[CTcard]

Some of the items in this discussion are seemingly expressed opinions of the authors.
...
I looked around for information on Rittman, the situation that happened at Stanford, and the subsequent (quick) hiring of him at Kansas. 
The NCAA public announcement is at
  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...35990526=1

This indicates that "Stanford University did not monitor countable athletically related activity for its softball program".
"The former head softball coach did not promote an atmosphere of compliance when he directed, supervised and had knowledge of countable activity violations in his program"

I do not see "falsification or records" or "flagrant" in the NCAA's report.  The "show-cause order" was
"During that time [one year], if an NCAA member school hires the coach, it must conduct compliance education sessions for the coach."

Just a couple of notes.

If you care about details, it is probably best to read the actual NCAA report on the matter. That can be found here:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...160915.pdf

On falsifying reports, there are several references, perhaps the most clear is:

In  addition,  the  former  head  softball  coach routinely submitted inaccurate CARA reports to the  compliance staff that did not reflect actual time spent in CARA.

CARA = Countable Athletically Related Activity, primarily the limit on practice hours.


The show-cause penalty is a requirement that any institution employing the person under the order must conduct compliance education with that person, among other things. That the actual sanction is relatively mild is because of the limitations of the NCAA authority on universities hiring people. However, it is also a mark that the NCAA has officially concluded that person committed a major violation. 
Here is an article on the show-cause penalty from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show-cause_penalty

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.

That may be what other coaches think, but that does not appear to be the reason Rittman lost his job. The message should be that if you commit a major NCAA violation and receive a show-cause penalty, you will lose your job.  (And the show cause penalty was NOT because of an accidental tripping over the practice time limits.)

I suspect that there are many coaches who would view that as a red-line warning against taking a job at Stanford.
I consider not committing such violations a minimum requirement for having a job of responsibility at Stanford.

[CTcard]

Some of the items in this discussion are seemingly expressed opinions of the authors.
...
I looked around for information on Rittman, the situation that happened at Stanford, and the subsequent (quick) hiring of him at Kansas. 
The NCAA public announcement is at
  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...35990526=1

This indicates that "Stanford University did not monitor countable athletically related activity for its softball program".
"The former head softball coach did not promote an atmosphere of compliance when he directed, supervised and had knowledge of countable activity violations in his program"

I do not see "falsification or records" or "flagrant" in the NCAA's report.  The "show-cause order" was
"During that time [one year], if an NCAA member school hires the coach, it must conduct compliance education sessions for the coach."

Just a couple of notes.

If you care about details, it is probably best to read the actual NCAA report on the matter. That can be found here:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...160915.pdf

On falsifying reports, there are several references, perhaps the most clear is:

In  addition,  the  former  head  softball  coach routinely submitted inaccurate CARA reports to the  compliance staff that did not reflect actual time spent in CARA.

CARA = Countable Athletically Related Activity, primarily the limit on practice hours.


The show-cause penalty is a requirement that any institution employing the person under the order must conduct compliance education with that person, among other things. That the actual sanction is relatively mild is because of the limitations of the NCAA authority on universities hiring people. However, it is also a mark that the NCAA has officially concluded that person committed a major violation. 
Here is an article on the show-cause penalty from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show-cause_penalty

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.

That may be what other coaches think, but that does not appear to be the reason Rittman lost his job. The message should be that if you commit a major NCAA violation and receive a show-cause penalty, you will lose your job.  (And the show cause penalty was NOT because of an accidental tripping over the practice time limits.)

I suspect that there are many coaches who would view that as a red-line warning against taking a job at Stanford.
I consider not committing such violations a minimum requirement for having a job of responsibility at Stanford.