(04-05-2013, 11:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:Who spent more time in the Stanford football program, Willie Shaw or Bradford M. Freeman? So far as I know, Freeman never played a single down of Stanford football, and he certainly never coached. Yet David Shaw's formal title is Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football, because Freeman forked over a lot of bucks to Stanford.
Allowing donors to name endowments, buildings and whatever is a good way of attracting money. So long as we are not creating a Distinguished Charles Manson Chair of Population Control in the human bio department, I don't care.
Presumably, you would feel the same way if someone from the Silly Party wished to endow a coaching position [other than, say, on the men's basketball staff]:
http://puppatoons.wordpress.com/2009/03/...it-barrel/
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »