04-09-2017, 01:24 PM
Stanford run-ruled in 5 innings again, as Arizona sweeps Card 9-1. Home series against Arizona State is up next on Thursday-Saturday.
Softball
04-09-2017, 05:18 PM
well, at least one thing you can say for our team is that they're consistent! ;)
04-09-2017, 06:11 PM
(04-09-2017, 05:18 PM)oldalum link Wrote:well, at least one thing you can say for our team is that they're consistent! ;)
Really disappointing series oldalum. For me, the offensive showing was arguably more disappointing than our showing in the circle, given how strong Arizona is on offense, and how young our staff is.
Summary of the Performance on Offense this weekend:
Friday: 1 run, 5 hits, 6 left on base, 2 walks, 5 K, 1-12 on advancement opportunities (8.3%)
Saturday: 0 runs, 3 hits, 6 left on base, 3 walks, 7 K, 2-10 on advancement opportunities (20%)
Sunday: 1 run, 2 hits, 3 left on base, 0 walks, 8 K, 1-7 on advancement opportunities (14.3%)
I sound like a broken record, but these stats show we were able to get runners on base against an elite team like Arizona. However, the coaching staff continues to have no strategy for scoring those runners once they get on base. That is how you only advance 4 baserunners the entire weekend in 29 opportunities.
Ironically, we left more runners on base during this series than Arizona, who scored a combined 41 runs to our 2 total runs this weekend.
(04-09-2017, 05:18 PM)oldalum link Wrote:well, at least one thing you can say for our team is that they're consistent! ;)
Really disappointing series oldalum. For me, the offensive showing was arguably more disappointing than our showing in the circle, given how strong Arizona is on offense, and how young our staff is.
Summary of the Performance on Offense this weekend:
Friday: 1 run, 5 hits, 6 left on base, 2 walks, 5 K, 1-12 on advancement opportunities (8.3%)
Saturday: 0 runs, 3 hits, 6 left on base, 3 walks, 7 K, 2-10 on advancement opportunities (20%)
Sunday: 1 run, 2 hits, 3 left on base, 0 walks, 8 K, 1-7 on advancement opportunities (14.3%)
I sound like a broken record, but these stats show we were able to get runners on base against an elite team like Arizona. However, the coaching staff continues to have no strategy for scoring those runners once they get on base. That is how you only advance 4 baserunners the entire weekend in 29 opportunities.
Ironically, we left more runners on base during this series than Arizona, who scored a combined 41 runs to our 2 total runs this weekend.
04-09-2017, 08:12 PM
The coaching staff totally sucks! You can blame this whole mess on AD Muir who totally botched the Rittman situation. How can a team with so much intellectual as well as athletic talent be so pathetic. One answer: COACHING! Teams in the Pac-12 continually exploit the Stanford weaknesses on defense. Hanson does not believe in "small ball"! Her lack of coaching ability is really apparent this season. She can't blame pitching! Time for a change in the whole staff. The ladies deserve the very best of coaching which is totally non-existent. I think Muir should go to since he's the one who caused this whole debacle. Looks like another gOOse egg and 24 Pac-12 Season!
The coaching staff totally sucks! You can blame this whole mess on AD Muir who totally botched the Rittman situation. How can a team with so much intellectual as well as athletic talent be so pathetic. One answer: COACHING! Teams in the Pac-12 continually exploit the Stanford weaknesses on defense. Hanson does not believe in "small ball"! Her lack of coaching ability is really apparent this season. She can't blame pitching! Time for a change in the whole staff. The ladies deserve the very best of coaching which is totally non-existent. I think Muir should go to since he's the one who caused this whole debacle. Looks like another gOOse egg and 24 Pac-12 Season!
04-09-2017, 09:20 PM
(04-09-2017, 06:11 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:For me, the offensive showing was arguably more disappointing than our showing in the circle, given how strong Arizona is on offense, and how young our staff is.I greatly appreciate your analysis and updates. I feel for the players. We've got the "worst" part down, maybe with a new coaching staff we can make progress toward the "to first" part.
(04-09-2017, 06:11 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:For me, the offensive showing was arguably more disappointing than our showing in the circle, given how strong Arizona is on offense, and how young our staff is.I greatly appreciate your analysis and updates. I feel for the players. We've got the "worst" part down, maybe with a new coaching staff we can make progress toward the "to first" part.
04-10-2017, 12:51 AM
I think we can all agree that Muir underperformed with respect to the Rittman / Hanson transition. He had a world-class coach that he had to release, but he dumped Rittman so badly he offended the collective softball coaching community and he was forced to hire a thoroughly overmatched coach who has a Teevens-like coaching arc. Then, he had to watch the whole car wreck play out over several years.
Our real problem, and this is why I get so exercised over it, is that he's going to need to hire other coaches, to say nothing of the 101 other decisions he needs to make over the course of a day. And I don't have confidence in him.
Our real problem, and this is why I get so exercised over it, is that he's going to need to hire other coaches, to say nothing of the 101 other decisions he needs to make over the course of a day. And I don't have confidence in him.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
I think we can all agree that Muir underperformed with respect to the Rittman / Hanson transition. He had a world-class coach that he had to release, but he dumped Rittman so badly he offended the collective softball coaching community and he was forced to hire a thoroughly overmatched coach who has a Teevens-like coaching arc. Then, he had to watch the whole car wreck play out over several years.
Our real problem, and this is why I get so exercised over it, is that he's going to need to hire other coaches, to say nothing of the 101 other decisions he needs to make over the course of a day. And I don't have confidence in him.
Our real problem, and this is why I get so exercised over it, is that he's going to need to hire other coaches, to say nothing of the 101 other decisions he needs to make over the course of a day. And I don't have confidence in him.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
04-10-2017, 11:27 AM
Is it possible that Rittman might bear some of the responsibility for the mess left in his wake? I'm not here to absolve Muir (see my concluding sentence), who played his hand poorly, but any coach coming in was going to have to contend with a divided team (and that is as much on Rittman as Muir), the possibility of NCAA sanctions, and a depleted roster (again, at least partly due to Rittman). Would a different approach by Muir have resulted in one of the four coaches who declined the job giving us a different answer? Impossible to tell without knowing the reasons to say no, but I suspect Bob has ideas as to the answer. One thing that does seem likely is that the person we did offer the job to was clearly unfit. In the universe of fifth choices who would have said yes to the offer, surely one of them must have been a better coach than the one we did offer. But I do believe that with some time and space, and with the internal divisions in the team largely buried (it now appears the players are united in wanting to rid themselves of Hansen) we ought to be a less unattractive than we were three years ago.
Is it possible that Rittman might bear some of the responsibility for the mess left in his wake? I'm not here to absolve Muir (see my concluding sentence), who played his hand poorly, but any coach coming in was going to have to contend with a divided team (and that is as much on Rittman as Muir), the possibility of NCAA sanctions, and a depleted roster (again, at least partly due to Rittman). Would a different approach by Muir have resulted in one of the four coaches who declined the job giving us a different answer? Impossible to tell without knowing the reasons to say no, but I suspect Bob has ideas as to the answer. One thing that does seem likely is that the person we did offer the job to was clearly unfit. In the universe of fifth choices who would have said yes to the offer, surely one of them must have been a better coach than the one we did offer. But I do believe that with some time and space, and with the internal divisions in the team largely buried (it now appears the players are united in wanting to rid themselves of Hansen) we ought to be a less unattractive than we were three years ago.
04-10-2017, 12:13 PM
Boston Card is totally right! Do you have it from good sources that the ladies want Hanson out? I would assume you do as evidenced by their performances on the field. I do not fault them at all and point the finger squarely on Hanson and the staff. I just wonder how much "juice" the players, parents, alumni, and boosters will have with Muir in influencing him not to rehire her. He totally knuckled under the pressure last time with the parents, etc. in the Rittman situation. I just wonder with the damage Muir has done to the program if any topnotch coach would want to take over? He ought to get on his hands and knees and beg Coach Rittman to return to the program. It probably won't happen;one thing is for sure! SHOW HANSON AND HER COACHES THE DOOR!
Boston Card is totally right! Do you have it from good sources that the ladies want Hanson out? I would assume you do as evidenced by their performances on the field. I do not fault them at all and point the finger squarely on Hanson and the staff. I just wonder how much "juice" the players, parents, alumni, and boosters will have with Muir in influencing him not to rehire her. He totally knuckled under the pressure last time with the parents, etc. in the Rittman situation. I just wonder with the damage Muir has done to the program if any topnotch coach would want to take over? He ought to get on his hands and knees and beg Coach Rittman to return to the program. It probably won't happen;one thing is for sure! SHOW HANSON AND HER COACHES THE DOOR!
04-12-2017, 12:13 PM
(04-10-2017, 11:27 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Would a different approach by Muir have resulted in one of the four coaches who declined the job giving us a different answer? Impossible to tell without knowing the reasons to say no, but I suspect Bob has ideas as to the answer.Â
I don't know specific coaches that turned down Bernard's offer because of how he handled Coach Rittman's departure, but I do know for a fact that some coaches specifically turned down the job or declined to interview because of this. There were other reasons as well (navigating the Pro/Anti-Rittman player divide, financial etc.). As an aside, I heard Coach Hanson was between Choice 6-9, but I digress.
I wholeheartedly agree with Boston Card that this job should be a much better job this time around. However, the key in all of this will be whether memories are still long regarding Coach Rittman's departure, and whether Bernard is willing to spend money to overcome this to attract a top-flight coach (he wasn't or didn't last time), as from what I heard, Coach Hanson's salary is significantly below what other Pac-12 coaches have made at public schools that have to disclose coaching salaries.
(04-10-2017, 11:27 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Would a different approach by Muir have resulted in one of the four coaches who declined the job giving us a different answer? Impossible to tell without knowing the reasons to say no, but I suspect Bob has ideas as to the answer.Â
I don't know specific coaches that turned down Bernard's offer because of how he handled Coach Rittman's departure, but I do know for a fact that some coaches specifically turned down the job or declined to interview because of this. There were other reasons as well (navigating the Pro/Anti-Rittman player divide, financial etc.). As an aside, I heard Coach Hanson was between Choice 6-9, but I digress.
I wholeheartedly agree with Boston Card that this job should be a much better job this time around. However, the key in all of this will be whether memories are still long regarding Coach Rittman's departure, and whether Bernard is willing to spend money to overcome this to attract a top-flight coach (he wasn't or didn't last time), as from what I heard, Coach Hanson's salary is significantly below what other Pac-12 coaches have made at public schools that have to disclose coaching salaries.
04-12-2017, 01:51 PM
With Stanford's resources and turnaround potential, hiring a new coach shouldn't be about the money.
The current top four teams pay their head coaches as follow (Base salary only):
1. Florida State - Lonni Alameda, $230K approx. (Note: former assistant coach at Stanford)
2. Arizona - Mike Candrea, $230K
3. Florida - Tim Walton, $305K
4. Oregon -- Mike White, $237K
And at Wisconsin, Yvette Healy earns $126K. The Badgers are currently 25-7 overall, 4-5 in conference and rank about #30 nationally.
Geaux Cardinal!
Â
The current top four teams pay their head coaches as follow (Base salary only):
1. Florida State - Lonni Alameda, $230K approx. (Note: former assistant coach at Stanford)
2. Arizona - Mike Candrea, $230K
3. Florida - Tim Walton, $305K
4. Oregon -- Mike White, $237K
And at Wisconsin, Yvette Healy earns $126K. The Badgers are currently 25-7 overall, 4-5 in conference and rank about #30 nationally.
Geaux Cardinal!
Â
With Stanford's resources and turnaround potential, hiring a new coach shouldn't be about the money.
The current top four teams pay their head coaches as follow (Base salary only):
1. Florida State - Lonni Alameda, $230K approx. (Note: former assistant coach at Stanford)
2. Arizona - Mike Candrea, $230K
3. Florida - Tim Walton, $305K
4. Oregon -- Mike White, $237K
And at Wisconsin, Yvette Healy earns $126K. The Badgers are currently 25-7 overall, 4-5 in conference and rank about #30 nationally.
Geaux Cardinal!
Â
The current top four teams pay their head coaches as follow (Base salary only):
1. Florida State - Lonni Alameda, $230K approx. (Note: former assistant coach at Stanford)
2. Arizona - Mike Candrea, $230K
3. Florida - Tim Walton, $305K
4. Oregon -- Mike White, $237K
And at Wisconsin, Yvette Healy earns $126K. The Badgers are currently 25-7 overall, 4-5 in conference and rank about #30 nationally.
Geaux Cardinal!
Â
04-12-2017, 02:55 PM
People take new jobs and it's not about money? Really ? Sorry I must be missing something.
Softball reported to Blue when Rittman was here. I think someone else right after and Earl since Hansen came. My guess is Earl would hire a new coach
However 3 years isn't enough for the anger over this by John's former players and coaches to hire s solid coach
Hope I'm wrongÂ
Softball reported to Blue when Rittman was here. I think someone else right after and Earl since Hansen came. My guess is Earl would hire a new coach
However 3 years isn't enough for the anger over this by John's former players and coaches to hire s solid coach
Hope I'm wrongÂ
People take new jobs and it's not about money? Really ? Sorry I must be missing something.
Softball reported to Blue when Rittman was here. I think someone else right after and Earl since Hansen came. My guess is Earl would hire a new coach
However 3 years isn't enough for the anger over this by John's former players and coaches to hire s solid coach
Hope I'm wrongÂ
Softball reported to Blue when Rittman was here. I think someone else right after and Earl since Hansen came. My guess is Earl would hire a new coach
However 3 years isn't enough for the anger over this by John's former players and coaches to hire s solid coach
Hope I'm wrongÂ
04-12-2017, 02:58 PM
Its not about the money?
Well for some it is all about the money, for others it is all about being where you are happy and enjoy the work. Ask David Shaw if it is all about the money? If it was he would no longer be at Stanford.
Well for some it is all about the money, for others it is all about being where you are happy and enjoy the work. Ask David Shaw if it is all about the money? If it was he would no longer be at Stanford.
04-12-2017, 05:57 PM
(04-12-2017, 02:55 PM)BobK link Wrote:People take new jobs and it's not about money? Really ? Sorry I must be missing something.
This is why I am hopeful Bob that we could get a great coach if we are willing to spend. However, I think it will take more money, and more guaranteed years to make it happen. It will certainly take more resources than we are currently committing. However, Bernard owes it to the players to aim higher than the status quo.
(04-12-2017, 02:55 PM)BobK link Wrote:People take new jobs and it's not about money? Really ? Sorry I must be missing something.
This is why I am hopeful Bob that we could get a great coach if we are willing to spend. However, I think it will take more money, and more guaranteed years to make it happen. It will certainly take more resources than we are currently committing. However, Bernard owes it to the players to aim higher than the status quo.
04-12-2017, 07:57 PM
Bobk, I believe what BEC was trying to say is that there should be no monetary reason whatsoever to fail to hire a top-flight coach. Stanford should easily be able to afford any of the base salaries of the top coaches, and we have no reason to be cheap. If we fail to land a good coach, it should not be because we didn't offer enough. I am somewhat worried about lingering anger, and we might have to reach outside the Rittman coaching tree, but there still should be a good coach somewhere we can attract.
BC
BC
Bobk, I believe what BEC was trying to say is that there should be no monetary reason whatsoever to fail to hire a top-flight coach. Stanford should easily be able to afford any of the base salaries of the top coaches, and we have no reason to be cheap. If we fail to land a good coach, it should not be because we didn't offer enough. I am somewhat worried about lingering anger, and we might have to reach outside the Rittman coaching tree, but there still should be a good coach somewhere we can attract.
BC
BC
04-12-2017, 08:13 PM
Thanks BC. I agree and they will do the same with baseball
Lonnie is Head Coach at#1 Florida State. Jessica Allister is Head Coach at # 6 Minnesota. They were easily my top 2 choices three years ago. But no way.
They are both outstanding coaches and would turn us around. Plus they would hire very good assistants which we don't talk about much.Â
I trust Earl completely so we shall see what happens
Lonnie is Head Coach at#1 Florida State. Jessica Allister is Head Coach at # 6 Minnesota. They were easily my top 2 choices three years ago. But no way.
They are both outstanding coaches and would turn us around. Plus they would hire very good assistants which we don't talk about much.Â
I trust Earl completely so we shall see what happens
Thanks BC. I agree and they will do the same with baseball
Lonnie is Head Coach at#1 Florida State. Jessica Allister is Head Coach at # 6 Minnesota. They were easily my top 2 choices three years ago. But no way.
They are both outstanding coaches and would turn us around. Plus they would hire very good assistants which we don't talk about much.Â
I trust Earl completely so we shall see what happens
Lonnie is Head Coach at#1 Florida State. Jessica Allister is Head Coach at # 6 Minnesota. They were easily my top 2 choices three years ago. But no way.
They are both outstanding coaches and would turn us around. Plus they would hire very good assistants which we don't talk about much.Â
I trust Earl completely so we shall see what happens
04-12-2017, 08:34 PM
(04-12-2017, 07:57 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Bobk, I believe what BEC was trying to say is that there should be no monetary reason whatsoever to fail to hire a top-flight coach. Stanford should easily be able to afford any of the base salaries of the top coaches, and we have no reason to be cheap. If we fail to land a good coach, it should not be because we didn't offer enough.Â
I cannot agree with this more.
Regarding possible candidates, I can compile a list at the end of the season of who I would pursue if I was in the AD (there are candidates both in and outside of the Rittman coaching tree who I think would be outstanding).
(04-12-2017, 07:57 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Bobk, I believe what BEC was trying to say is that there should be no monetary reason whatsoever to fail to hire a top-flight coach. Stanford should easily be able to afford any of the base salaries of the top coaches, and we have no reason to be cheap. If we fail to land a good coach, it should not be because we didn't offer enough.Â
I cannot agree with this more.
Regarding possible candidates, I can compile a list at the end of the season of who I would pursue if I was in the AD (there are candidates both in and outside of the Rittman coaching tree who I think would be outstanding).
(04-12-2017, 05:57 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg191575#msg191575 date=1492034133]
People take new jobs and it's not about money? Really ? Sorry I must be missing something.
This is why I am hopeful Bob that we could get a great coach if we are willing to spend. However, I think it will take more money, and more guaranteed years to make it happen. It will certainly take more resources than we are currently committing. However, Bernard owes it to the players to aim higher than the status quo.
[/quote]
Agreed, and I particularly want to echo (and add an exclamation point to) your ending statement, Bernard owes it to the players to aim higher than the status quo!
Separately, d, you mentioned an injury sustained by Horeczko in an earlier post. Might you have any info re: expected time of her return to the lineup? (The tandem of .053 and .083 hitters Hanson has used in LF the past couple of series is a questionable concern. Although she has been going to pinch hitters in the later innings with greater frequency lately, even then the first at-bat or two (contributed by the two singles in 31 at-bats pair) has proven to be an almost certain out (pardon my redundancy), and the productivity at the plate of any particular PH is likely a bit less than it would be were the player used in that role able to enjoy the advantage of developing a "playing time" rhythm as, I presume, the regulars generally do--how about playing one (or more) of them full-time in LF until Horeczko returns?)
Also, d, would you happen to know the story on Maya Jackson? I don't believe I have seen her name in print since the preseason roster came out.Â
(04-12-2017, 05:57 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg191575#msg191575 date=1492034133]
People take new jobs and it's not about money? Really ? Sorry I must be missing something.
This is why I am hopeful Bob that we could get a great coach if we are willing to spend. However, I think it will take more money, and more guaranteed years to make it happen. It will certainly take more resources than we are currently committing. However, Bernard owes it to the players to aim higher than the status quo.
[/quote]
Agreed, and I particularly want to echo (and add an exclamation point to) your ending statement, Bernard owes it to the players to aim higher than the status quo!
Separately, d, you mentioned an injury sustained by Horeczko in an earlier post. Might you have any info re: expected time of her return to the lineup? (The tandem of .053 and .083 hitters Hanson has used in LF the past couple of series is a questionable concern. Although she has been going to pinch hitters in the later innings with greater frequency lately, even then the first at-bat or two (contributed by the two singles in 31 at-bats pair) has proven to be an almost certain out (pardon my redundancy), and the productivity at the plate of any particular PH is likely a bit less than it would be were the player used in that role able to enjoy the advantage of developing a "playing time" rhythm as, I presume, the regulars generally do--how about playing one (or more) of them full-time in LF until Horeczko returns?)
Also, d, would you happen to know the story on Maya Jackson? I don't believe I have seen her name in print since the preseason roster came out.Â
04-12-2017, 09:39 PM
Howell was a top 100 player out of HS and I believe hurt until recently.Â
Cowles was in LF remember the 2 assists in one inning? Or was it one play? Burks had 7 errors at 3rd. Or is she hurt?Â
Great question on Jackson.
Love that D is hereÂ
Cowles was in LF remember the 2 assists in one inning? Or was it one play? Burks had 7 errors at 3rd. Or is she hurt?Â
Great question on Jackson.
Love that D is hereÂ
04-13-2017, 01:15 PM
(04-12-2017, 08:35 PM)Cred link Wrote:Separately, d, you mentioned an injury sustained by Horeczko in an earlier post. Might you have any info re: expected time of her return to the lineup?
Also, d, would you happen to know the story on Maya Jackson? I don't believe I have seen her name in print since the preseason roster came out.
Cred, I read that Horeczko is out indefinitely with a hand injury. The release from Stanford sounded optimistic that she would be back before the end of the season, but I would also not be surprised if she missed the rest of the year, as there are only 5 weeks left in the regular season. She has been out since March 12th.
Regarding Maya Jackson, I think she is redshirting this season because of an injury. However, Whitney Burks also redshirted after suffering an injury in high school, and she has been a solid offensive contributor this year. However, to answer Bob's question, Whitney has struggled with her defense at both 3B and SS, so she has been limited to being a DP (softball's equivalent of a DH). She has not been hurt, to my knowledge, as she started at DP on Sunday against UA (Victoria Molina had been on fire at the plate, so she had been getting the start at DP over the last couple of series).
Moving into next year, with Bessie and Lauren graduating, I think Hannah and Maya, along with Horezcko, could be the future in the outfield for Stanford. Tally Thomas, who is an incoming outfield recruit, could also factor into the equation.
I think Hannah has the ability to be a great player, with a coaching staff that can help her develop on her offensive game (she is already great defensively, as she demonstrated last Sunday against UA). She was ranked #52 nationally, which as a point of comparison, is the same ranking that Maddy Dwyer has in this year's national player rankings. However, when you have a staff that generally doesn't believe in small ball, and Hannah's game in high school was predicated on slapping and power slapping, that is how you end up with a situation where Hannah is hitting 1-for-19. I feel so bad for her and other players on this team, as I feel the coaching philosophy is not bringing out the best in several players' game.
(04-12-2017, 08:35 PM)Cred link Wrote:Separately, d, you mentioned an injury sustained by Horeczko in an earlier post. Might you have any info re: expected time of her return to the lineup?
Also, d, would you happen to know the story on Maya Jackson? I don't believe I have seen her name in print since the preseason roster came out.
Cred, I read that Horeczko is out indefinitely with a hand injury. The release from Stanford sounded optimistic that she would be back before the end of the season, but I would also not be surprised if she missed the rest of the year, as there are only 5 weeks left in the regular season. She has been out since March 12th.
Regarding Maya Jackson, I think she is redshirting this season because of an injury. However, Whitney Burks also redshirted after suffering an injury in high school, and she has been a solid offensive contributor this year. However, to answer Bob's question, Whitney has struggled with her defense at both 3B and SS, so she has been limited to being a DP (softball's equivalent of a DH). She has not been hurt, to my knowledge, as she started at DP on Sunday against UA (Victoria Molina had been on fire at the plate, so she had been getting the start at DP over the last couple of series).
Moving into next year, with Bessie and Lauren graduating, I think Hannah and Maya, along with Horezcko, could be the future in the outfield for Stanford. Tally Thomas, who is an incoming outfield recruit, could also factor into the equation.
I think Hannah has the ability to be a great player, with a coaching staff that can help her develop on her offensive game (she is already great defensively, as she demonstrated last Sunday against UA). She was ranked #52 nationally, which as a point of comparison, is the same ranking that Maddy Dwyer has in this year's national player rankings. However, when you have a staff that generally doesn't believe in small ball, and Hannah's game in high school was predicated on slapping and power slapping, that is how you end up with a situation where Hannah is hitting 1-for-19. I feel so bad for her and other players on this team, as I feel the coaching philosophy is not bringing out the best in several players' game.
04-13-2017, 02:14 PM
(04-12-2017, 07:57 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Bobk, I believe what BEC was trying to say is that there should be no monetary reason whatsoever to fail to hire a top-flight coach. Stanford should easily be able to afford any of the base salaries of the top coaches, and we have no reason to be cheap. If we fail to land a good coach, it should not be because we didn't offer enough. I am somewhat worried about lingering anger, and we might have to reach outside the Rittman coaching tree, but there still should be a good coach somewhere we can attract.
BC
BC, thanks for so effectively saying what I intended to say with my post about salaries of top coaches.
Geaux Cardinal!
(04-12-2017, 07:57 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Bobk, I believe what BEC was trying to say is that there should be no monetary reason whatsoever to fail to hire a top-flight coach. Stanford should easily be able to afford any of the base salaries of the top coaches, and we have no reason to be cheap. If we fail to land a good coach, it should not be because we didn't offer enough. I am somewhat worried about lingering anger, and we might have to reach outside the Rittman coaching tree, but there still should be a good coach somewhere we can attract.
BC
BC, thanks for so effectively saying what I intended to say with my post about salaries of top coaches.
Geaux Cardinal!
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »