[BostonCard]

I also don't see how losing the Director's Cup has any weight in looking at Muir's job performance. 



I don't understand the argument that hiring good coaches is of no consequence because anyone asked would come to Stanford. According to that argument, there is no athletic director who could be successful at Stanford. It's also a false argument. Coaches who come to Stanford (outside of 2 or 3) don't have a great standard of living due to the cost of existing in the Bay Area. Muir has to sell the job. 



I think the main objections to Muir with validity are that he isn't willing to lean on Shaw to get a modern OC and he was duplicitous with whoever else in the Stanford administration planned the cutting of 11 sports. Then he looked totally foolish when they were reinstated. A Sandy Barbour moment.

Aren't you the one who said the wrestling coach we now have must have contacted Stanford and lobbied for the job?

Do you think McAlester was that hard a sell?

Goldstein?

Esquer?



C'mon now . . .

The thing about Esquer was not getting him to sign on the dotted line, but making the offer to begin with.  Many here would not have made that offer, so you have to give Muir credit for seeing something in Esquer that many here did not.



BC

At the time Esquer was hired, I remember being skeptical because on paper he didn't look that good.

Yes, some credit to Muir, but more to Marquess who undoubtedly drove the hiring decision for his successor.

Has Muir made a number of good hires? Yes, he has. But for me they are overshadowed by his abject failure to move the needle in MBB, the downward slide of the football program, and the multiple scandals and awful financial management under his watch.

Do you know that Marques recommended Esquer, or that Montgomery or Vanderveer didn’t recommend Haase?  Listen, I am with you that Muir has had enough lapses that he shouldn’t be the AD going forward. But it is disingenuous to discount the things he has done well, but give him full blame for the things he has not, especially because we don’t know what happened behind the scenes.  In the end, the buck, for both good and bad, should stop on his desk, and in my accounting his hiring has, on the whole, been fine, but he has failed at the financial (AD budget deficits), compliance (varsity blues and NCAA sanctions), and stakeholder management (cut sports) aspects of his job.  Picking a good baseball coach, and you can still give him credit for it without undermining your broader argument, isn’t enough to make up for the above.

BC

[BostonCard]

I also don't see how losing the Director's Cup has any weight in looking at Muir's job performance. 



I don't understand the argument that hiring good coaches is of no consequence because anyone asked would come to Stanford. According to that argument, there is no athletic director who could be successful at Stanford. It's also a false argument. Coaches who come to Stanford (outside of 2 or 3) don't have a great standard of living due to the cost of existing in the Bay Area. Muir has to sell the job. 



I think the main objections to Muir with validity are that he isn't willing to lean on Shaw to get a modern OC and he was duplicitous with whoever else in the Stanford administration planned the cutting of 11 sports. Then he looked totally foolish when they were reinstated. A Sandy Barbour moment.

Aren't you the one who said the wrestling coach we now have must have contacted Stanford and lobbied for the job?

Do you think McAlester was that hard a sell?

Goldstein?

Esquer?



C'mon now . . .

The thing about Esquer was not getting him to sign on the dotted line, but making the offer to begin with.  Many here would not have made that offer, so you have to give Muir credit for seeing something in Esquer that many here did not.



BC

At the time Esquer was hired, I remember being skeptical because on paper he didn't look that good.

Yes, some credit to Muir, but more to Marquess who undoubtedly drove the hiring decision for his successor.

Has Muir made a number of good hires? Yes, he has. But for me they are overshadowed by his abject failure to move the needle in MBB, the downward slide of the football program, and the multiple scandals and awful financial management under his watch.

Do you know that Marques recommended Esquer, or that Montgomery or Vanderveer didn’t recommend Haase?  Listen, I am with you that Muir has had enough lapses that he shouldn’t be the AD going forward. But it is disingenuous to discount the things he has done well, but give him full blame for the things he has not, especially because we don’t know what happened behind the scenes.  In the end, the buck, for both good and bad, should stop on his desk, and in my accounting his hiring has, on the whole, been fine, but he has failed at the financial (AD budget deficits), compliance (varsity blues and NCAA sanctions), and stakeholder management (cut sports) aspects of his job.  Picking a good baseball coach, and you can still give him credit for it without undermining your broader argument, isn’t enough to make up for the above.

BC