And let's face it, I don't think "Trinity Mother Frances Rose Stadium" would inspire much trembling from one's opponents.

I think selling stadium names is just great - it offers a huge potential source of financing for underfunded public schools, and I'd prefer big businesses did this voluntarily than have the revenue be generated simply by more burdensome property taxes.

Also, the critics don't seem worried about the subtle product associations that already occur with team names and mascots -"WildCATS," "RAIDers," "Trojans," etc. Aren't these just as likely to influence purchasing decisions of high schoolers as "Chevron field"? And what is more likely to feature prominently in the minds of people - the name of the public school athletic field (many are already named after obscure politicians and former coaches, but nobody notices this), or "Toyota Center" and "MinuteMaid Stadium"? In the alterative, when we name schools and stadiums after revered politicians (JFK seems to be a favorite for schools), aren't we endorsing a political party? Isn't the school saying, "Hey, kids, vote for more Democrats"?

I don't think anyone would take it as a school administration's endorsement of the product. And if the kids did, it seems more likely to make the product "uncool" than desirable. I think the critics are being unrealistic.

It does make the statement that the company did something really beneficial for the school, though; if some appreciative locals switch to that product as a result, there will have been no misrepresentation. The company deserves it because they are pouring money into local schools instead of more billboards and Internet pop-ups.

The more interesting question for me is what we should do if 2nd Baptist or Lakewood Church - two of the biggest advertisers in Houston - want to buy the name of a public high school field. I still have no problem with it, but I can see a stronger argument against this than against Chevron.

Geez, who are they kidding. School stadiums should be a commercial-free zone?

This is actually nothing new at all. Well, maybe the selling of naming rights, but not the commercials. My high-school baseball stadium in suburban Eugene Oregon had a Coca Cola scoreboard and the outfield fence panels had ads for local businesses when I attended from 79-82. In fact, ads on the outfield fences in baseball stadiums is as old as baseball itself.

But I think only in Texas would people think of selling naming rights to high school stadiums. Everywhere else in the country high school stadiums are mostly just bleachers and hardly worth naming at all.

Oh, I almost forgot. My 6-year-old daughter's scoccer jersey has the local sponsor's name and logo printed in big letters right on front: "Lawn's Limited. Landscape & Irrigation Service".

The horror! Don't we need to protect our children from such rampant commercialization? On the other hand, I'm sure the Little League jersey I wore in 1972 had the sponsor printed on the front too. I seemed to have surved the trauma.

I also recall that the Waco youth soccer complex where she plays has a big sign with a local Chevy dealer and Pepsi on it. So the commercialization of sport has even reached down to the early elementary grades!

If you really want to see advertising in sports run amok, check out any European soccer, basketball or hockey team. They've got more advertising on their jerseys than Nascar drivers, and they're also doing more and more stadium naming-rights deals. For example, the 2006 World Cup will open in the Allianz Arena in Munich on June 9th. This stadium will replace the one used by the two Munich soccer teams (Bayern and TSV 1860) since 1972 (Olympiastadion).

From the uniforms of that neglected classic, The Bad News Bears; "Chico's Bail Bonds...Let Freedom Ring!' (with liberty bell logo0

Yet more evidence that society is becoming more and more corporate every day. And this is proof that it ain't just the conservatives leading us down that path, folks.

Spring Branch ISD tried to sell off naming rights everything from auditoriums to buildings. No takers.

Actually, now that I think about it, the person who sold SBISD on that decision went on to the same position in HISD. So there you have it. Haven't seen it work yet, although I think Grapevine-Colleyville had some success selling a roof.

I think that it is a good thing to do these kind of partnerships.

On the other hand, I reserve the right to tease any HISD student if they end up naming it the "Oasis of Love Bowl."

I don't necessarily see stadium naming as a big deal.

My concern is that in ten years I may be sending my kids to Coca-Cola High School.

I suppose what gets opponents riled up is the question: how far down the slippery slope do we go?

I agree we've already gone quite a ways, and that selling stadium names (as opposed to, say, school names) doesn't really take us much further down that slope. But people feel you have to draw the line somewhere, and for some this is as good a place as any. After all, whoever buys a stadium's name may well be the next Enron.

It is disturbing that school districts feel a need to go commercial in order to make ends meet. But personally, there are commercial arrangements that discomfit me more than selling stadium names; e.g., Channel One.

That said, Dru Stevenson's arguments about "RAIDers" and "Trojans" strike me as flippant. Does anyone believe that the Oakland pro-football team and its namesakes are sponsoring a particular insecticide brand, or that USC is promoting condom use? Give me a break.

It would be interesting, though, to see the corporate and religious wings of the GOP go to war over "Astroglide Stadium."