The CardBoard
It's time for Muir to go - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's time for Muir to go (/thread-22073.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: It's time for Muir to go - BostonCard - 07-04-2021

(07-04-2021, 04:54 AM)winflop Wrote:  
(07-03-2021, 09:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(07-03-2021, 03:18 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(07-02-2021, 10:43 PM)akiddoc Wrote:  I also don't see how losing the Director's Cup has any weight in looking at Muir's job performance. 



I don't understand the argument that hiring good coaches is of no consequence because anyone asked would come to Stanford. According to that argument, there is no athletic director who could be successful at Stanford. It's also a false argument. Coaches who come to Stanford (outside of 2 or 3) don't have a great standard of living due to the cost of existing in the Bay Area. Muir has to sell the job. 



I think the main objections to Muir with validity are that he isn't willing to lean on Shaw to get a modern OC and he was duplicitous with whoever else in the Stanford administration planned the cutting of 11 sports. Then he looked totally foolish when they were reinstated. A Sandy Barbour moment.



Aren't you the one who said the wrestling coach we now have must have contacted Stanford and lobbied for the job?

Do you think McAlester was that hard a sell?

Goldstein?

Esquer?



C'mon now . . .



The thing about Esquer was not getting him to sign on the dotted line, but making the offer to begin with.  Many here would not have made that offer, so you have to give Muir credit for seeing something in Esquer that many here did not.



BC

At the time Esquer was hired, I remember being skeptical because on paper he didn't look that good.

Yes, some credit to Muir, but more to Marquess who undoubtedly drove the hiring decision for his successor.

Has Muir made a number of good hires? Yes, he has. But for me they are overshadowed by his abject failure to move the needle in MBB, the downward slide of the football program, and the multiple scandals and awful financial management under his watch.

Do you know that Marques recommended Esquer, or that Montgomery or Vanderveer didn’t recommend Haase?  Listen, I am with you that Muir has had enough lapses that he shouldn’t be the AD going forward. But it is disingenuous to discount the things he has done well, but give him full blame for the things he has not, especially because we don’t know what happened behind the scenes.  In the end, the buck, for both good and bad, should stop on his desk, and in my accounting his hiring has, on the whole, been fine, but he has failed at the financial (AD budget deficits), compliance (varsity blues and NCAA sanctions), and stakeholder management (cut sports) aspects of his job.  Picking a good baseball coach, and you can still give him credit for it without undermining your broader argument, isn’t enough to make up for the above.

BC

RE: It's time for Muir to go - Goose - 07-04-2021

(07-04-2021, 01:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  In the end, the buck, for both good and bad, should stop on his desk, and in my accounting his hiring has, on the whole, been fine, but he has failed at the financial (AD budget deficits), compliance (varsity blues and NCAA sanctions), and stakeholder management (cut sports) aspects of his job. 


BC

I agree that Muir has failed in the areas you mention. Along the lines of "We don't know what went on behind the scenes" some of these failures may not have been his alone. I am all for replacing him with a "better" candidate, but identifying and hiring such a person is also not an exact science. The "Compared to who?" is important in saying Muir must go. I hope they can find such a person, but until they do, Muir will be with us going forward. I suspect they may be looking. If you don't like Stanford's situation, look at what is happening at the University of Arizona. There but for fortune...

RE: It's time for Muir to go - Softball Fan - 07-04-2021

(07-02-2021, 10:56 PM)bnarver Wrote:  Stanford didn't make the tournaments in women's soccer or volleyball, 2 sports in which they won the titles in 2019-20.  I don't know what happened in those sports. 

In WVB Stanford didn't make the NCAA tournament because of county covid rules and injuries.  Absolutely nothing to do with Muir or the coach.

I was a softball fan about a decade ago.  I was shocked at the profane and condescending language the head coach used on the players.  He often yelled it loud enough for fans and parents to hear.  This guy should not have been coaching young women no matter what the W/L record.  If Muir forced him out IMO that was a good thing.

 https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/stanford-softball-in-shambles-after-infighting-controversial-resignation/

RE: It's time for Muir to go - BobK - 07-04-2021

Just a quick comment. I’ve been going to softball games since they started. I’ve never heard this plus so many of his former players supported him strongly.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - TrumpCard - 07-04-2021

Given the new NIL rules, I’m skeptical about Stanford’s ability to compete in revenue sports at the level to which we’ve become accustomed (even with basketball’s meh decade). Seems like pissing in the wind to hire a new AD to clean house in football and basketball.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - needle - 07-04-2021

When was the last time Stanford fired an AD?

Bowlsby left to be Big 12 commissioner
Leland left to return to Pacific (very strong ties there)
Geiger left to be AD at Maryland (no idea if he was asked to leave)

All this goes back to 1979....do people here really believe that Muir being forced out is even a possibility?

RE: It's time for Muir to go - Jamesy - 07-04-2021

(07-04-2021, 07:31 PM)needle Wrote:  When was the last time Stanford fired an AD?

Bowlsby left to be Big 12 commissioner
Leland left to return to Pacific (very strong ties there)
Geiger left to be AD at Maryland (no idea if he was asked to leave)

All this goes back to 1979....do people here really believe that Muir being forced out is even a possibility?

It's very rare for anyone to get fired from the athletic department. From a coaching standpoint in the past 15-20 years, it's really just Hansen, Teevens, Harris, Dawkins, vandemoer, rittman. All were no brainer firings.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - Goose - 07-04-2021

(07-04-2021, 07:31 PM)needle Wrote:  All this goes back to 1979....do people here really believe that Muir being forced out is even a possibility?
Sure it is. He wouldn't be "fired". It would just be made clear to him that he would be better off elsewhere. However, I am pretty sure that won't happen unless he really screws something else up OR they have somebody they view as an upgrade. Until and unless that happens, he is safe, period.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - teejers1 - 07-04-2021

(07-04-2021, 07:53 PM)Jamesy Wrote:  
(07-04-2021, 07:31 PM)needle Wrote:  When was the last time Stanford fired an AD?

Bowlsby left to be Big 12 commissioner
Leland left to return to Pacific (very strong ties there)
Geiger left to be AD at Maryland (no idea if he was asked to leave)

All this goes back to 1979....do people here really believe that Muir being forced out is even a possibility?

It's very rare for anyone to get fired from the athletic department. From a coaching standpoint in the past 15-20 years, it's really just Hansen, Teevens, Harris, Dawkins, vandemoer, rittman. All were no brainer firings.

Rittman not in same category as the others (or at least the ones I recognize/recall).  And even if you think the guy had to go, it was handled so poorly by Muir from what I recall reading about "the process."

Oh . . . and to answer needle's question: No, I do not.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - winflop - 07-05-2021

(07-04-2021, 11:45 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Rittman not in same category as the others (or at least the ones I recognize/recall).  And even if you think the guy had to go, it was handled so poorly by Muir from what I recall reading about "the process."

THIS x 1000000 is why he needs to go. He has done a terrible job of handling several bad situations.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - McKenwood - 07-05-2021

(07-04-2021, 07:31 PM)needle Wrote:  When was the last time Stanford fired an AD?

Bowlsby left to be Big 12 commissioner
Leland left to return to Pacific (very strong ties there)
Geiger left to be AD at Maryland (no idea if he was asked to leave)

All this goes back to 1979....do people here really believe that Muir being forced out is even a possibility?

Yes. Geiger and Leland did not leave voluntarily. For Geiger it was financial mismanagement, the ultimate Stanford no-no. For Leland it was two straight football hires that lead to financial pressures. Even UOP found him not up to the task and he did not get the presidency he wanted.

As for Muir fundamentally he is a bureaucrat when Stanford has needed something much more. Stanford's position in college sports realm is much more precarious than when Muir took over. Stanford could have been a leader in reorienting the NCAA to a more athlete friendly model (more inclusive scholarships, unfettered transfers, a workable NIL program, four year scholarships) instead Muir focused on his long-time goal of being chairman of the NCAA MBB committee while Stanford's sports model was sinking and shifting. Muir failed to fund raise at the level that was needed with his ramp up of the bureaucracy (how many associate ADs do you really need?). He knew Stanford's revenue stream but he kept adding staff.

When Stanford's senior management, who are wholly indifferent to athletics, woke up to the financial shortfalls they told Muir to fix it. Instead of being transparent and using the shortfall as a fund raising pitch, the cutting sports model was put forward. This backfired spectacularly on Muir as the Stanford senior management and BofT ended up getting roped into an an area that they really don't care about. But overall fund raising was at risk so they had to step in and do damage control.

So Muir should not be let go for failing to win the Director's Cup, especially in a pandemic year. There is a more compelling case that he has mismanaged football and MBB. In football he needs to take David Shaw on as Shaw's approach is clearly flailing and the talent level in the program is dropping precipitiously. In 2018 he should suggested that Coach Shaw take a leave of absence while he served as a donor for his brother's health issues. More recently Muir could have been pushing Shaw on his low energy recruiting. In MBB, the Dawkins extension was unpardonable and the Coach Haase, who gets Stanford from a recruiting perspective, has really struggled to retain his upperclassmen. Something is amiss in this program too.

Muir should be asked to leave now. Stanford needs a visionary in the AD position and one who can garner the respect of the senior management team. The new AD needs to engage the President and Provost (and the conference and the NCAA) as Stanford will be faced with some stark choices in the coming years and whether it wants to compete in football and MBB at the highest level. The new AD also needs to sell the vision to Stanford's stakeholders outside senior management and be able to garner the financial resources necessary, especially if football is not bring in the income necesssary.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - Jamesy - 07-05-2021

(07-04-2021, 11:45 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(07-04-2021, 07:53 PM)Jamesy Wrote:  
(07-04-2021, 07:31 PM)needle Wrote:  When was the last time Stanford fired an AD?

Bowlsby left to be Big 12 commissioner
Leland left to return to Pacific (very strong ties there)
Geiger left to be AD at Maryland (no idea if he was asked to leave)

All this goes back to 1979....do people here really believe that Muir being forced out is even a possibility?

It's very rare for anyone to get fired from the athletic department. From a coaching standpoint in the past 15-20 years, it's really just Hansen, Teevens, Harris, Dawkins, vandemoer, rittman. All were no brainer firings.

Rittman not in same category as the others (or at least the ones I recognize/recall).  And even if you think the guy had to go, it was handled so poorly by Muir from what I recall reading about "the process."

Oh . . . and to answer needle's question:  No, I do not.

I put Rittman in the category of university hates bad publicity. Can add Turley to that category too. 

I also don't think Muir will get fired. Was hoping he'd get another AD/commissioner job.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - Goose - 07-05-2021

(07-05-2021, 09:47 AM)McKenwood Wrote:  Stanford needs a visionary in the AD position and one who can garner the respect of the senior management team. The new AD needs to engage the President and Provost (and the conference and the NCAA) as Stanford will be faced with some stark choices in the coming years and whether it wants to compete in football and MBB at the highest level. The new AD also needs to sell the vision to Stanford's stakeholders outside senior management and be able to garner the financial resources necessary, especially if football is not bring in the income necesssary.
As I understand it, neither Jesus Christ nor Harry Houdini is looking for a job.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - McKenwood - 07-05-2021

(07-05-2021, 10:33 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(07-05-2021, 09:47 AM)McKenwood Wrote:  Stanford needs a visionary in the AD position and one who can garner the respect of the senior management team. The new AD needs to engage the President and Provost (and the conference and the NCAA) as Stanford will be faced with some stark choices in the coming years and whether it wants to compete in football and MBB at the highest level. The new AD also needs to sell the vision to Stanford's stakeholders outside senior management and be able to garner the financial resources necessary, especially if football is not bring in the income necesssary.
As I understand it, neither Jesus Christ nor Harry Houdini is looking for a job.
Looking at it from a different perspective would anyone on this board donate to a department that is headed by Muir? If so there is plenty of coastal swampland available in Florida.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - teejers1 - 07-05-2021

(07-05-2021, 09:47 AM)McKenwood Wrote:  Muir should be asked to leave now. Stanford needs a visionary in the AD position and one who can garner the respect of the senior management team. The new AD needs to engage the President and Provost (and the conference and the NCAA) as Stanford will be faced with some stark choices in the coming years and whether it wants to compete in football and MBB at the highest level. The new AD also needs to sell the vision to Stanford's stakeholders outside senior management and be able to garner the financial resources necessary, especially if football is not bring in the income necessary.

Good post; however, I don't think the AD position at Stanford is long for this world.  And the "next world" - the one Stanford University will be competing in athletically - will be all about smaller, non-major, non-revenue, boutique-sports.   Fundamentally, I just don't see how Stanford - as an institution - opts to play in the $$-infested landscape that will be pay-to-play athletes on campus in major sports.  And that's coming.  Soon.

I may be Chicken Little, but that doesn't mean the sky isn't falling! 

lex24 - lex24 - 07-05-2021

(07-05-2021, 11:24 AM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021, 09:47 AM)McKenwood Wrote:  Muir should be asked to leave now. Stanford needs a visionary in the AD position and one who can garner the respect of the senior management team. The new AD needs to engage the President and Provost (and the conference and the NCAA) as Stanford will be faced with some stark choices in the coming years and whether it wants to compete in football and MBB at the highest level. The new AD also needs to sell the vision to Stanford's stakeholders outside senior management and be able to garner the financial resources necessary, especially if football is not bring in the income necessary.

Good post; however, I don't think the AD position at Stanford is long for this world.  And the "next world" - the one Stanford University will be competing in athletically - will be all about smaller, non-major, non-revenue, boutique-sports.   Fundamentally, I just don't see how Stanford - as an institution - opts to play in the $$-infested landscape that will be pay-to-play athletes on campus in major sports.  And that's coming.  Soon.

I may be Chicken Little, but that doesn't mean the sky isn't falling! 

Maybe.  But I expect some work around. The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards, billboards (Stanford of course always puts their top players on the billboard. I expect that to change) radio ads etc. They are going to have to become a generic, I think. They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc.

If it becomes an employee issue, college sports as we know them are gone.  So there is going to have to be some negotiation to work out a viable solution. Interesting to see if Congress gets involved.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - needle - 07-05-2021

Thanks for posting, McKenwood. I guess we'll see if Muir ends up departing anytime soon.

RE: It's time for Muir to go - GK3 - 07-05-2021

(07-05-2021, 11:35 AM)needle Wrote:  Thanks for posting, McKenwood. I guess we'll see if Muir ends up departing anytime soon.

My guess is that his future tenure is probably dependent on how the President and BoT view his responsibility for situation in his department.  If he made the decision on his own to expand the AD staff when not needed and to reduce revenues by cutting 11 sports and associated over head count, then my guess he will be gone soon.  Unfortunately, I do not think either thing happened just because he decided to do it.  I do not see Stanford allowing department heads to expand or reduce staff levels solely on their own.  I am sure when Covid came along he was told he had to reduce his budget, so he came up with cutting 11 sports.  Again, I do not think he did this without some sort of blessing by the people above him.  What happened then is they all miscalculated how the Alumni would react and suddenly found themselves in embarrassed in the press.  Since the University approved this, the President and BoT assume much of the bad guy role.
My guess they will let some time pass and then ask him to move on, that level of embarrassment is seldom tolerated without someone paying a price for it.

RE: lex24 - DC 86 - 07-05-2021

(07-05-2021, 11:31 AM)lex24 Wrote:  The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 

I don't see things unfolding that way. Athletes indeed will cash in through social media influencing as well as traditional media advertising, but those platforms work by leveraging university-sponsored visibility. An athlete maximizes their profile by being on a brobdingnagian billboard on the corner of Galvez and El Camino, or better yet by being the focus of a H-man or Biletnikoff/Butkus/Outland campaign. It would be foolish for an athlete to demand compensation for such promotion (or for a university not to market its own athletes) given thee mutual benefit. No different from up-and-coming entertainers who take part in many events for free knowing that by generating publicity for themselves they will cash in elsewhere. There may be a handful of athletes who become so prominent that they don't need the university platform (e.g. someone like Tim Tebow when he was at Florida) but unlikely that it will be the case for Stanford football or basketball players.

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 07-05-2021

(07-05-2021, 02:08 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021, 11:31 AM)lex24 Wrote:  The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 

I don't see things unfolding that way. Athletes indeed will cash in through social media influencing as well as traditional media advertising, but those platforms work by leveraging university-sponsored visibility. An athlete maximizes their profile by being on a of immense proportions billboard on the corner of Galvez and El Camino, or better yet by being the focus of a H-man or Biletnikoff/Butkus/Outland campaign. It would be foolish for an athlete to demand compensation for such promotion (or for a university not to market its own athletes) given thee mutual benefit. No different from up-and-coming entertainers who take part in many events for free knowing that by generating publicity for themselves they will cash in elsewhere. There may be a handful of athletes who become so prominent that they don't need the university platform (e.g. someone like Tim Tebow when he was at Florida) but unlikely that it will be the case for Stanford football or basketball players.

This is what I don't understand about all those clamoring for NIL compensation (at minimum).  Where do you think "the value" for that college athlete's NIL comes from?  That person's ability?  Maybe a small fraction.  But the overwhelming majority of the value is generated by "the university platform" - i.e., the legions of fans who have rooted for "State University" or "Local College" for literally decades.  I'm not sure why schools would want to pay players for the value the schools innately generate.  But of course, some (perhaps many) will, including the Big Boys in D1 ball.  Is Stanford going to swim in that pool?  Should it?  And this is before you even get to alums sponsoring "autograph sessions" as a way to funnel $$ directly into athletes' pockets.

I just don't see it for Stanford.

The only hope is for Congressional action in an attempt to level the playing field, perhaps using Title IX as vehicle for legislation. But relying on Congress for hope means . . . no hope at all.