[winflop]

Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

You absolutely take that meeting, but you also take the meeting with players who support Rittman (and their parents).  Also, to the extent there is communication & transparency it is done equally with both "camps". You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias. And if you find that a coach has committed major NCAA violations, you don't allow him to resign YOU FIRE HIM

[winflop]

Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

You absolutely take that meeting, but you also take the meeting with players who support Rittman (and their parents).  Also, to the extent there is communication & transparency it is done equally with both "camps". You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias. And if you find that a coach has committed major NCAA violations, you don't allow him to resign YOU FIRE HIM