[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190528#msg190528 date=1490385179]


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?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?[/quote]

An exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school because they're already exceedingly successful there.  Why would they be at risk?  There's no reason to change.  If they're going to be safe anywhere, it will be the known quantity (current school with highly successful program) versus the unknown quantity (Stanford, with very unsuccessful program and poorly performing recruits). 

Actually, that's not 100% true...Stanford and more specifically Muir are known quantities in the softball world, given the perception of how Rittman was treated.

And you proved my point, perhaps inadvertently, in the latter part of your post.  You referenced Rittman's background as an assistant coach at three programs; Washington, Minnesota and Oregon.  He wasn't a successful head coach.  He finally got his chance at the brass ring, and went to the NCAAs every year but two in a very, very long career at Stanford.

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.

 

The knowledge absolutely exists.  Any AD who will blindside any coach with a meeting of players and parents of which the coach is not aware, nor to which the coach is invited, is by definition an AD who doesn't have my back.  If I'm a very successful coach of a successful program, I already know that my AD has my back, because they do and have for my entire career there.  And I know that Muir will not have my back because the nearest thing he's ever had to a successful coach is John Rittman, and as a successful coach, I can see that he hasn't had Rittman's back.  Rittman who is respected enough to coach for team USA, a spot that Hanson can't see with the Hubble telescope.

One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Then why did Muir have to settle for Hanson?  With the entire country of successful softball coaches, why were we stuck with the female Buddy Teevens?

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190528#msg190528 date=1490385179]


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?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?[/quote]

An exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school because they're already exceedingly successful there.  Why would they be at risk?  There's no reason to change.  If they're going to be safe anywhere, it will be the known quantity (current school with highly successful program) versus the unknown quantity (Stanford, with very unsuccessful program and poorly performing recruits). 

Actually, that's not 100% true...Stanford and more specifically Muir are known quantities in the softball world, given the perception of how Rittman was treated.

And you proved my point, perhaps inadvertently, in the latter part of your post.  You referenced Rittman's background as an assistant coach at three programs; Washington, Minnesota and Oregon.  He wasn't a successful head coach.  He finally got his chance at the brass ring, and went to the NCAAs every year but two in a very, very long career at Stanford.

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.

 

The knowledge absolutely exists.  Any AD who will blindside any coach with a meeting of players and parents of which the coach is not aware, nor to which the coach is invited, is by definition an AD who doesn't have my back.  If I'm a very successful coach of a successful program, I already know that my AD has my back, because they do and have for my entire career there.  And I know that Muir will not have my back because the nearest thing he's ever had to a successful coach is John Rittman, and as a successful coach, I can see that he hasn't had Rittman's back.  Rittman who is respected enough to coach for team USA, a spot that Hanson can't see with the Hubble telescope.

One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Then why did Muir have to settle for Hanson?  With the entire country of successful softball coaches, why were we stuck with the female Buddy Teevens?