The CardBoard
Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - 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: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league (/thread-11824.html)


Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - Mick - 04-03-2016

Stanford's embattled softball team is now 0-5 in league, and has lost eight of its last nine, beating only 5-29 Santa Clara, 4-1.  Of their eight losses, six have been by knockout rule, including four of the five Pac-12 losses.  Their losses came against Oregon and Oregon State.  I really hope the new coach figures this out.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - BobK - 04-03-2016

Need pitching.  Scheyer last I looked 6-0 all shutouts for Washington.  Hoover took LSU to the World Series last year.    Good recruiting class coming in. Outstanding HS Jr. and frosh commits.  Hope they get accepted.    Program was turned upside down as we all know

Tied as we speak with Oregon state in the 8thh

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - Mick - 04-03-2016

(04-03-2016, 02:10 PM)BobK link Wrote:Tied as we speak with Oregon state in the 8thh


Lost, 3-2.  Now 0-6 in league.

The one thing we have going for us is the name on the front of the jersey.  Bad-to-mediocre ADs and coaches can't screw up the excellence of the brand, particularly for the non-revenue sports.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - fullmetal - 04-05-2016

Ugh, Oregon softball, one of the major roots of this downfall...

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - winflop - 04-05-2016

Not sure if this applies to softball, but I have a sense that most coaches get two years to figure it out (unless it's really bad like IdiotFace).  Given just how fractured the softball team was, Coach Hanson might get three years to really turn over the rosterand this is year two.

Patience, Daniel-san.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - Mick - 04-05-2016

(04-05-2016, 10:19 AM)winflop link Wrote:Not sure if this applies to softball, but I have a sense that most coaches get two years to figure it out (unless it's really bad like IdiotFace).  Given just how fractured the softball team was, Coach Hanson might get three years to really turn over the rosterand this is year two.

Patience, Daniel-san.


Well...she didn't handle it well out of the gate, and when she clearly favored the anti-Rittman players to the detriment of the pro-Rittman players, she exacerbated the damage on the team.  I don't know why she should get another season beyond this one.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - BostonCard - 04-05-2016

Works both ways.  How much of a chance did the pro-Rittman players give the new coach?  Just by virtue of not being Rittman, Hanson started out in a deep hole with the Rittman loyalists.  Maybe an extraoridnary coach might have been able to bridge the gap in the two factions, but for most, getting the pro-Rittman players to buy in might have been a step too far.

BC

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - Mick - 04-05-2016

(04-05-2016, 05:13 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Works both ways.  How much of a chance did the pro-Rittman players give the new coach?  Just by virtue of not being Rittman, Hanson started out in a deep hole with the Rittman loyalists.  Maybe an extraoridnary coach might have been able to bridge the gap in the two factions, but for most, getting the pro-Rittman players to buy in might have been a step too far.

BC

Read the articles again, BC.  She clearly didn't treat the pro-Rittman players the same as the mutineers.  A group of players and parents pushed for the ouster of an extremely successful coach.  Pro-Rittman playersor parents tried to reach Muir in advance of the Mutiny Meeting, he refused to return their calls.  No decent coach would go to Stanford, they ended having to take hanson.  Starters left in the wake of the witch hunt, and the pro-Rittman players were bullied by both the coach and the returning players.  hanson had a series of "Feelings" meetings, in which the players were forced to speak or quitting the team.  Hanson moderated this session, not a professional.  So no, BC, No.  That is clearly a bullying session.

The coach has ultimate power.  The new coach clearly understood it was a hornet's nest, so she clearly tried to intimidate them by framing a conversation as "my way or the highway."  how would you interpret this public statement: "“We did seem like the outcast troublemakers from [the new coaches’] perspective, because we were unhappy,” Roulund said. “From the beginning, we just felt like we were treated like delinquents. Everything that we were doing, every mistake that we made, was seen like an act of defiance against the coaches, when it wasn’t.”

It doesn't work both ways, BC.  The coaches have all the power, it isn't "equal"  Read this again, and you tell me if it "works both ways."

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

Muir should be fired, and Teevens Hanson should return to Dartmouth.  2-22 in league last year, 0-6 in league this year, four of the six losses by knockout rule, and they even lost to Dartmouth, Hanson's former team.  Ugh.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - BostonCard - 04-05-2016

(04-05-2016, 06:28 PM)Mick link Wrote:We did seem like the outcast troublemakers from [the new coaches’] perspective, because we were unhappy. From the beginning, we just felt like we were treated like delinquents. Everything that we were doing, every mistake that we made, was seen like an act of defiance against the coaches, when it wasn’t.

Scenario A.  Hanson really is unfair, considers the pro-Rittman faction outcasts and treats them like delinquents.  Hanson's meetings are little more than a facade whose goal is to try to bully pro-Rittman players.
Scenario B.  The Pro-Rittman faction really are unhappy.  They are defiant against the new coach show a bad attitude.  Despite Hanson's attempts to mediate and hold a series of feelings meetings in an attempt to hear both factions out and make peace.  None of this matters to the pro-Rittman faction, because the new coach is not Rittman.

Both scenarios would plausibly result in the statement you quoted. I mean, a player in the pro-Rittman faction would never say something like, "to be honest, we never gave Hanson a chance.  She bent over backwards to accommodate us, but we were so pissed about Rittman being fired that we refused to play along." even if it were completely true. The statement is about what I would expect from someone with a very strong position in a difficult situation, no matter what the degree of "fault" lay in Hanson vs. the Pro-Rittman players. Without actually being there, I don't think we can know.  And, in reality, the truth is likely to be somewhere in between.  The new coach likely has some insecurities in trying to fill Rittman's shoes.  The pro-Rittman faction probably resented the new coach, no matter who she was or how she acted. With that prism on both sides, Hanson probably viewed some of the actions of the pro-Rittman side as mutinous and defiant, even if they weren't malicious.  Conversely, the pro-Rittman side probably viewed many of the actions of Hanson as arbitrary, vindictive and biased, even when there may have been a good rationale for it.

Your feelings on the situation (from how Rittman's firing was handled to the new coach) are well documented.  They may well be correct or mostly correct.  I am merely pointing out that what we have seen in the press is mostly one side of the story, from a group of people who feel quite strongly that they were wronged, and that it may not be indicative of everything that transpired.  That is, don't be so quick to assume that what has been portrayed in the articles, which I have read, are an objective account that gives equal airing to all sides.  I would probably be making the opposite argument if someone were on this site completely sure that Rittman deserved to have been fired, that those who brought allegations against Rittman were well-supported, and that the pro-Rittman faction was mis-representing what happened to the press and making a tough situation even worse for the new coach.

BC

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - BobK - 04-05-2016

I have spoken To parents so have my thoughts but there were many posts on a softball web site by the anti Rittman ring leader who had his posts deleted every couple of days would come back as a new poster and the mod would delete.  Per someone very well respected on another Stanford board not the first time he has done this with his daughters

But like all here including the Daily writers just don't know the whole story.    Rittman was a great coach and a great person and remains so

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - oldalum - 04-05-2016

The situation Hanson inherited was so toxic, and passions so extreme, that I did not expect her to be able to bring together both sides and form a reunified team able to compete at a high level (especially with what turned out to be no experienced, quality pitching, and for a long time no pitchers at all). Seems to me the A.D. should be allowing her more years than usual to prove her worth, rather than fewer.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - winflop - 04-06-2016

(04-05-2016, 04:49 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14847.msg160172#msg160172 date=1459876792]
Not sure if this applies to softball, but I have a sense that most coaches get two years to figure it out (unless it's really bad like IdiotFace).  Given just how fractured the softball team was, Coach Hanson might get three years to really turn over the rosterand this is year two.

Patience, Daniel-san.


Well...she didn't handle it well out of the gate, and when she clearly favored the anti-Rittman players to the detriment of the pro-Rittman players, she exacerbated the damage on the team.  I don't know why she should get another season beyond this one.
[/quote]

She was forced to take sides - the team was already fractured and the split was unrepairable.  What she really needs to do is keep a team on the field while the two factions graduate and she can bring in her own players.  If she can't get back after next year then yes she should go.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - Mick - 04-06-2016

(04-06-2016, 05:11 AM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=14847.msg160190#msg160190 date=1459900166]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=14847.msg160172#msg160172 date=1459876792]
Not sure if this applies to softball, but I have a sense that most coaches get two years to figure it out (unless it's really bad like IdiotFace).  Given just how fractured the softball team was, Coach Hanson might get three years to really turn over the rosterand this is year two.

Patience, Daniel-san.


Well...she didn't handle it well out of the gate, and when she clearly favored the anti-Rittman players to the detriment of the pro-Rittman players, she exacerbated the damage on the team.  I don't know why she should get another season beyond this one.
[/quote]

She was forced to take sides - the team was already fractured and the split was unrepairable.  What she really needs to do is keep a team on the field while the two factions graduate and she can bring in her own players.  If she can't get back after next year then yes she should go.
[/quote]

A third year of knockout losses and 2-22.  And Muir keeps his job.  Great.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - oldalum - 04-06-2016

(04-06-2016, 06:55 AM)Mick link Wrote:And Muir keeps his job.

You have correctly identified the culprit here, but he has been the Teflon A.D. so far.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - Mick - 04-06-2016

(04-06-2016, 07:43 AM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:I don't know why she should get another season beyond this one.

Would it really be good for the program to have another coaching change so quickly? Especially if divides the team again into pro- and anti-firing factions? Clearly Muir has made a mess of things, but I'm not sure another dismissal is the way to clean them up.

I half agree with you.  Muir made such extraordinarily bad decisions, I wouldn't trust him with this hire.  He's clearly poisoned the well in the national coaching fraternity through his bungling, and Hanson is doing herself no favors.  I clearly expect Stanford teams to perform poorly on her watch, and I don't think Stanford will be considered an attractive coaching option for top level softball coaches until Muir is gone.

The Rittman firing was a special case, occasioned by the mutineers and not his performance He made the NCAAs in all years but two, and had a winning record in all years but one.  An AD firing Hanson for poor performance would be expected by one and all, and it is not uncommon in most sports.  Now...that may mean that a few mutineer players may lose their positions once the new coach is on bard, but at least a decent coach would right the ship.  So I would be fine with waiting until Muir leaves.

Re: Stanford Softball, 0-5 in league - BobK - 04-06-2016

Our player player will miss the games tonight

Presented a paper at West Point

https://twitter.com/StanfordSball/status/717831229316313088