[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190478#msg190478 date=1490302065]
And candidly, I wonder how many of the very finest softball coaches have practices longer than the NCAA allows, but don't have watchdog parents (or others) jotting down start-and-stop times.

Personally, I don't care much about the answer to that question.

Rather strongly, I don't want my school to continue to employ coaches who knowingly file false reports to the school and the NCAA. I don't believe that Stanford should employ a coach found personally responsible for NCAA level II violations and under a show-cause penalty. That makes me cry when they are able coaches, but doesn't change the balance.

Other programs cheating (or not) wouldn't change my stance.
[/quote]

One of the other posters referenced "flagrant" violations of practice time.  During the meeting with Muir, it was referenced that Rittman's practices "slightly" exceeded the time limits, and that he was punished for the cover up versus the crime.  Fine, I get all that.

My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190478#msg190478 date=1490302065]
And candidly, I wonder how many of the very finest softball coaches have practices longer than the NCAA allows, but don't have watchdog parents (or others) jotting down start-and-stop times.

Personally, I don't care much about the answer to that question.

Rather strongly, I don't want my school to continue to employ coaches who knowingly file false reports to the school and the NCAA. I don't believe that Stanford should employ a coach found personally responsible for NCAA level II violations and under a show-cause penalty. That makes me cry when they are able coaches, but doesn't change the balance.

Other programs cheating (or not) wouldn't change my stance.
[/quote]

One of the other posters referenced "flagrant" violations of practice time.  During the meeting with Muir, it was referenced that Rittman's practices "slightly" exceeded the time limits, and that he was punished for the cover up versus the crime.  Fine, I get all that.

My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?