[Mick]

Muir has hired 7 coaches thus far.  One a failure.  Why are the others that bad? 
T&F/XC:  Grade A
Baseball:  TBD
Beach:  Grade B after one year
WVB:  Grade TBD
MBB:  Grade B afrer one year
Men's Tennis:  Grade B

So early to tell on 5, but none looked poor, fair or close to iffy

Bobb, I didn't say, and I don't think I implied that any of the other coaches were disasters.  My sole comment and focus was on the situation before us now, the hiring of the softball coach.  And I would say that Muir's experience hiring Rachel Hanson impacts the hiring process more than his coach hires in seven other sports, simply because Muir has a track record and a reputation now in the softball community.  That's what I meant with this paragraph:

Muir is exceptionally fortunate in two ways; first, the coaching communities of most Sears Cup sports are in silos, meaning they depend upon each other almost exclusively for information and opportunities.  The gymnastics coach, in other words, will not provide substantial independent information on the experience of working for Muir.  Secondly, Stanford largely sells itself.  I've listened to the pitch, it's pretty darned great.  Stanford is a singular experience, and represents a uniquely appealing option for Sears/Director's Cup athletes who otherwise could not expect to matriculate at a top-flight university.  In other words, if you're a coach and actively recruiting, you don't just have the wind at your back, you have a tornado at your back.

In other words, none of his other coaching hires matter, not really.  So that track record irrelevant to this discussion.  His last hire in this sport was a disaster.  Now he could still hire a terrific coach.  It's very possible he could get lucky.  He might find a chafing #2 willing to roll the dice to come work for Muir.  He might uncover a terrific assistant.  Who knows?  Maybe he'll up the financial ante to the point that he attracts a big name.  Should be interesting.

[Mick]

Muir has hired 7 coaches thus far.  One a failure.  Why are the others that bad? 
T&F/XC:  Grade A
Baseball:  TBD
Beach:  Grade B after one year
WVB:  Grade TBD
MBB:  Grade B afrer one year
Men's Tennis:  Grade B

So early to tell on 5, but none looked poor, fair or close to iffy

Bobb, I didn't say, and I don't think I implied that any of the other coaches were disasters.  My sole comment and focus was on the situation before us now, the hiring of the softball coach.  And I would say that Muir's experience hiring Rachel Hanson impacts the hiring process more than his coach hires in seven other sports, simply because Muir has a track record and a reputation now in the softball community.  That's what I meant with this paragraph:

Muir is exceptionally fortunate in two ways; first, the coaching communities of most Sears Cup sports are in silos, meaning they depend upon each other almost exclusively for information and opportunities.  The gymnastics coach, in other words, will not provide substantial independent information on the experience of working for Muir.  Secondly, Stanford largely sells itself.  I've listened to the pitch, it's pretty darned great.  Stanford is a singular experience, and represents a uniquely appealing option for Sears/Director's Cup athletes who otherwise could not expect to matriculate at a top-flight university.  In other words, if you're a coach and actively recruiting, you don't just have the wind at your back, you have a tornado at your back.

In other words, none of his other coaching hires matter, not really.  So that track record irrelevant to this discussion.  His last hire in this sport was a disaster.  Now he could still hire a terrific coach.  It's very possible he could get lucky.  He might find a chafing #2 willing to roll the dice to come work for Muir.  He might uncover a terrific assistant.  Who knows?  Maybe he'll up the financial ante to the point that he attracts a big name.  Should be interesting.