IBJNews

2014 Forty Under 40: Andrew Luck

Lou Harry
February 1, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
luck_andrew_1col.jpg (IBJ Photo/Aaron P. Bernstein)

College choice: “The combination of what I could get out of football there plus what it offered academically, socially and its networking possibilities made the decision not too hard,” said Luck on picking Stanford University. “If football didn’t work out, I like to think I could send a couple of emails and at least get some interviews.” He wasn’t even sure he’d make it into the pros. “Going in, honestly, it was never a thought. It wasn’t until my sophomore year that I said, ‘OK, I’m good enough for this NFL thing to maybe happen.’”

Staying at Stanford: Luck could have been drafted without graduating. Instead, he opted for the degree. “Three years just felt too short. I wasn’t ready to leave.”

Cashing in: Unlike some other high-profile athletes, Luck didn’t overload his first NFL years with endorsement deals. “If I don’t drink Diet Coke, I won’t endorse Diet Coke … not that they would have me.”

Mentors/advisers: With a father who played in the NFL, Luck’s first response is obvious. “And my mom knows me very well,” he added. He also pointed to Will Wilson, his uncle, who is also his agent.

AGE 24
Hometown: Houston
 
Family: single

10 years from now: “I can’t think past tomorrow,” he said, before expressing some hopes: To still be a Colt. To win “a bunch of Super Bowls.”

Living abroad: Luck lived overseas until 2000. “It opened my eyes to different cultures,” he said. “I learned to respect how other people did things so that I’m not rooted in one way and think everything else is wrong. That’s not to say I don’t catch myself being ignorant. There’s still the travel bug in me.”

On putting himself out there: Football stardom includes media appearances. The media host Luck says he was most comfortable with: David Letterman. “Although I remember once I had to go on after Robin Williams. I thought, ‘Great. He’s a riot and the whole crowd is rolling and I’m going to be Debbie Downer.’”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT