[Farm93]

Subtle hints didn't get it done.  So I will try to be more clear.

Shaw WAS a Stanford football player.  He had to know these pre-Big Game events were brutal for the players.  His dad WAS a coach.  He had to know these Big Game events were brutal for the coaching staff.

Now on the scene, and with a level of personal experience unmatched in the history of the program, he likely wants to trim down those events.  Charitable causes are great, but why do student-athletes, band members and dollies need to be forced to attend just to loosen a few dollars from well healed alums?  Those folks should support their causes without requiring or expecting coaches and players to drive all over the Bay Area.

Stanford level of involvement in the community is not an area that the AD needs to defend just because the coach decides to stop the luncheon madness.  The idea that the event had so little Stanford involvement makes the call easier.  This was the first, but my guess is over the next 10-15 years most of these luncheons will go away.  Just my guess.  There are many more efficient ways to support charities than weekday luncheons.

All of those that care about these charities will just need to find a way to donate without having football programs force the student-athletes and the football staff appear on command. 

FWIW, the Stanford and all of the Pac-12 member institutions probably need to stop all of these near mandatory student-athlete charitable events anyway as those commitments are certain to appear in a civil suit at some point in the future.  Much like we saw in the NFL with their cheerleaders.

[Farm93]

Subtle hints didn't get it done.  So I will try to be more clear.

Shaw WAS a Stanford football player.  He had to know these pre-Big Game events were brutal for the players.  His dad WAS a coach.  He had to know these Big Game events were brutal for the coaching staff.

Now on the scene, and with a level of personal experience unmatched in the history of the program, he likely wants to trim down those events.  Charitable causes are great, but why do student-athletes, band members and dollies need to be forced to attend just to loosen a few dollars from well healed alums?  Those folks should support their causes without requiring or expecting coaches and players to drive all over the Bay Area.

Stanford level of involvement in the community is not an area that the AD needs to defend just because the coach decides to stop the luncheon madness.  The idea that the event had so little Stanford involvement makes the call easier.  This was the first, but my guess is over the next 10-15 years most of these luncheons will go away.  Just my guess.  There are many more efficient ways to support charities than weekday luncheons.

All of those that care about these charities will just need to find a way to donate without having football programs force the student-athletes and the football staff appear on command. 

FWIW, the Stanford and all of the Pac-12 member institutions probably need to stop all of these near mandatory student-athlete charitable events anyway as those commitments are certain to appear in a civil suit at some point in the future.  Much like we saw in the NFL with their cheerleaders.