[winflop]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

So far he's 0 for 2. I count keeping Dawkins around for three years more than he should have as his first miss.

[winflop]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

So far he's 0 for 2. I count keeping Dawkins around for three years more than he should have as his first miss.

[teejers1]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.
[/quote]
Not only wishful thinking, but realizing that if he fires Haase he has to go hire somebody else. He may not have any candidates that he likes lined up and it is probably harder than ever to find a coach that wants to come to coach Stanford basketball. As lots of others on this board have pointed out it is hard to have confidence Muir can identify and hire a good replacement. Muir may feel the same, not because he thinks he is incompetent but rather because he has looked into it and didn't like what he saw.
[/quote]

I'm on record as being okay with keeping Haase another year (though hiring someone new wouldn't have outraged me, either).  Only post here to say that any Athletic Director worth a damn would have a running, up-to-date short list of coaching candidates for every sport the school cares about - which at Stanford is a lot, and certainly the majors.  In other words, in football and basketball, the argument supporting the status quo based on "who else are you going to hire?" strikes me as weak.  And lazy.  

AD's should make decisions on the merits of the current coach and how he or she is doing at upholding program/school goals and priorities.  If they're meeting the goals/priorities, they stay.  If not, find someone else who will (and you should have that list handy to help you do that).

[teejers1]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.
[/quote]
Not only wishful thinking, but realizing that if he fires Haase he has to go hire somebody else. He may not have any candidates that he likes lined up and it is probably harder than ever to find a coach that wants to come to coach Stanford basketball. As lots of others on this board have pointed out it is hard to have confidence Muir can identify and hire a good replacement. Muir may feel the same, not because he thinks he is incompetent but rather because he has looked into it and didn't like what he saw.
[/quote]

I'm on record as being okay with keeping Haase another year (though hiring someone new wouldn't have outraged me, either).  Only post here to say that any Athletic Director worth a damn would have a running, up-to-date short list of coaching candidates for every sport the school cares about - which at Stanford is a lot, and certainly the majors.  In other words, in football and basketball, the argument supporting the status quo based on "who else are you going to hire?" strikes me as weak.  And lazy.  

AD's should make decisions on the merits of the current coach and how he or she is doing at upholding program/school goals and priorities.  If they're meeting the goals/priorities, they stay.  If not, find someone else who will (and you should have that list handy to help you do that).

[winflop]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

[winflop]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

[SamuelMcF]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

It will be 2 years. If we don't make the tourney in 2023-24 with Kanaan Carlyle and a bunch of juniors/seniors, that's the breaking point.

[SamuelMcF]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

It will be 2 years. If we don't make the tourney in 2023-24 with Kanaan Carlyle and a bunch of juniors/seniors, that's the breaking point.

[msqueri]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

It will be 2 years. If we don't make the tourney in 2023-24 with Kanaan Carlyle and a bunch of juniors/seniors, that's the breaking point.

Are you saying Haase needs to make the tournament both in 2022-2023 and in 2023-2024 to keep his job or that 2023-2024 will be the decisive point because that will be his best roster? I hope it's the former. The latter is just cooking the books to justify retaining Haase. One tournament in eight years being used as a justification for keeping him because he FINALLY got personnel to align would be an even more pathetic reflection on the program's standards and self esteem than where we are now.

[msqueri]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

It will be 2 years. If we don't make the tourney in 2023-24 with Kanaan Carlyle and a bunch of juniors/seniors, that's the breaking point.

Are you saying Haase needs to make the tournament both in 2022-2023 and in 2023-2024 to keep his job or that 2023-2024 will be the decisive point because that will be his best roster? I hope it's the former. The latter is just cooking the books to justify retaining Haase. One tournament in eight years being used as a justification for keeping him because he FINALLY got personnel to align would be an even more pathetic reflection on the program's standards and self esteem than where we are now.

[Goose]

Only post here to say that any Athletic Director worth a damn would have a running, up-to-date short list of coaching candidates for every sport the school cares about - which at Stanford is a lot, and certainly the majors.

Totally agree. It is always wise to have an idea who is out there you would want to hire and also an idea on the probability of attracting those coaches. Even if you like your current coach, stuff happens.

In other words, in football and basketball, the argument supporting the status quo based on "who else are you going to hire?" strikes me as weak.  And lazy.

Not clear to me how your premise supports your conclusion. If the AD is doing the job well and has such a list, it is entirely possible the top candidates on said list are a step down in the opinion of the AD. You seem to be assuming the candidates on that list are better than the current coach and are obtainable. If they aren't, it is the AD's fault. That may be so, but it is unclear to me how we know that is so.

AD's should make decisions on the merits of the current coach and how he or she is doing at upholding program/school goals and priorities.  If they're meeting the goals/priorities, they stay.  If not, find someone else who will (and you should have that list handy to help you do that).

I think the concept of "meets the goals and priorities" isn't actually binary. It is a matter of degree and a matter of "compared to what alternatives". The list gives you the alternatives. If you don't think there is an obvious upgrade, you have to think real hard before you go there. If the current coach meets some of the goals and priorities, but falls short on others to some degree, you may not want to take a flyer on a change that may actually turn out meeting fewer goals and/or falling way short in some areas.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that there is a better choice out there and if the AD can't find that guy, get a new AD. Eventually, if you repeat that process enough times you undoubtedly will find a "better" AD who hires a "better" coach. May take a while though.

[Goose]

Only post here to say that any Athletic Director worth a damn would have a running, up-to-date short list of coaching candidates for every sport the school cares about - which at Stanford is a lot, and certainly the majors.

Totally agree. It is always wise to have an idea who is out there you would want to hire and also an idea on the probability of attracting those coaches. Even if you like your current coach, stuff happens.

In other words, in football and basketball, the argument supporting the status quo based on "who else are you going to hire?" strikes me as weak.  And lazy.

Not clear to me how your premise supports your conclusion. If the AD is doing the job well and has such a list, it is entirely possible the top candidates on said list are a step down in the opinion of the AD. You seem to be assuming the candidates on that list are better than the current coach and are obtainable. If they aren't, it is the AD's fault. That may be so, but it is unclear to me how we know that is so.

AD's should make decisions on the merits of the current coach and how he or she is doing at upholding program/school goals and priorities.  If they're meeting the goals/priorities, they stay.  If not, find someone else who will (and you should have that list handy to help you do that).

I think the concept of "meets the goals and priorities" isn't actually binary. It is a matter of degree and a matter of "compared to what alternatives". The list gives you the alternatives. If you don't think there is an obvious upgrade, you have to think real hard before you go there. If the current coach meets some of the goals and priorities, but falls short on others to some degree, you may not want to take a flyer on a change that may actually turn out meeting fewer goals and/or falling way short in some areas.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that there is a better choice out there and if the AD can't find that guy, get a new AD. Eventually, if you repeat that process enough times you undoubtedly will find a "better" AD who hires a "better" coach. May take a while though.

[teejers1]

Only post here to say that any Athletic Director worth a damn would have a running, up-to-date short list of coaching candidates for every sport the school cares about - which at Stanford is a lot, and certainly the majors.

Totally agree. It is always wise to have an idea who is out there you would want to hire and also an idea on the probability of attracting those coaches. Even if you like your current coach, stuff happens.

In other words, in football and basketball, the argument supporting the status quo based on "who else are you going to hire?" strikes me as weak.  And lazy.

Not clear to me how your premise supports your conclusion. If the AD is doing the job well and has such a list, it is entirely possible the top candidates on said list are a step down in the opinion of the AD. You seem to be assuming the candidates on that list are better than the current coach and are obtainable. If they aren't, it is the AD's fault. That may be so, but it is unclear to me how we know that is so.

AD's should make decisions on the merits of the current coach and how he or she is doing at upholding program/school goals and priorities.  If they're meeting the goals/priorities, they stay.  If not, find someone else who will (and you should have that list handy to help you do that).

I think the concept of "meets the goals and priorities" isn't actually binary. It is a matter of degree and a matter of "compared to what alternatives". The list gives you the alternatives. If you don't think there is an obvious upgrade, you have to think real hard before you go there. If the current coach meets some of the goals and priorities, but falls short on others to some degree, you may not want to take a flyer on a change that may actually turn out meeting fewer goals and/or falling way short in some areas.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that there is a better choice out there and if the AD can't find that guy, get a new AD. Eventually, if you repeat that process enough times you undoubtedly will find a "better" AD who hires a "better" coach. May take a while though.

The short list should be along lines of "this coach has done a good job at __, and I believe he/she would do well at Stanford."

If that's the list, as it should be, then the only variable is the status of the current coach person.  Cutting it - yes, stays.  Not cutting it - no, must go.  That's it.  [That should remove putative replacement from the "it" evaluation].  Of course, I realize real-world decisions involve a lot of fuzzy/gray areas . . .].

[teejers1]

Only post here to say that any Athletic Director worth a damn would have a running, up-to-date short list of coaching candidates for every sport the school cares about - which at Stanford is a lot, and certainly the majors.

Totally agree. It is always wise to have an idea who is out there you would want to hire and also an idea on the probability of attracting those coaches. Even if you like your current coach, stuff happens.

In other words, in football and basketball, the argument supporting the status quo based on "who else are you going to hire?" strikes me as weak.  And lazy.

Not clear to me how your premise supports your conclusion. If the AD is doing the job well and has such a list, it is entirely possible the top candidates on said list are a step down in the opinion of the AD. You seem to be assuming the candidates on that list are better than the current coach and are obtainable. If they aren't, it is the AD's fault. That may be so, but it is unclear to me how we know that is so.

AD's should make decisions on the merits of the current coach and how he or she is doing at upholding program/school goals and priorities.  If they're meeting the goals/priorities, they stay.  If not, find someone else who will (and you should have that list handy to help you do that).

I think the concept of "meets the goals and priorities" isn't actually binary. It is a matter of degree and a matter of "compared to what alternatives". The list gives you the alternatives. If you don't think there is an obvious upgrade, you have to think real hard before you go there. If the current coach meets some of the goals and priorities, but falls short on others to some degree, you may not want to take a flyer on a change that may actually turn out meeting fewer goals and/or falling way short in some areas.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that there is a better choice out there and if the AD can't find that guy, get a new AD. Eventually, if you repeat that process enough times you undoubtedly will find a "better" AD who hires a "better" coach. May take a while though.

The short list should be along lines of "this coach has done a good job at __, and I believe he/she would do well at Stanford."

If that's the list, as it should be, then the only variable is the status of the current coach person.  Cutting it - yes, stays.  Not cutting it - no, must go.  That's it.  [That should remove putative replacement from the "it" evaluation].  Of course, I realize real-world decisions involve a lot of fuzzy/gray areas . . .].

[SamuelMcF]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

It will be 2 years. If we don't make the tourney in 2023-24 with Kanaan Carlyle and a bunch of juniors/seniors, that's the breaking point.

Are you saying Haase needs to make the tournament both in 2022-2023 and in 2023-2024 to keep his job or that 2023-2024 will be the decisive point because that will be his best roster? I hope it's the former. The latter is just cooking the books to justify retaining Haase. One tournament in eight years being used as a justification for keeping him because he FINALLY got personnel to align would be an even more pathetic reflection on the program's standards and self esteem than where we are now.

I am not stating my opinion. I am stating what I am extremely confident Muir's is.

I believe it's the second of your 2 proposals, and don't disagree with literally anything you just wrote.

[SamuelMcF]

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Dawkins was just a bad decision to not fire him sooner. Unlike Haase, the data was already there. Muir just didn't have the guts to do it until it was as obvious to him as it had been to fans for at least two years.

Having talked to Muir twice when Dawkins was the coach, it's clear that he places actual value on making the Not Important Tournament. My biggest concern is that he will think that making this tournament next year is sufficient progress for Haase to keep his job. It shouldn't be. NCAAs or bust next year, Bernie.

This is just one of many reasons we need a new AD who doesn't have tolerance for mediocrity.

It will be 2 years. If we don't make the tourney in 2023-24 with Kanaan Carlyle and a bunch of juniors/seniors, that's the breaking point.

Are you saying Haase needs to make the tournament both in 2022-2023 and in 2023-2024 to keep his job or that 2023-2024 will be the decisive point because that will be his best roster? I hope it's the former. The latter is just cooking the books to justify retaining Haase. One tournament in eight years being used as a justification for keeping him because he FINALLY got personnel to align would be an even more pathetic reflection on the program's standards and self esteem than where we are now.

I am not stating my opinion. I am stating what I am extremely confident Muir's is.

I believe it's the second of your 2 proposals, and don't disagree with literally anything you just wrote.

[BostonCard]

If there were evidence that it was sustainable, fine, but to me, a tourney in 2024 after an NIT bid (if it comes to pass) would be a cyclical result.  Haase is a pretty good recruiter, at the top end, but what Montgomery did, by point of comparison, was build a team for continued excellence, that featured top end talent (like Madden, Jacobsen, the Collins twins, etc.), but also featured guys like Lee, Sauer, Mosley, Robinson, etc. who were excellent four year college players who were not necessarily NBA talent, but who provided continuity, got better every year, and were team players meant that Mike Montgomery’s Stanford teams were greater than the sum of its parts.  So far, those players have been lacking on Haase’s teams, which is why I don’t see sustained success under our current coach.

BC

[BostonCard]

If there were evidence that it was sustainable, fine, but to me, a tourney in 2024 after an NIT bid (if it comes to pass) would be a cyclical result.  Haase is a pretty good recruiter, at the top end, but what Montgomery did, by point of comparison, was build a team for continued excellence, that featured top end talent (like Madden, Jacobsen, the Collins twins, etc.), but also featured guys like Lee, Sauer, Mosley, Robinson, etc. who were excellent four year college players who were not necessarily NBA talent, but who provided continuity, got better every year, and were team players meant that Mike Montgomery’s Stanford teams were greater than the sum of its parts.  So far, those players have been lacking on Haase’s teams, which is why I don’t see sustained success under our current coach.

BC

[chrisk]

Chris Collins at Northwestern is getting similar “support” from his AD.
IT has been 5 years since their only NCAA invite.

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/...32745?s=21

And a familiar comment

https://twitter.com/jgoldsborough/status...12897?s=21

[chrisk]

Chris Collins at Northwestern is getting similar “support” from his AD.
IT has been 5 years since their only NCAA invite.

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/...32745?s=21

And a familiar comment

https://twitter.com/jgoldsborough/status...12897?s=21

[2006alum]

Chris Collins at Northwestern is getting similar “support” from his AD.
IT has been 5 years since their only NCAA invite.

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/...32745?s=21

And a familiar comment

https://twitter.com/jgoldsborough/status...12897?s=21

If we want to compare with other institutions, note that Frank Martin was just fired at SCAR five years after taking them to the 2017 final four and after leading SCAR to the top half of the conference in three of the past four seasons.  The blighted record that led to his dismissal? 18-13 and 9-9 Conference.  So basically, he's Haase with more wins, a better conference record, and a Final Four....

[2006alum]

Chris Collins at Northwestern is getting similar “support” from his AD.
IT has been 5 years since their only NCAA invite.

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/...32745?s=21

And a familiar comment

https://twitter.com/jgoldsborough/status...12897?s=21

If we want to compare with other institutions, note that Frank Martin was just fired at SCAR five years after taking them to the 2017 final four and after leading SCAR to the top half of the conference in three of the past four seasons.  The blighted record that led to his dismissal? 18-13 and 9-9 Conference.  So basically, he's Haase with more wins, a better conference record, and a Final Four....

[fullmetal]

Is this the same semi-abusive Frank Martin, formerly of Kansas State?

[fullmetal]

Is this the same semi-abusive Frank Martin, formerly of Kansas State?

[M T]

If we want to compare with other institutions, note that Frank Martin was just fired at SCAR five years after taking them to the 2017 final four and after leading SCAR to the top half of the conference in three of the past four seasons.  The blighted record that led to his dismissal? 18-13 and 9-9 Conference.  So basically, he's Haase with more wins, a better conference record, and a Final Four....

.... and under NCAA probation,  with a former assistant coach having who pleaded guilty to taking bribes.  That coach moved from Kansas State to South Carolina with Martin in 2012.

C'mon now, you can't blame the coach for the poor record.  For two years, he's been hampered in recruiting by these NCAA penalties.  Why would they fire him once the recruiting penalty slate is clean, just in time for whoever takes over?

I'm not saying the Martin did anything wrong, but how long would you keep a head coach after that?  A year, just to avoid it looking like the school knows something the NCAA can't prove?

For those here, it isn't surprising that the other USC is in the same boat:  under probation related to an associate basketball coach doing similar actions.  (USC managed to get their recruiting restrictions applied and finished BEFORE the findings were released, but the probation goes until the end of basketball in 2023.)

And, of course, Jovan Vavic also had a pretty good record when USC fired him as water polo coach.

From the NCAA reports:
South Carolina: "This is the institution’s eighth
Level I, Level II or major case. South Carolina had previous cases in 2019 (football), 2017 (football), 2012 (football, track and
field, and men's basketball), 2005 (football), 1991 (men's basketball), 1987 (men's basketball) and 1967 (football and men's
basketball)"
USC: "This is the institution's seventh Level I, Level II or major case. USC had previous cases in 2010 (football, men's basketball and women's tennis); 2001 (football and women's swimming); 1986 (football); 1982 (football); 1959 (football); 1957 (football)."

(By the way, it appears that (at least) pages 91 and 92 of the USC 2021-2022 Media Guide for basketball (where it says "Original record...") violate the penalties in the 2011 report "Any reference to the vacated results, including
championships, shall be removed from athletics department stationery,
banners displayed in public areas, and any other forum in which they
appear.")

[M T]

If we want to compare with other institutions, note that Frank Martin was just fired at SCAR five years after taking them to the 2017 final four and after leading SCAR to the top half of the conference in three of the past four seasons.  The blighted record that led to his dismissal? 18-13 and 9-9 Conference.  So basically, he's Haase with more wins, a better conference record, and a Final Four....

.... and under NCAA probation,  with a former assistant coach having who pleaded guilty to taking bribes.  That coach moved from Kansas State to South Carolina with Martin in 2012.

C'mon now, you can't blame the coach for the poor record.  For two years, he's been hampered in recruiting by these NCAA penalties.  Why would they fire him once the recruiting penalty slate is clean, just in time for whoever takes over?

I'm not saying the Martin did anything wrong, but how long would you keep a head coach after that?  A year, just to avoid it looking like the school knows something the NCAA can't prove?

For those here, it isn't surprising that the other USC is in the same boat:  under probation related to an associate basketball coach doing similar actions.  (USC managed to get their recruiting restrictions applied and finished BEFORE the findings were released, but the probation goes until the end of basketball in 2023.)

And, of course, Jovan Vavic also had a pretty good record when USC fired him as water polo coach.

From the NCAA reports:
South Carolina: "This is the institution’s eighth
Level I, Level II or major case. South Carolina had previous cases in 2019 (football), 2017 (football), 2012 (football, track and
field, and men's basketball), 2005 (football), 1991 (men's basketball), 1987 (men's basketball) and 1967 (football and men's
basketball)"
USC: "This is the institution's seventh Level I, Level II or major case. USC had previous cases in 2010 (football, men's basketball and women's tennis); 2001 (football and women's swimming); 1986 (football); 1982 (football); 1959 (football); 1957 (football)."

(By the way, it appears that (at least) pages 91 and 92 of the USC 2021-2022 Media Guide for basketball (where it says "Original record...") violate the penalties in the 2011 report "Any reference to the vacated results, including
championships, shall be removed from athletics department stationery,
banners displayed in public areas, and any other forum in which they
appear.")

[winflop]

Chris Collins at Northwestern is getting similar “support” from his AD.
IT has been 5 years since their only NCAA invite.

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/...32745?s=21

And a familiar comment

https://twitter.com/jgoldsborough/status...12897?s=21

Not really comparable. Northwestern does not have a 20+ year period in which it made NCAAs 75% of the time

[winflop]

Chris Collins at Northwestern is getting similar “support” from his AD.
IT has been 5 years since their only NCAA invite.

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/...32745?s=21

And a familiar comment

https://twitter.com/jgoldsborough/status...12897?s=21

Not really comparable. Northwestern does not have a 20+ year period in which it made NCAAs 75% of the time

[gailtate]

Face the fact that Bernie is mediocrity personified. A glad-hand cypher. Take a close look at his administrative record. Anything jump out as distinguished? Any legacy achievement that will outlast him? What you're seeing is what you'll keep getting. You OK with that? You think this administrative cog will suddenly metamorphose into something more? Yet more evidence that #MuirAndShawMustGo.

[gailtate]

Face the fact that Bernie is mediocrity personified. A glad-hand cypher. Take a close look at his administrative record. Anything jump out as distinguished? Any legacy achievement that will outlast him? What you're seeing is what you'll keep getting. You OK with that? You think this administrative cog will suddenly metamorphose into something more? Yet more evidence that #MuirAndShawMustGo.

[Goose]

Face the fact that Bernie is mediocrity personified. A glad-hand cypher. Take a close look at his administrative record. Anything jump out as distinguished? Any legacy achievement that will outlast him? What you're seeing is what you'll keep getting. You OK with that? You think this administrative cog will suddenly metamorphose into something more? Yet more evidence that  #MuirAndShawMustGo.

I agree Muir should be replaced, but for somewhat different reasons. I believe that all ADs are administrative cogs. That is what they are hired to be. Muir just isn't a good administrative cog. As BC and others have pointed out, the first major NCAA violations were on his watch. There was Varsity Blues. There was the sports cancellation followed by reversals. These administrative failures are enough to require replacement.
ADs generally hire very few coaches during their tenure. If you are replacing a coach frequently it is obvious you have problems. It is not a learn by doing activity. Many ADs hire search firms to find the coach when a replacement is required. In almost all cases the AD has to be collaborative with at least most of the stakeholders in hiring a new coach anyway and certainly gets lots of input. Obviously some ADs are better at hiring coaches than others, but seldom if ever is an AD hired principally because he "knows" how to hire good coaches. N is generally too small to really know how good a judge of coaches any AD really is, and frankly intangibles (and luck) that nobody really understands often modulate the outcomes. Fundraising, publicity, and day to day management competence is much more important to the powers that be.

[Goose]

Face the fact that Bernie is mediocrity personified. A glad-hand cypher. Take a close look at his administrative record. Anything jump out as distinguished? Any legacy achievement that will outlast him? What you're seeing is what you'll keep getting. You OK with that? You think this administrative cog will suddenly metamorphose into something more? Yet more evidence that  #MuirAndShawMustGo.

I agree Muir should be replaced, but for somewhat different reasons. I believe that all ADs are administrative cogs. That is what they are hired to be. Muir just isn't a good administrative cog. As BC and others have pointed out, the first major NCAA violations were on his watch. There was Varsity Blues. There was the sports cancellation followed by reversals. These administrative failures are enough to require replacement.
ADs generally hire very few coaches during their tenure. If you are replacing a coach frequently it is obvious you have problems. It is not a learn by doing activity. Many ADs hire search firms to find the coach when a replacement is required. In almost all cases the AD has to be collaborative with at least most of the stakeholders in hiring a new coach anyway and certainly gets lots of input. Obviously some ADs are better at hiring coaches than others, but seldom if ever is an AD hired principally because he "knows" how to hire good coaches. N is generally too small to really know how good a judge of coaches any AD really is, and frankly intangibles (and luck) that nobody really understands often modulate the outcomes. Fundraising, publicity, and day to day management competence is much more important to the powers that be.

[BobK]

Actually second major violation but that other was long ago. Some day I’ll post about it.
We never know other than MBB, WBB and Football who was the driving force in hires but I’ll give A+ for
Baseball
Softball
Track & Field/ Cross Country
Seemingly very good hires:
Men’s Swimming
Men’s Tennis
Women’s Volleyball. We will know far more in December

People should also remember the rowing coach who suddenly had to leave during the season. There was a reason for that move

[BobK]

Actually second major violation but that other was long ago. Some day I’ll post about it.
We never know other than MBB, WBB and Football who was the driving force in hires but I’ll give A+ for
Baseball
Softball
Track & Field/ Cross Country
Seemingly very good hires:
Men’s Swimming
Men’s Tennis
Women’s Volleyball. We will know far more in December

People should also remember the rowing coach who suddenly had to leave during the season. There was a reason for that move

[winflop]

Actually second major violation but that other was long ago.  Some day I’ll post about it. 
We never know other than MBB,  WBB and Football who was the driving force in hires but I’ll give A+ for
Baseball
Softball
Track & Field/ Cross Country
Seemingly very good hires:
Men’s Swimming
Men’s Tennis
Women’s Volleyball. We will know far more in December

People should also remember the rowing coach who suddenly had to leave during the season.  There was a reason for that move

All good points Bob, but football & MBB pay the bills. If you screw those up, the house of cards starts cracking. Muir has completely screwed up both of those programs. Add onto that the Varsity Blues & cutting sports scandals, as well as his gross mishandling of the firing of softball Coach Rittman (and the awful hire of his replacement), and you have a strong record of failure that overwhelms the successes you cite.

[winflop]

Actually second major violation but that other was long ago.  Some day I’ll post about it. 
We never know other than MBB,  WBB and Football who was the driving force in hires but I’ll give A+ for
Baseball
Softball
Track & Field/ Cross Country
Seemingly very good hires:
Men’s Swimming
Men’s Tennis
Women’s Volleyball. We will know far more in December

People should also remember the rowing coach who suddenly had to leave during the season.  There was a reason for that move

All good points Bob, but football & MBB pay the bills. If you screw those up, the house of cards starts cracking. Muir has completely screwed up both of those programs. Add onto that the Varsity Blues & cutting sports scandals, as well as his gross mishandling of the firing of softball Coach Rittman (and the awful hire of his replacement), and you have a strong record of failure that overwhelms the successes you cite.

[teejers1]

Actually second major violation but that other was long ago.  Some day I’ll post about it. 
We never know other than MBB,  WBB and Football who was the driving force in hires but I’ll give A+ for
Baseball
Softball
Track & Field/ Cross Country
Seemingly very good hires:
Men’s Swimming
Men’s Tennis
Women’s Volleyball. We will know far more in December

People should also remember the rowing coach who suddenly had to leave during the season.  There was a reason for that move

I'll give you softball; and though I like Esquer, baseball grade may be premature.
We shall see.

But let's be real: the single most important thing an AD must do is hire great major sport coaches.*  Let's look at Bernie:  (i) not only retained, but re-upped Shaw to rather ridiculous comp. levels, (ii) kept Dawkins for a long time, (iii) is keeping Haase (though I'm in camp holding onto thin reed of hope), and (iv) thankfully, Tara has been a rock star.

That's a mediocre record (to put in kindly).  And then you pile on the BC List . . . 

*  Actually, at most schools it is probably raising $$.  Fortunately for Bernie (and other Stanford ADs), that is much less of a concern.

[teejers1]

Actually second major violation but that other was long ago.  Some day I’ll post about it. 
We never know other than MBB,  WBB and Football who was the driving force in hires but I’ll give A+ for
Baseball
Softball
Track & Field/ Cross Country
Seemingly very good hires:
Men’s Swimming
Men’s Tennis
Women’s Volleyball. We will know far more in December

People should also remember the rowing coach who suddenly had to leave during the season.  There was a reason for that move

I'll give you softball; and though I like Esquer, baseball grade may be premature.
We shall see.

But let's be real: the single most important thing an AD must do is hire great major sport coaches.*  Let's look at Bernie:  (i) not only retained, but re-upped Shaw to rather ridiculous comp. levels, (ii) kept Dawkins for a long time, (iii) is keeping Haase (though I'm in camp holding onto thin reed of hope), and (iv) thankfully, Tara has been a rock star.

That's a mediocre record (to put in kindly).  And then you pile on the BC List . . . 

*  Actually, at most schools it is probably raising $$.  Fortunately for Bernie (and other Stanford ADs), that is much less of a concern.

[Spiny_Norman]

Face the fact that Bernie is mediocrity personified. A glad-hand cypher. Take a close look at his administrative record. Anything jump out as distinguished? Any legacy achievement that will outlast him? What you're seeing is what you'll keep getting. You OK with that? You think this administrative cog will suddenly metamorphose into something more? Yet more evidence that  #MuirAndShawMustGo.

I agree Muir should be replaced, but for somewhat different reasons. I believe that all ADs are administrative cogs. That is what they are hired to be. Muir just isn't a good administrative cog. As BC and others have pointed out, the first major NCAA violations were on his watch. There was Varsity Blues. There was the sports cancellation followed by reversals. These administrative failures are enough to require replacement.
ADs generally hire very few coaches during their tenure. If you are replacing a coach frequently it is obvious you have problems. It is not a learn by doing activity. Many ADs hire search firms to find the coach when a replacement is required. In almost all cases the AD has to be collaborative with at least most of the stakeholders in hiring a new coach anyway and certainly gets lots of input. Obviously some ADs are better at hiring coaches than others, but seldom if ever is an AD hired principally because he "knows" how to hire good coaches. N is generally too small to really know how good a judge of coaches any AD really is, and frankly intangibles (and luck) that nobody really understands often modulate the outcomes. Fundraising, publicity, and day to day management competence is much more important to the powers that be.

Goose, let me expand on your job description. Day to day management competence includes financial management, an area in which Muir's results are mixed. We learned from the 11 Sports debacle last year that the Athletic Department has had a structural operating deficit for several years. It spends more than its revenues year after year. Did Muir create it? Is it a result of circumstances beyond his control? Likely a bit of both. I feel confident in saying that he inherited an organization on sound financial footing, though college athletics certainly have changed a lot since he became AD in 2012. While the AD under his watch has had success with capital campaigns to improve facilities and endow coaching positions, his efforts to increase operating revenues have largely been insufficient. His actions to reduce spending were poorly planned and executed and caused damage to the reputation of the school.

Muir won't be there forever. At some point there will be a new AD. They better be experienced at managing in tough times. I am not sure that a windfall new media contract will cure all of the financial problems at the AD.

[Spiny_Norman]

Face the fact that Bernie is mediocrity personified. A glad-hand cypher. Take a close look at his administrative record. Anything jump out as distinguished? Any legacy achievement that will outlast him? What you're seeing is what you'll keep getting. You OK with that? You think this administrative cog will suddenly metamorphose into something more? Yet more evidence that  #MuirAndShawMustGo.

I agree Muir should be replaced, but for somewhat different reasons. I believe that all ADs are administrative cogs. That is what they are hired to be. Muir just isn't a good administrative cog. As BC and others have pointed out, the first major NCAA violations were on his watch. There was Varsity Blues. There was the sports cancellation followed by reversals. These administrative failures are enough to require replacement.
ADs generally hire very few coaches during their tenure. If you are replacing a coach frequently it is obvious you have problems. It is not a learn by doing activity. Many ADs hire search firms to find the coach when a replacement is required. In almost all cases the AD has to be collaborative with at least most of the stakeholders in hiring a new coach anyway and certainly gets lots of input. Obviously some ADs are better at hiring coaches than others, but seldom if ever is an AD hired principally because he "knows" how to hire good coaches. N is generally too small to really know how good a judge of coaches any AD really is, and frankly intangibles (and luck) that nobody really understands often modulate the outcomes. Fundraising, publicity, and day to day management competence is much more important to the powers that be.

Goose, let me expand on your job description. Day to day management competence includes financial management, an area in which Muir's results are mixed. We learned from the 11 Sports debacle last year that the Athletic Department has had a structural operating deficit for several years. It spends more than its revenues year after year. Did Muir create it? Is it a result of circumstances beyond his control? Likely a bit of both. I feel confident in saying that he inherited an organization on sound financial footing, though college athletics certainly have changed a lot since he became AD in 2012. While the AD under his watch has had success with capital campaigns to improve facilities and endow coaching positions, his efforts to increase operating revenues have largely been insufficient. His actions to reduce spending were poorly planned and executed and caused damage to the reputation of the school.

Muir won't be there forever. At some point there will be a new AD. They better be experienced at managing in tough times. I am not sure that a windfall new media contract will cure all of the financial problems at the AD.