[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189987#msg189987 date=1489551530]
[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.
[/quote]

Page 1 of 3

Thank you, Mr. Cohn, for the virtual confirmation that this year indeed is a CONTRACT UP FOR RENEWAL year for Coach Hanson.

The day I read http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...esignation was the day I soured to the point of no return on Rachel K. Hanson, as a head coach, or for that matter, as a coach at any level. Among the most disturbing of numerous quite disturbing quotes (and accounts) provided by the article were these:

*  Hanson:  "I don't care whether we win this game or not, we're going to learn a lesson tonight."

*  Leah White, one of the team's best players of Seasons 2012-2014 (best, that is, prior to the arrival of Rachel Hanson and the Dartmouth Duo's other half, Dorian Shaw):  "You need to feel the confidence coming from your coaches. You need to feel like they want you to do well, and I definitely did not get that this year, whatsoever." (I do hope this former player and her outspoken, principled peers named in the article have received due appreciation for getting the word out.)

Today's lesson: It is best that one who would seek to be assured of never having to witness the materialization on an internet forum of a deadly accurate and brutally candid 2000-word critique of one's (in this case, dismal) job performance never, ever, treat a Stanford student-athlete like dirt.

Whatever the circumstances may be, I don't ever want to hear the words "I don't care whether we win this game or not" coming from a coach.

The team batting average posted in Hanson's first season fell 37 points short of that achieved in Rittman's last. Needless to say, the 92-point plummet in batting average suffered by the "Captain Bligh"ed player quoted above must be recognized as a big-time contributor to the team's significant statistical decline on offense.

Unsurprisingly, certainly, Hanson seemed absolutely insulated--absolutely unbothered and unfettered by any possible presence of job security concerns--in conducting her inaugural-year softball duties. In all likelihood there were no such concerns.  None whatsoever. After all, first-year coaches tend to be cut untold tons of slack, and for good reason. But will the second-year coach necessarily be extended mercy in measure equal to or approaching that enjoyed in Year 1? Very, very hard to conceive of that not being the case here, as certain striking Year 2016 observations (which, to my deep regret, cannot be recounted here, but which I would be infinitely more than happy to detail in a private and confidential in-person meeting with Mr. Bernard Muir if extended the opportunity) have left me hard pressed to deny the perception that the toxic weed that was 0-24 was nourished and sustained by an underlying, utterly worry-free application of "I don't care whether we go winless in Pac-12 or not, we're going to learn a lesson this year" brand of manure-fertilizer grounded in this coach's unfortunate (for her powerless players) insulation from any possible job security concerns.

Perhaps, then, you the reader can empathize with the disgust I felt at the sight of what I consider to be an unsatisfactory and indeed, I believe, sinfully OMISSIVE shrug-off of ZERO and TWENTY-FOUR in the form of Hanson's May 27, 2016 retweet of the following:

"Transformation doesn't happen overnight, but as a result of faithful progress in the right direction over time."

In my judgment a demonstrated failure to make the most of one's first two years on the job with respect to striving at all times to achieve success at the highest achievable level does not demonstrate faithful progress in the right direction.

Regarding the upcoming evaluation of Coach Hanson's career contributions to Stanford Softball, a performance analysis of the full three years of this coach's tenure, not merely the final (one hopes) year, must be rendered. After all, this coach, like any other, deserves to be paid in full her due.

Which reminds me (of BobK's earlier articulated point that "Rome wasn't built overnight")... This, from the Internet: "According to the highest viewed response on Quora: 'So far it's taken approximately 1,009,491 days to build Rome. This is based on the traditional founding of the city [21 April 753 BCE], but we should also consider that the city has been sacked and rebuilt several times.' I did the math, that's about 2,764 years." (Updating the math to reflect the fact that the Quora quote is just over a year old yields a result of 2,765 years.) Perhaps Coach Bligh would not be averse to the prospect of a 2,765-year period of confinement to reconstructive limbo, but I know of no one else, outside the ranks of the current coaching regime, who would not be. But I digress...

[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189987#msg189987 date=1489551530]
[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.
[/quote]

Page 1 of 3

Thank you, Mr. Cohn, for the virtual confirmation that this year indeed is a CONTRACT UP FOR RENEWAL year for Coach Hanson.

The day I read http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...esignation was the day I soured to the point of no return on Rachel K. Hanson, as a head coach, or for that matter, as a coach at any level. Among the most disturbing of numerous quite disturbing quotes (and accounts) provided by the article were these:

*  Hanson:  "I don't care whether we win this game or not, we're going to learn a lesson tonight."

*  Leah White, one of the team's best players of Seasons 2012-2014 (best, that is, prior to the arrival of Rachel Hanson and the Dartmouth Duo's other half, Dorian Shaw):  "You need to feel the confidence coming from your coaches. You need to feel like they want you to do well, and I definitely did not get that this year, whatsoever." (I do hope this former player and her outspoken, principled peers named in the article have received due appreciation for getting the word out.)

Today's lesson: It is best that one who would seek to be assured of never having to witness the materialization on an internet forum of a deadly accurate and brutally candid 2000-word critique of one's (in this case, dismal) job performance never, ever, treat a Stanford student-athlete like dirt.

Whatever the circumstances may be, I don't ever want to hear the words "I don't care whether we win this game or not" coming from a coach.

The team batting average posted in Hanson's first season fell 37 points short of that achieved in Rittman's last. Needless to say, the 92-point plummet in batting average suffered by the "Captain Bligh"ed player quoted above must be recognized as a big-time contributor to the team's significant statistical decline on offense.

Unsurprisingly, certainly, Hanson seemed absolutely insulated--absolutely unbothered and unfettered by any possible presence of job security concerns--in conducting her inaugural-year softball duties. In all likelihood there were no such concerns.  None whatsoever. After all, first-year coaches tend to be cut untold tons of slack, and for good reason. But will the second-year coach necessarily be extended mercy in measure equal to or approaching that enjoyed in Year 1? Very, very hard to conceive of that not being the case here, as certain striking Year 2016 observations (which, to my deep regret, cannot be recounted here, but which I would be infinitely more than happy to detail in a private and confidential in-person meeting with Mr. Bernard Muir if extended the opportunity) have left me hard pressed to deny the perception that the toxic weed that was 0-24 was nourished and sustained by an underlying, utterly worry-free application of "I don't care whether we go winless in Pac-12 or not, we're going to learn a lesson this year" brand of manure-fertilizer grounded in this coach's unfortunate (for her powerless players) insulation from any possible job security concerns.

Perhaps, then, you the reader can empathize with the disgust I felt at the sight of what I consider to be an unsatisfactory and indeed, I believe, sinfully OMISSIVE shrug-off of ZERO and TWENTY-FOUR in the form of Hanson's May 27, 2016 retweet of the following:

"Transformation doesn't happen overnight, but as a result of faithful progress in the right direction over time."

In my judgment a demonstrated failure to make the most of one's first two years on the job with respect to striving at all times to achieve success at the highest achievable level does not demonstrate faithful progress in the right direction.

Regarding the upcoming evaluation of Coach Hanson's career contributions to Stanford Softball, a performance analysis of the full three years of this coach's tenure, not merely the final (one hopes) year, must be rendered. After all, this coach, like any other, deserves to be paid in full her due.

Which reminds me (of BobK's earlier articulated point that "Rome wasn't built overnight")... This, from the Internet: "According to the highest viewed response on Quora: 'So far it's taken approximately 1,009,491 days to build Rome. This is based on the traditional founding of the city [21 April 753 BCE], but we should also consider that the city has been sacked and rebuilt several times.' I did the math, that's about 2,764 years." (Updating the math to reflect the fact that the Quora quote is just over a year old yields a result of 2,765 years.) Perhaps Coach Bligh would not be averse to the prospect of a 2,765-year period of confinement to reconstructive limbo, but I know of no one else, outside the ranks of the current coaching regime, who would not be. But I digress...