Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - 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: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) (/thread-9245.html)
+- 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: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) (/thread-9245.html)
Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - Nan3cy - 05-21-2015
http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_28154332/stanford-baseball-wrapping-up-worst-season-since-1946
For those waiting for Marquess to retire, it sounds as though you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
Hate to see a good guy hang on too long - Redrum - 05-21-2015
He should have watched Letterman's last show. Or Steven Colbert's on Comedy Central. That's the way to go out. I don't think many will remember the best of Marquess' years very clearly given how his teams have performed recently. True, college baseball itself has changed, but the results are in the record book. This is also a test of Bernard Muir, who has no basis to be sentimental about the Golden Years.
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - winflop - 05-21-2015
Marquess has earned the right to go out on his own terms.
Muir should worry a whole heck of a lot more about the programs where new coaches have either not brought about change or have made things worse, and also about how to better engage the student body other than the 3-4 Saturdays in the fall when they are on campus for a home football game.
Muir's test... - Redrum - 05-21-2015
is not just how to **** can Marquess, gracefully or not. The test is the replacement and whether he is even now pro-actively developing a shortlist of potential candidates for the position. He can screw up or succeed at either or both ends of that equation.
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - Mick - 05-22-2015
Stanford was in the super regionals three of the last four years until this year...right?
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - winflop - 05-25-2015
(05-22-2015, 03:37 PM)Mick link Wrote:Stanford was in the super regionals three of the last four years until this year...right?
Yes but only one trip to the CWS in the last 11 years. So it would seem that over the past decade Stanford has become a top 25 team rather than the perennial top 10 team it was in the previous 20+ years.
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - Stymie - 05-25-2015
(05-21-2015, 09:49 AM)Nan3cy link Wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_28154332/stanford-baseball-wrapping-up-worst-season-since-1946
For those waiting for Marquess to retire, it sounds as though you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
Is Chico Esquela still around? Maybe we could hire him to pick up the pieces....
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - oldalum - 05-25-2015
(05-21-2015, 12:17 PM)winflop link Wrote:Marquess has earned the right to go out on his own terms.I've often read this statement and never understood what it means, so I'd greatly appreciate learning why so many people think that (fortunately it's relevant to a number of Stanford coaches!). Does it mean that, if you are very successful for a long enough period of time, you get what I think only federal judges get in our society: life tenure, meaning only you can decide when to retire? Is that like an extra reward for doing so well, you get as many guaranteed years as you want? I'm pretty sure there is an age limit for Stanford professors; should that apply to coaches as well? Does it mean that, if your performance slips a little, you still get to coach, but if it slips into well below the standard expected of Stanford coaches then the A.D. can pressure you into retiring? If the coach is meeting the standard for Stanford coaches, this is not an issue. If the coach is not meeting the standard, is it fair or wise for current and future athletes in that sport, and Stanford fans of that sport, to pay the price indefinitely for that reward for past successes? Or is the hope that the coach will eventually recognize that he or she can no longer perform at the same level and retire voluntarily?
[size=1em]I'm not saying the statement is wrong, I'm just seeking to understand what it means and the reasons behind it. Thanks![/size]
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - CTcard - 05-25-2015
(05-25-2015, 11:00 AM)oldalum link Wrote:Does it mean that, if you are very successful for a long enough period of time, you get what I think only federal judges get in our society: life tenure, meaning only you can decide when to retire?
Strictly speaking, I believe that most everybody in the USA has the right to decide when to retire - though some professions (US military, FBI, etc) are exempt from that law.
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - Rally - 05-25-2015
(05-25-2015, 03:29 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=oldalum link=topic=12163.msg118970#msg118970 date=1432576845]
Does it mean that, if you are very successful for a long enough period of time, you get what I think only federal judges get in our society: life tenure, meaning only you can decide when to retire?
Strictly speaking, I believe that most everybody in the USA has the right to decide when to retire - though some professions (US military, FBI, etc) are exempt from that law.
[/quote]
One can quit, be fired, laid-off or retire, but there is no "right" to retire unless one is self-employed.
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - oldalum - 05-25-2015
sorry for the confusion. I should have asked, does the right to "retire on one's own terms" mean the AD can't fire you for poor performance?
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - 81alum - 05-25-2015
How many of you read the Mercury new article that Nancy posted? It gave numerous reasons why Stanford's current and recent baseball "slump" have little to do with coaching. I only vaguely follow baseball and have no idea what has gone wrong, but if all one had to go on was that article, you certainly could not put much blame on Marquess. I presume there is more to it than the article covers....
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - Jskass - 05-25-2015
Likewise, I got to see Hoover pitch for LSU softball and what a difference she would have made had she stayed at Stanford.
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - winflop - 05-26-2015
(05-25-2015, 04:01 PM)81alum link Wrote:How many of you read the Mercury new article that Nancy posted? It gave numerous reasons why Stanford's current and recent baseball "slump" have little to do with coaching. I only vaguely follow baseball and have no idea what has gone wrong, but if all one had to go on was that article, you certainly could not put much blame on Marquess. I presume there is more to it than the article covers....
The article focuses primarily on this season, which clearly had a lot to do with injuries. But the longer track record of no longer being a top tier program is what is of concern.
Re: Not so berry good to me (this year at least) - fullmetal - 05-26-2015
Minor correction: Since this article was written, Texas got hot during the Big 12 tournament and won the whole thing, including an automatic berth to the NCAA tournament. Sigh.