[CTcard]

BTW, as an aside, I despise the fact that the softball program has sought to obscure the success and results from the Rittman era.  Here's the statistics links for the years 2010-2014.  Tell me if you have any more success than me in finding Rittman-era results:

The official site has either no links or broken links to past years' statistics in every sport (or at least every sport I tend to look for).

A couple of past stats pages are available, mostly from last year. Baseball, for example, doesn't seem to have a link for statistics before the current season but if you guess the URL from this years' stats page, you can get 2016. You cannot get pre-2016. I don't think that they are trying to obscure the success from the Marquess era. Same thing for football, you can go back one year only. This loss of past years' information seems to have happened with the Pac-12 mandated (encouraged?) redesign. 

On the other hand, schedules and rosters for the softball team are available back to 1994 as is the case for other sports.

[CTcard]

BTW, as an aside, I despise the fact that the softball program has sought to obscure the success and results from the Rittman era.  Here's the statistics links for the years 2010-2014.  Tell me if you have any more success than me in finding Rittman-era results:

The official site has either no links or broken links to past years' statistics in every sport (or at least every sport I tend to look for).

A couple of past stats pages are available, mostly from last year. Baseball, for example, doesn't seem to have a link for statistics before the current season but if you guess the URL from this years' stats page, you can get 2016. You cannot get pre-2016. I don't think that they are trying to obscure the success from the Marquess era. Same thing for football, you can go back one year only. This loss of past years' information seems to have happened with the Pac-12 mandated (encouraged?) redesign. 

On the other hand, schedules and rosters for the softball team are available back to 1994 as is the case for other sports.

[d4cohn]

[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.

On another note, with regards to MT's point regarding playing for next year, the problem is that just as the pitching is improving and building up its depth (we will have 6 pitchers on the roster next year with addition of Maddy Dwyer), the offense is going to be losing three high performing seniors that are a big reason why the team has batted .326 this year. Aside from Cowles and Horeczko's outstanding performances this year, this team is being carried by Bessie, Kylie and Lauren who are hitting respectively:

Bessie: .419 BA, .602 OBP, .677 Slugging %
Kylie: .369 BA, .429 OBP, .524 Slugging %
Lauren: .366 BA, .451 OBP, .549 Slugging %

We have already struggled to replace Kayla's production this year, as the two players at 1B have hit .217 and .105 this year.

As Mick has pointed out, the now sophomore and junior classes have unfortunately not being able to develop. Only two juniors are consistently starting this year, and one is hitting .217, and the other has struggled fielding (posting an .870 fielding percentage), so she has been limited to being a DP (basically softball's equivalent of a DH).  No sophomores are hitting above .200 this year. So the issue, moving into next year, is even as the pitching undoubtedly takes a big step forward with Maddy Dwyer, is how are we going to replace the production of 4 players who have delivered Pac-12/All-American level production for us (Kayla last year, the three seniors this year).

[d4cohn]

[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.

On another note, with regards to MT's point regarding playing for next year, the problem is that just as the pitching is improving and building up its depth (we will have 6 pitchers on the roster next year with addition of Maddy Dwyer), the offense is going to be losing three high performing seniors that are a big reason why the team has batted .326 this year. Aside from Cowles and Horeczko's outstanding performances this year, this team is being carried by Bessie, Kylie and Lauren who are hitting respectively:

Bessie: .419 BA, .602 OBP, .677 Slugging %
Kylie: .369 BA, .429 OBP, .524 Slugging %
Lauren: .366 BA, .451 OBP, .549 Slugging %

We have already struggled to replace Kayla's production this year, as the two players at 1B have hit .217 and .105 this year.

As Mick has pointed out, the now sophomore and junior classes have unfortunately not being able to develop. Only two juniors are consistently starting this year, and one is hitting .217, and the other has struggled fielding (posting an .870 fielding percentage), so she has been limited to being a DP (basically softball's equivalent of a DH).  No sophomores are hitting above .200 this year. So the issue, moving into next year, is even as the pitching undoubtedly takes a big step forward with Maddy Dwyer, is how are we going to replace the production of 4 players who have delivered Pac-12/All-American level production for us (Kayla last year, the three seniors this year).

[82lsju]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190000#msg190000 date=1489609287]
BTW, as an aside, I despise the fact that the softball program has sought to obscure the success and results from the Rittman era.  Here's the statistics links for the years 2010-2014.  Tell me if you have any more success than me in finding Rittman-era results:

The official site has either no links or broken links to past years' statistics in every sport (or at least every sport I tend to look for).

A couple of past stats pages are available, mostly from last year. Baseball, for example, doesn't seem to have a link for statistics before the current season but if you guess the URL from this years' stats page, you can get 2016. You cannot get pre-2016. I don't think that they are trying to obscure the success from the Marquess era. Same thing for football, you can go back one year only. This loss of past years' information seems to have happened with the Pac-12 mandated (encouraged?) redesign. 

On the other hand, schedules and rosters for the softball team are available back to 1994 as is the case for other sports.
[/quote]

between our AD and Learfield Sports I'd always assume that any website issues are due to lack of competence first.......

[82lsju]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190000#msg190000 date=1489609287]
BTW, as an aside, I despise the fact that the softball program has sought to obscure the success and results from the Rittman era.  Here's the statistics links for the years 2010-2014.  Tell me if you have any more success than me in finding Rittman-era results:

The official site has either no links or broken links to past years' statistics in every sport (or at least every sport I tend to look for).

A couple of past stats pages are available, mostly from last year. Baseball, for example, doesn't seem to have a link for statistics before the current season but if you guess the URL from this years' stats page, you can get 2016. You cannot get pre-2016. I don't think that they are trying to obscure the success from the Marquess era. Same thing for football, you can go back one year only. This loss of past years' information seems to have happened with the Pac-12 mandated (encouraged?) redesign. 

On the other hand, schedules and rosters for the softball team are available back to 1994 as is the case for other sports.
[/quote]

between our AD and Learfield Sports I'd always assume that any website issues are due to lack of competence first.......

[BobK]

Well Wegner does lead our team in HRs.    :)

[BobK]

Well Wegner does lead our team in HRs.    :)

[d4cohn]

Well Wegner does lead our team in HRs.    :)

Respectfully, with 3 HR's Bob. I also think the pitching talent is pretty good. Kiana was great in long relief against Bama, and Carolyn has been good. And the Pac-12 has gotten more offense-oriented in recent years, so you don't have to have a lights-out staff in order to at least win some games in conference. Washington posted over a 5.00 ERA two years ago and made the tournament, and Arizona and Arizona State posted ERA's well above 4.00 and also made the field of 64. Our ERA is 3.82 right now; not great, but significantly better than prior years with either position players pitching, or only a staff of two last year. If anything, I think Coach Hanson has left our pitchers in a little long in a couple of games, and that is where some of the ERA damage occurred (FSU, San Diego State, Grand Canyon, Jackonsville etc.)

[d4cohn]

Well Wegner does lead our team in HRs.    :)

Respectfully, with 3 HR's Bob. I also think the pitching talent is pretty good. Kiana was great in long relief against Bama, and Carolyn has been good. And the Pac-12 has gotten more offense-oriented in recent years, so you don't have to have a lights-out staff in order to at least win some games in conference. Washington posted over a 5.00 ERA two years ago and made the tournament, and Arizona and Arizona State posted ERA's well above 4.00 and also made the field of 64. Our ERA is 3.82 right now; not great, but significantly better than prior years with either position players pitching, or only a staff of two last year. If anything, I think Coach Hanson has left our pitchers in a little long in a couple of games, and that is where some of the ERA damage occurred (FSU, San Diego State, Grand Canyon, Jackonsville etc.)

[BobK]

Going in the opposite direction I don't think we have a mid PAC 12 staff.  The key in Softball is Ks and we have 108 in 174 innings.  Not good.

That said the pitching has been better than I expected.   

[BobK]

Going in the opposite direction I don't think we have a mid PAC 12 staff.  The key in Softball is Ks and we have 108 in 174 innings.  Not good.

That said the pitching has been better than I expected.   

[Mick]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189987#msg189987 date=1489551530]
[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.

On another note, with regards to MT's point regarding playing for next year, the problem is that just as the pitching is improving and building up its depth (we will have 6 pitchers on the roster next year with addition of Maddy Dwyer), the offense is going to be losing three high performing seniors that are a big reason why the team has batted .326 this year. Aside from Cowles and Horeczko's outstanding performances this year, this team is being carried by Bessie, Kylie and Lauren who are hitting respectively:

Bessie: .419 BA, .602 OBP, .677 Slugging %
Kylie: .369 BA, .429 OBP, .524 Slugging %
Lauren: .366 BA, .451 OBP, .549 Slugging %

We have already struggled to replace Kayla's production this year, as the two players at 1B have hit .217 and .105 this year.

As Mick has pointed out, the now sophomore and junior classes have unfortunately not being able to develop. Only two juniors are consistently starting this year, and one is hitting .217, and the other has struggled fielding (posting an .870 fielding percentage), so she has been limited to being a DP (basically softball's equivalent of a DH).  No sophomores are hitting above .200 this year. So the issue, moving into next year, is even as the pitching undoubtedly takes a big step forward with Maddy Dwyer, is how are we going to replace the production of 4 players who have delivered Pac-12/All-American level production for us (Kayla last year, the three seniors this year).
[/quote]


Yes, the Rittman recruits were and are amazing.

Recruiting, very bad.  Coaching, very bad.

Next year is just going to suck.  Thanks, Bernard.  Thanks a lot.  How about you resign?  You're very, very bad at your job.

[Mick]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189987#msg189987 date=1489551530]
[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.

On another note, with regards to MT's point regarding playing for next year, the problem is that just as the pitching is improving and building up its depth (we will have 6 pitchers on the roster next year with addition of Maddy Dwyer), the offense is going to be losing three high performing seniors that are a big reason why the team has batted .326 this year. Aside from Cowles and Horeczko's outstanding performances this year, this team is being carried by Bessie, Kylie and Lauren who are hitting respectively:

Bessie: .419 BA, .602 OBP, .677 Slugging %
Kylie: .369 BA, .429 OBP, .524 Slugging %
Lauren: .366 BA, .451 OBP, .549 Slugging %

We have already struggled to replace Kayla's production this year, as the two players at 1B have hit .217 and .105 this year.

As Mick has pointed out, the now sophomore and junior classes have unfortunately not being able to develop. Only two juniors are consistently starting this year, and one is hitting .217, and the other has struggled fielding (posting an .870 fielding percentage), so she has been limited to being a DP (basically softball's equivalent of a DH).  No sophomores are hitting above .200 this year. So the issue, moving into next year, is even as the pitching undoubtedly takes a big step forward with Maddy Dwyer, is how are we going to replace the production of 4 players who have delivered Pac-12/All-American level production for us (Kayla last year, the three seniors this year).
[/quote]


Yes, the Rittman recruits were and are amazing.

Recruiting, very bad.  Coaching, very bad.

Next year is just going to suck.  Thanks, Bernard.  Thanks a lot.  How about you resign?  You're very, very bad at your job.

[CTcard]

Yes, the Rittman recruits were and are amazing.

Recruiting, very bad.  Coaching, very bad.

Next year is just going to suck.  Thanks, Bernard.  Thanks a lot.  How about you resign?  You're very, very bad at your job.

When evaluating the poor state of the softball program, one shouldn't forget that what Rittman did was bad enough that the NCAA put a show-cause penalty on him and he caused half of Stanford's first ever major NCAA violations report.
Muir really had no choice but to get rid of him. Whether he had a choice to hire a better replacement may be an issue.

For anyone who needs a reminder, here is the thread on Rittman, Cajuste, and the NCAA violations.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=15669.0

[CTcard]

Yes, the Rittman recruits were and are amazing.

Recruiting, very bad.  Coaching, very bad.

Next year is just going to suck.  Thanks, Bernard.  Thanks a lot.  How about you resign?  You're very, very bad at your job.

When evaluating the poor state of the softball program, one shouldn't forget that what Rittman did was bad enough that the NCAA put a show-cause penalty on him and he caused half of Stanford's first ever major NCAA violations report.
Muir really had no choice but to get rid of him. Whether he had a choice to hire a better replacement may be an issue.

For anyone who needs a reminder, here is the thread on Rittman, Cajuste, and the NCAA violations.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=15669.0

[d4cohn]

When evaluating the poor state of the softball program, one shouldn't forget that what Rittman did was bad enough that the NCAA put a show-cause penalty on him and he caused half of Stanford's first ever major NCAA violations report.
Muir really had no choice but to get rid of him.

If that is the case CTcard, then if the job ever opens up again, coaching candidates would seemingly recognize that, and not turn down the job because of how they felt Coach Rittman was treated. That certainly happened in 2014, and it remains to be seen if that would happen again.

I also disagree slightly with Mick in that the recruiting has not been very bad; we have two top 50 recruits in the junior class, and 4 top 100 recruits in the freshman class. This team has talent. It is the player development that has been comically bad, when you hear that some players got more out of their high school practices than their practices at Stanford.

[d4cohn]

When evaluating the poor state of the softball program, one shouldn't forget that what Rittman did was bad enough that the NCAA put a show-cause penalty on him and he caused half of Stanford's first ever major NCAA violations report.
Muir really had no choice but to get rid of him.

If that is the case CTcard, then if the job ever opens up again, coaching candidates would seemingly recognize that, and not turn down the job because of how they felt Coach Rittman was treated. That certainly happened in 2014, and it remains to be seen if that would happen again.

I also disagree slightly with Mick in that the recruiting has not been very bad; we have two top 50 recruits in the junior class, and 4 top 100 recruits in the freshman class. This team has talent. It is the player development that has been comically bad, when you hear that some players got more out of their high school practices than their practices at Stanford.

[Owen Tufornomor]

On another note, with regards to MT's point regarding playing for next year, the problem is that just as the pitching is improving and building up its depth (we will have 6 pitchers on the roster next year with addition of Maddy Dwyer), the offense is going to be losing three high performing seniors that are a big reason why the team has batted .326 this year. Aside from Cowles and Horeczko's outstanding performances this year, this team is being carried by Bessie, Kylie and Lauren who are hitting respectively:

Bessie: .419 BA, .602 OBP, .677 Slugging %
Kylie: .369 BA, .429 OBP, .524 Slugging %
Lauren: .366 BA, .451 OBP, .549 Slugging %

Given the impending off-season departure of the 3 high-production seniors to be followed by the arrival of the 8th ranked incoming class in the conference (and, a year later, another 8th ranked class), I have to think that this Pac-12 season is Show or Go time for Hanson.

[Owen Tufornomor]

On another note, with regards to MT's point regarding playing for next year, the problem is that just as the pitching is improving and building up its depth (we will have 6 pitchers on the roster next year with addition of Maddy Dwyer), the offense is going to be losing three high performing seniors that are a big reason why the team has batted .326 this year. Aside from Cowles and Horeczko's outstanding performances this year, this team is being carried by Bessie, Kylie and Lauren who are hitting respectively:

Bessie: .419 BA, .602 OBP, .677 Slugging %
Kylie: .369 BA, .429 OBP, .524 Slugging %
Lauren: .366 BA, .451 OBP, .549 Slugging %

Given the impending off-season departure of the 3 high-production seniors to be followed by the arrival of the 8th ranked incoming class in the conference (and, a year later, another 8th ranked class), I have to think that this Pac-12 season is Show or Go time for Hanson.

[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg189852#msg189852 date=1489257398]
Or Rome wasn't built in a day.  >:(

Love your optimism Bob, but I still don't think our architect knows what she is doing.
[/quote]


An acquaintance of mine who has extensive knowledge of coaching strategies and in whose judgment I put a lot of stock saw Stanford's 2nd series (games 4, 5 and 6) of 2016 Pac-12 play (versus Oregon State). His evaluation of what he saw, as expressed in a couple of text messages, was as follows:

"OSU coach coaching her *** off. Involved every pitch putting people in motion. Creating opportunities. Hanson may as well be sitting in the bleachers."

"This crew is truly a joke. ... They are so predictable. They will go 0-3 at UCLA [games 7, 8 and 9 of Stanford's 2016 Pac-12 schedule] for sure and may just go 0 for conference play."

And the rest is history...

[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg189852#msg189852 date=1489257398]
Or Rome wasn't built in a day.  >:(

Love your optimism Bob, but I still don't think our architect knows what she is doing.
[/quote]


An acquaintance of mine who has extensive knowledge of coaching strategies and in whose judgment I put a lot of stock saw Stanford's 2nd series (games 4, 5 and 6) of 2016 Pac-12 play (versus Oregon State). His evaluation of what he saw, as expressed in a couple of text messages, was as follows:

"OSU coach coaching her *** off. Involved every pitch putting people in motion. Creating opportunities. Hanson may as well be sitting in the bleachers."

"This crew is truly a joke. ... They are so predictable. They will go 0-3 at UCLA [games 7, 8 and 9 of Stanford's 2016 Pac-12 schedule] for sure and may just go 0 for conference play."

And the rest is history...

[2006alum]

I have no skin in this game - I don't follow women's softball, and don't especially care, beyond my desire for Stanford to kick a$$ at everything. So, on behalf of the uninitiated, a few questions for those in the know:

1. Do we realistically think we can get a better coach than Hanson? Given everything that has happened, would someone be willing to step in and fill that role at the moment who has demonstrably better credentials?
2. If Hanson were fired, do we think we'd lose any of our current players and/or incoming recruits? Do we have reason to believe a newly hired coach could get a better incoming recruiting class than Hanson has secured?
3. Most importantly, do we think any coach would want to come in if Hanson were fired mid-season, i.e., right now?

I guess the reason why I ask is that I am skeptical that firing Hanson right now would make things any better. Who would want to take this job NOW, mid-season, after the previous coach was barely given 2 seasons, and the prior coach was fired amid an enormous amount of drama?

And if we don't think we could get someone better than Hanson right now, might it be better to hold our horses until the season ends and, if the team's record really does support firing her, make a strong pitch to Muir then?

I guess I just feel like I see a ton of hate being poured on Hanson, and whether or not it's all deserved, I wonder whether, at this moment, it's productive?

[2006alum]

I have no skin in this game - I don't follow women's softball, and don't especially care, beyond my desire for Stanford to kick a$$ at everything. So, on behalf of the uninitiated, a few questions for those in the know:

1. Do we realistically think we can get a better coach than Hanson? Given everything that has happened, would someone be willing to step in and fill that role at the moment who has demonstrably better credentials?
2. If Hanson were fired, do we think we'd lose any of our current players and/or incoming recruits? Do we have reason to believe a newly hired coach could get a better incoming recruiting class than Hanson has secured?
3. Most importantly, do we think any coach would want to come in if Hanson were fired mid-season, i.e., right now?

I guess the reason why I ask is that I am skeptical that firing Hanson right now would make things any better. Who would want to take this job NOW, mid-season, after the previous coach was barely given 2 seasons, and the prior coach was fired amid an enormous amount of drama?

And if we don't think we could get someone better than Hanson right now, might it be better to hold our horses until the season ends and, if the team's record really does support firing her, make a strong pitch to Muir then?

I guess I just feel like I see a ton of hate being poured on Hanson, and whether or not it's all deserved, I wonder whether, at this moment, it's productive?

[BostonCard]

I guess I just feel like I see a ton of hate being poured on Hanson, and whether or not it's all deserved, I wonder whether, at this moment, it's productive?

I do too, and it seems to go a bit beyond the fact that she is not a good coach (of which I have been persuaded).  I think part of it is due to Rittman's departure, and a strong feeling that he was treated unfairly and that we got rid of a very good coach for no good reason, and a desire to make the further case that Muir really screwed the pooch twice (once by firing Rittman, and once for hiring Hanson).

Of course, if CTCard's post is accurate (I haven't followed it back to the original thread), if Rittman did in fact lead to a major violation and the NCAA went so far as to place a "show cause" penalty on him, then Muir's decision to fire him wasn't a decision at all; he basically had no choice.  And, in light of what Bob has mentioned about the subsequent coaching search, his decision to hire her was very constrained by the desirability of the job.

Ultimately, it looks like we are now in a position to try to time Hansen's departure so as to maximize the quality of head coach we can get.  That means signaling the new coach that we will put resources behind softball, that we are patient enough to given them a chance to build the program, balanced by a desire not let softball languish indefinitely.  My sense is that letting Hansen go at the end of the season and being ready with a short list will be paramount.

BC

[BostonCard]

I guess I just feel like I see a ton of hate being poured on Hanson, and whether or not it's all deserved, I wonder whether, at this moment, it's productive?

I do too, and it seems to go a bit beyond the fact that she is not a good coach (of which I have been persuaded).  I think part of it is due to Rittman's departure, and a strong feeling that he was treated unfairly and that we got rid of a very good coach for no good reason, and a desire to make the further case that Muir really screwed the pooch twice (once by firing Rittman, and once for hiring Hanson).

Of course, if CTCard's post is accurate (I haven't followed it back to the original thread), if Rittman did in fact lead to a major violation and the NCAA went so far as to place a "show cause" penalty on him, then Muir's decision to fire him wasn't a decision at all; he basically had no choice.  And, in light of what Bob has mentioned about the subsequent coaching search, his decision to hire her was very constrained by the desirability of the job.

Ultimately, it looks like we are now in a position to try to time Hansen's departure so as to maximize the quality of head coach we can get.  That means signaling the new coach that we will put resources behind softball, that we are patient enough to given them a chance to build the program, balanced by a desire not let softball languish indefinitely.  My sense is that letting Hansen go at the end of the season and being ready with a short list will be paramount.

BC

[82lsju]

Of course, if CTCard's post is accurate (I haven't followed it back to the original thread), if Rittman did in fact lead to a major violation and the NCAA went so far as to place a "show cause" penalty on him, then Muir's decision to fire him wasn't a decision at all; he basically had no choice.  And, in light of what Bob has mentioned about the subsequent coaching search, his decision to hire her was very constrained by the desirability of the job.

BC

Stanford self-reported these violations in 2014 and took corrective actions that included ending the summer offseason housing program that led to the football violation. Softball Coach John Rittman was asked to resign and his assistants were not brought back after those violations were discovered. The school also imposed limits on practice time.

The NCAA accepted those punishments , fined Stanford $5,000, issued a public reprimand and gave a one-year show-cause penalty against Rittman that place restrictions on his ability to be hired by another school.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp...story.html

[82lsju]

Of course, if CTCard's post is accurate (I haven't followed it back to the original thread), if Rittman did in fact lead to a major violation and the NCAA went so far as to place a "show cause" penalty on him, then Muir's decision to fire him wasn't a decision at all; he basically had no choice.  And, in light of what Bob has mentioned about the subsequent coaching search, his decision to hire her was very constrained by the desirability of the job.

BC

Stanford self-reported these violations in 2014 and took corrective actions that included ending the summer offseason housing program that led to the football violation. Softball Coach John Rittman was asked to resign and his assistants were not brought back after those violations were discovered. The school also imposed limits on practice time.

The NCAA accepted those punishments , fined Stanford $5,000, issued a public reprimand and gave a one-year show-cause penalty against Rittman that place restrictions on his ability to be hired by another school.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp...story.html

[Owen Tufornomor]

I have no skin in this game - I don't follow women's softball, and don't especially care, beyond my desire for Stanford to kick a$$ at everything. So, on behalf of the uninitiated, a few questions for those in the know:

1. Do we realistically think we can get a better coach than Hanson? Given everything that has happened, would someone be willing to step in and fill that role at the moment who has demonstrably better credentials?
2. If Hanson were fired, do we think we'd lose any of our current players and/or incoming recruits? Do we have reason to believe a newly hired coach could get a better incoming recruiting class than Hanson has secured?
3. Most importantly, do we think any coach would want to come in if Hanson were fired mid-season, i.e., right now?

I guess the reason why I ask is that I am skeptical that firing Hanson right now would make things any better. Who would want to take this job NOW, mid-season, after the previous coach was barely given 2 seasons, and the prior coach was fired amid an enormous amount of drama?

And if we don't think we could get someone better than Hanson right now, might it be better to hold our horses until the season ends and, if the team's record really does support firing her, make a strong pitch to Muir then?

I guess I just feel like I see a ton of hate being poured on Hanson, and whether or not it's all deserved, I wonder whether, at this moment, it's productive?

I absolutely would not favor a firing of Hanson before season's end myself. I believe there is more than sufficient merit in "sticking it out" to the completion of a third year, thereby bolstering the selling point of stability (read: job security) in the eyes of possible successors. But we need not consider the question of Hanson possibly being dismissed "before her time" anyway because Muir has no intention of doing that, and that settles that.

Earlier, dcohn4 made the following good and relevant point (see emboldened text below):


"When evaluating the poor state of the softball program, one shouldn't forget that what Rittman did was bad enough that the NCAA put a show-cause penalty on him and he caused half of Stanford's first ever major NCAA violations report. Muir really had no choice but to get rid of him.

If that is the case, then if the job ever opens up again, coaching candidates would seemingly recognize that, and not turn down the job because of how they felt Coach Rittman was treated. That certainly happened in 2014, and it remains to be seen if that would happen again."


I've already composed a 2000-word "pitch to Muir", so to speak, myself and will post it here by the end of the week (no reason it can't be recirculated toward or at season's end).

With keen perception, BC has picked up on the true-to-reality notion that "it seems to go a bit beyond the fact that she is not a good coach," technically speaking. Indeed it does "go beyond," but more than "a bit." In fact, the aforementioned 2000 words cover little other than  "beyond" considerations.

Stay tuned for your initiation, alum.

[Owen Tufornomor]

I have no skin in this game - I don't follow women's softball, and don't especially care, beyond my desire for Stanford to kick a$$ at everything. So, on behalf of the uninitiated, a few questions for those in the know:

1. Do we realistically think we can get a better coach than Hanson? Given everything that has happened, would someone be willing to step in and fill that role at the moment who has demonstrably better credentials?
2. If Hanson were fired, do we think we'd lose any of our current players and/or incoming recruits? Do we have reason to believe a newly hired coach could get a better incoming recruiting class than Hanson has secured?
3. Most importantly, do we think any coach would want to come in if Hanson were fired mid-season, i.e., right now?

I guess the reason why I ask is that I am skeptical that firing Hanson right now would make things any better. Who would want to take this job NOW, mid-season, after the previous coach was barely given 2 seasons, and the prior coach was fired amid an enormous amount of drama?

And if we don't think we could get someone better than Hanson right now, might it be better to hold our horses until the season ends and, if the team's record really does support firing her, make a strong pitch to Muir then?

I guess I just feel like I see a ton of hate being poured on Hanson, and whether or not it's all deserved, I wonder whether, at this moment, it's productive?

I absolutely would not favor a firing of Hanson before season's end myself. I believe there is more than sufficient merit in "sticking it out" to the completion of a third year, thereby bolstering the selling point of stability (read: job security) in the eyes of possible successors. But we need not consider the question of Hanson possibly being dismissed "before her time" anyway because Muir has no intention of doing that, and that settles that.

Earlier, dcohn4 made the following good and relevant point (see emboldened text below):


"When evaluating the poor state of the softball program, one shouldn't forget that what Rittman did was bad enough that the NCAA put a show-cause penalty on him and he caused half of Stanford's first ever major NCAA violations report. Muir really had no choice but to get rid of him.

If that is the case, then if the job ever opens up again, coaching candidates would seemingly recognize that, and not turn down the job because of how they felt Coach Rittman was treated. That certainly happened in 2014, and it remains to be seen if that would happen again."


I've already composed a 2000-word "pitch to Muir", so to speak, myself and will post it here by the end of the week (no reason it can't be recirculated toward or at season's end).

With keen perception, BC has picked up on the true-to-reality notion that "it seems to go a bit beyond the fact that she is not a good coach," technically speaking. Indeed it does "go beyond," but more than "a bit." In fact, the aforementioned 2000 words cover little other than  "beyond" considerations.

Stay tuned for your initiation, alum.

[CTcard]

Of course, if CTCard's post is accurate (I haven't followed it back to the original thread),

You really should go back, BC, because in that thread you wrote:

Yikes!  I agree this is bad.  If the NCAA deemed it bad enough to hit him with a "show cause" clause, Muir/Stanford had no choice.

BC

I would also add that including the word "If" seems to be a turn of phrase, because it was in response to Terry quoting the NCAA report on the major violation. Terry's actual post was:

The NCAA report says that Rittman knowingly violated the rules about practice time and filed inaccurate reports about practice time. That's on him and it relates directly to his conduct of the program. The NCAA thought it was serious enough to put a show cause order on any school that wants to hire Rittman for the next year. I don't think Stanford had any alternative. He had to go. To me, that puts a new slant on his departure.

[CTcard]

Of course, if CTCard's post is accurate (I haven't followed it back to the original thread),

You really should go back, BC, because in that thread you wrote:

Yikes!  I agree this is bad.  If the NCAA deemed it bad enough to hit him with a "show cause" clause, Muir/Stanford had no choice.

BC

I would also add that including the word "If" seems to be a turn of phrase, because it was in response to Terry quoting the NCAA report on the major violation. Terry's actual post was:

The NCAA report says that Rittman knowingly violated the rules about practice time and filed inaccurate reports about practice time. That's on him and it relates directly to his conduct of the program. The NCAA thought it was serious enough to put a show cause order on any school that wants to hire Rittman for the next year. I don't think Stanford had any alternative. He had to go. To me, that puts a new slant on his departure.

[BostonCard]

Nothing like being presented with my own words, lol.

BC

[BostonCard]

Nothing like being presented with my own words, lol.

BC

[winflop]

I think that absent a blatant NCAA/school rules violation, or criminal act, Muir is not going to fire any coach midseason, and I'm not only OK with that I support it.

I agree that there will be more coaches interested in the job if Hanson is gone after this season now that the truth is out about why Rittman was fired.

[winflop]

I think that absent a blatant NCAA/school rules violation, or criminal act, Muir is not going to fire any coach midseason, and I'm not only OK with that I support it.

I agree that there will be more coaches interested in the job if Hanson is gone after this season now that the truth is out about why Rittman was fired.

[BobK]

Rittman of course was immediately hired by Kansas then Florida the next year and now TEAM USA. All as an assistant however. 
No we aren't going to fire a coach mid season with
1.  a winning record
2.  The # 14 recruiting class now frosh

[BobK]

Rittman of course was immediately hired by Kansas then Florida the next year and now TEAM USA. All as an assistant however. 
No we aren't going to fire a coach mid season with
1.  a winning record
2.  The # 14 recruiting class now frosh

[BostonCard]

I think that absent a blatant NCAA/school rules violation, or criminal act, Muir is not going to fire any coach midseason, and I'm not only OK with that I support it.

I agree that there will be more coaches interested in the job if Hanson is gone after this season now that the truth is out about why Rittman was fired.

Also will help not to come into a team with open fighting between two factions (the pro-Rittman and anti-Rittman) factions and facing the prospect of many players quitting or transferring.  the job is still a rebuilding job, but at least a lot of the rubble has been cleared.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think that absent a blatant NCAA/school rules violation, or criminal act, Muir is not going to fire any coach midseason, and I'm not only OK with that I support it.

I agree that there will be more coaches interested in the job if Hanson is gone after this season now that the truth is out about why Rittman was fired.

Also will help not to come into a team with open fighting between two factions (the pro-Rittman and anti-Rittman) factions and facing the prospect of many players quitting or transferring.  the job is still a rebuilding job, but at least a lot of the rubble has been cleared.

BC