[Mick]

Can someone explain how Muir "botched" the Rittman firing?

Winflop didn't say Muir botched the Rittman firing.  He said Muir botched the "Rittman situation." 

I think Winflop would agree that since Rittman committed a documented Level II violation, the firing is perhaps the one thing Muir didn't botch.  He certainly arranged the investigation to culminate in that result, and prevented Rittman from participating in the process until the very end.  One of my favorite parts is that the law firm selected to conduct the "independent" investigation was formerly run by a Stanford board member and that firm was dependent upon Stanford for a substantial amount of its revenue.  What are the odds that the "independent investigation" would result in anything other than precisely what Stanford wanted?  Funny, employment investigations was not a specialty of that law firm, though Stanford had used law firms in the past that indeed had that specialty.  I know that a number of players who supported Rittman stated they weren't contacted by the investigating team.  And why would they?  :P 

Here's the result:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...160915.pdf

Here's a pretty good description of events, reported in the Stanford Daily.  the title is "Stanford softball in shambles after infighting, controversial resignation."  Sorta screams "botched" to me, but YMMV.

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

In short, Muir didn't properly supervise an employee who was falsifying records, he then facilitated a mutiny without telling the coach and without including players who were supportive of Muir, he allowed the blame for an AD employee who was rumored to be paying inappropriate attention to an athlete (both the employee and the athlete denied this) to be attached to the softball program, and a few other goodies.  Read the article.  He then couldn't get a decent candidate to replace Rittman, leading to three morbid years of a ruined program.  Sounds botched to me.

[Mick]

Can someone explain how Muir "botched" the Rittman firing?

Winflop didn't say Muir botched the Rittman firing.  He said Muir botched the "Rittman situation." 

I think Winflop would agree that since Rittman committed a documented Level II violation, the firing is perhaps the one thing Muir didn't botch.  He certainly arranged the investigation to culminate in that result, and prevented Rittman from participating in the process until the very end.  One of my favorite parts is that the law firm selected to conduct the "independent" investigation was formerly run by a Stanford board member and that firm was dependent upon Stanford for a substantial amount of its revenue.  What are the odds that the "independent investigation" would result in anything other than precisely what Stanford wanted?  Funny, employment investigations was not a specialty of that law firm, though Stanford had used law firms in the past that indeed had that specialty.  I know that a number of players who supported Rittman stated they weren't contacted by the investigating team.  And why would they?  :P 

Here's the result:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...160915.pdf

Here's a pretty good description of events, reported in the Stanford Daily.  the title is "Stanford softball in shambles after infighting, controversial resignation."  Sorta screams "botched" to me, but YMMV.

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

In short, Muir didn't properly supervise an employee who was falsifying records, he then facilitated a mutiny without telling the coach and without including players who were supportive of Muir, he allowed the blame for an AD employee who was rumored to be paying inappropriate attention to an athlete (both the employee and the athlete denied this) to be attached to the softball program, and a few other goodies.  Read the article.  He then couldn't get a decent candidate to replace Rittman, leading to three morbid years of a ruined program.  Sounds botched to me.