[Mick]

To put it more plainly, any coach that views the fact that Stanford takes NCAA requirements seriously as a reason not to take a job is a coach that we probably don't want at Stanford.

NCAA softball coaches take those requirements seriously.  You missed most of my key points.  Muir handled the initial meeting and communications with the parents badly -- without informing the coach -- and the parents essentially blackmailed him into the meeting and into action.  There were multiple versions of what had occurred, and that the players who supported Rittman not only were (a) not invited to that meeting, but (b) the parents and players at that meeting misrepresented the positions of the players who were not there and © when the inevitable "independent" investigation was conducted by a law firm, the law firm wasn't remotely independent.  That firm was dependent upon Stanford for a hugely significant chunk of its revenues, and at one time the firm's MP sat on Stanford's board, to say nothing of the fact that there were many other law firms more qualified to conduct that type of investigation.  The pro-Rittman players said either that they weren't contacted for the investigation or that the interviews were perfunctory.

My point is that great softball coaches are aware of all of that.  Many of them turned down the chance to interview with Stanford when Hanson was ultimately hired, NOT because "Stanford Follows The Rules" (really?) but because of the other aforementioned reasons.

[Mick]

To put it more plainly, any coach that views the fact that Stanford takes NCAA requirements seriously as a reason not to take a job is a coach that we probably don't want at Stanford.

NCAA softball coaches take those requirements seriously.  You missed most of my key points.  Muir handled the initial meeting and communications with the parents badly -- without informing the coach -- and the parents essentially blackmailed him into the meeting and into action.  There were multiple versions of what had occurred, and that the players who supported Rittman not only were (a) not invited to that meeting, but (b) the parents and players at that meeting misrepresented the positions of the players who were not there and © when the inevitable "independent" investigation was conducted by a law firm, the law firm wasn't remotely independent.  That firm was dependent upon Stanford for a hugely significant chunk of its revenues, and at one time the firm's MP sat on Stanford's board, to say nothing of the fact that there were many other law firms more qualified to conduct that type of investigation.  The pro-Rittman players said either that they weren't contacted for the investigation or that the interviews were perfunctory.

My point is that great softball coaches are aware of all of that.  Many of them turned down the chance to interview with Stanford when Hanson was ultimately hired, NOT because "Stanford Follows The Rules" (really?) but because of the other aforementioned reasons.