[Mick]

I will remind everyone that the NCAA document stated "Finally, the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the institution failed to monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA." 

It seems that the sequence was
1) 12 May 2014 disgruntled group talked to Muir
1) <unknown day> May 2014 disgruntled group talks to NCAA enforcement (I don't know the order here)
3) some portion of administration and/or athletic department started looking into it, talking to coaches (but apparently not other players or parents??)
4) an assistant coach indicated she was concerned about under-reporting of CADA but had not reported it  (I must admit this item COULD be earlier, but I would think it was here)
5) 30 May 2014 Coaches resigned or terminated
6) Sep 2014  Stanford sends report to the NCAA
7) Oct 2014  Stanford athletes are required to self-report CADA.
8 ) Apr 2015  NCAA delivers notice of inquiry to Stanford
9) ...skipping ahead... Aug 2016  Penalties assessed/agreed upon

Stanford agreed that it (separate from the coach, apparently) should be monitoring CADA.  I think it is clear that Stanford had no mechanism to check on the coaches' reports (across all sports).  It couldn't separately know about the problem, so it had no reason to call Rittman in to discuss an unknown problem before 12 May 2014.

I haven't noticed that the topic of under-reporting of practice hours was brought up with Muir.  Maybe I missed it?  But the disgruntled athletes & parents did talk to NCAA enforcement about something.  (The SFGate report, who had a transcript, wrote "Judging from the transcript, the meeting was long on opinions critical of Rittman, his staff and the medical treatment some players received, but short on examples of the coach’s shortcomings. There was vague talk of coaches bad-mouthing players, urging players to change class schedules for practice needs and overworking pitchers. Players described feelings of depression and disputes with coaches over financial aid."  If there was a complaint of practice time, I would have thought he would have mentioned it.)

If the disgruntled group had talked to the NCAA before talking to Rittman, and Muir was aware of that, the whole nature of the meeting with Muir changes in my mind.    It would be informative to know if they talked to the NCAA first (and then were advised to talk to the University) or if they talked to Muir (and were then advised to, or were frustrated enough to, talk to the NCAA).

The practice time rules were the first thing mentioned, apparently.  See the table in the attached article.  I'd forgotten that the pro-Rittman players stated that the collective weekly overrun was one (1) hour against the 20 hour NCAA limit and that they disputed that voluntary bullpen sessions were considered mandatory:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...signation/

I don't think the disgruntleds talked to the NCAA first.  I think they threatened Muir, who then went to the NCAA.  I don't see the NCAA saying to a bunch of disgruntleds "Thanks for letting us know, why don't you go talk to the AD?"  Rather, I see them saying, "Thanks for letting us know, we'll take it from here."

[Mick]

I will remind everyone that the NCAA document stated "Finally, the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the institution failed to monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA." 

It seems that the sequence was
1) 12 May 2014 disgruntled group talked to Muir
1) <unknown day> May 2014 disgruntled group talks to NCAA enforcement (I don't know the order here)
3) some portion of administration and/or athletic department started looking into it, talking to coaches (but apparently not other players or parents??)
4) an assistant coach indicated she was concerned about under-reporting of CADA but had not reported it  (I must admit this item COULD be earlier, but I would think it was here)
5) 30 May 2014 Coaches resigned or terminated
6) Sep 2014  Stanford sends report to the NCAA
7) Oct 2014  Stanford athletes are required to self-report CADA.
8 ) Apr 2015  NCAA delivers notice of inquiry to Stanford
9) ...skipping ahead... Aug 2016  Penalties assessed/agreed upon

Stanford agreed that it (separate from the coach, apparently) should be monitoring CADA.  I think it is clear that Stanford had no mechanism to check on the coaches' reports (across all sports).  It couldn't separately know about the problem, so it had no reason to call Rittman in to discuss an unknown problem before 12 May 2014.

I haven't noticed that the topic of under-reporting of practice hours was brought up with Muir.  Maybe I missed it?  But the disgruntled athletes & parents did talk to NCAA enforcement about something.  (The SFGate report, who had a transcript, wrote "Judging from the transcript, the meeting was long on opinions critical of Rittman, his staff and the medical treatment some players received, but short on examples of the coach’s shortcomings. There was vague talk of coaches bad-mouthing players, urging players to change class schedules for practice needs and overworking pitchers. Players described feelings of depression and disputes with coaches over financial aid."  If there was a complaint of practice time, I would have thought he would have mentioned it.)

If the disgruntled group had talked to the NCAA before talking to Rittman, and Muir was aware of that, the whole nature of the meeting with Muir changes in my mind.    It would be informative to know if they talked to the NCAA first (and then were advised to talk to the University) or if they talked to Muir (and were then advised to, or were frustrated enough to, talk to the NCAA).

The practice time rules were the first thing mentioned, apparently.  See the table in the attached article.  I'd forgotten that the pro-Rittman players stated that the collective weekly overrun was one (1) hour against the 20 hour NCAA limit and that they disputed that voluntary bullpen sessions were considered mandatory:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...signation/

I don't think the disgruntleds talked to the NCAA first.  I think they threatened Muir, who then went to the NCAA.  I don't see the NCAA saying to a bunch of disgruntleds "Thanks for letting us know, why don't you go talk to the AD?"  Rather, I see them saying, "Thanks for letting us know, we'll take it from here."