[teejers1]

I don't think there was ever a question of Rittman's recruiting and coaching abilities.

The issue was the fact that he skirted NCAA rules (and was caught).

https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-s...story.html

The findings were severe enough that Rittman was given a one-year show cause penalty.

BC

Wasn't there some question as to whether the excess practice time was a cover used by Muir to appease the group of disgruntled softball parents - in a process where Muir didn't even bother to meet with "the other side?'  In other words, I distinctly recall the whole thing - namely, the removal of Rittman - being a complete set up.  And that was my impression real time, having no dog in the hunt (and no opinion about Muir . . . other than I wish he would have stepped in and encouraged corrective action in the football program related to on-field product).

And separately, don't you find it a bit dissonant that there were two "major" violations found - one in football, and one in softball - yet only the softball coach is asked to resign?  And before you tell me "coaches responsible for practice time, and not for player housing arrangements" - ask yourself if you really believe that the coaches (or at least the position coaches) weren't aware of their charges' summer accommodations?

[teejers1]

I don't think there was ever a question of Rittman's recruiting and coaching abilities.

The issue was the fact that he skirted NCAA rules (and was caught).

https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-s...story.html

The findings were severe enough that Rittman was given a one-year show cause penalty.

BC

Wasn't there some question as to whether the excess practice time was a cover used by Muir to appease the group of disgruntled softball parents - in a process where Muir didn't even bother to meet with "the other side?'  In other words, I distinctly recall the whole thing - namely, the removal of Rittman - being a complete set up.  And that was my impression real time, having no dog in the hunt (and no opinion about Muir . . . other than I wish he would have stepped in and encouraged corrective action in the football program related to on-field product).

And separately, don't you find it a bit dissonant that there were two "major" violations found - one in football, and one in softball - yet only the softball coach is asked to resign?  And before you tell me "coaches responsible for practice time, and not for player housing arrangements" - ask yourself if you really believe that the coaches (or at least the position coaches) weren't aware of their charges' summer accommodations?

[BobK]

Sadly not a question at all on practice time

[BobK]

Sadly not a question at all on practice time

[terry]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

[terry]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

[McKenwood]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

[McKenwood]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

[BostonCard]

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016...violations

Devon Cajuste came forward on his own to accept responsibility for the football infraction.

"I am the student-athlete involved in the violation," Cajuste said in a statement. "I unknowingly accepted impermissible benefits from my summer landlord. I look forward to moving on from this incident and to supporting my alma mater for many years to come. I will have no further comment on this matter."

Maybe he is falling on his sword for Shaw, but he didn't have to come forward.  And yes, he could be lying about the "unknowingly" part, but if Cajuste didn't know, it is hard to expect Shaw to have known.  That being said, ultimately, the buck stops at Shaw's desk, and he can legitimately be held accountable for not having instilled in his student-athletes the knowledge of the rules.  Nonetheless, the fact that we are talking about one athlete rather than a pattern of violations is a mitigating factor.

Bob, is your point on Rittman that there is "no question at all" that the extra hours were voluntary practice time ("sadly" because it resulted in the resignation of a good coach), or "no question at all" that it was a violation ("sadly" for self-evident reasons)?

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016...violations

Devon Cajuste came forward on his own to accept responsibility for the football infraction.

"I am the student-athlete involved in the violation," Cajuste said in a statement. "I unknowingly accepted impermissible benefits from my summer landlord. I look forward to moving on from this incident and to supporting my alma mater for many years to come. I will have no further comment on this matter."

Maybe he is falling on his sword for Shaw, but he didn't have to come forward.  And yes, he could be lying about the "unknowingly" part, but if Cajuste didn't know, it is hard to expect Shaw to have known.  That being said, ultimately, the buck stops at Shaw's desk, and he can legitimately be held accountable for not having instilled in his student-athletes the knowledge of the rules.  Nonetheless, the fact that we are talking about one athlete rather than a pattern of violations is a mitigating factor.

Bob, is your point on Rittman that there is "no question at all" that the extra hours were voluntary practice time ("sadly" because it resulted in the resignation of a good coach), or "no question at all" that it was a violation ("sadly" for self-evident reasons)?

BC

[BobK]

Given that two other coaches told me about the 20 hour violence I have no question it happened.

The sexual harassment doesn’t need to be further discussed in my mind and it was not a coach or person who reported to Rittman.

[BobK]

Given that two other coaches told me about the 20 hour violence I have no question it happened.

The sexual harassment doesn’t need to be further discussed in my mind and it was not a coach or person who reported to Rittman.

[82lsju]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

as I recall the donations were initially required for a couple of sections on the shady side and the sections on the 50 on the sunny side.  Later (not sure on the year) a lot more of the shady side required a donation, one of our tailgate group who had had tickets since the late 1950s gave up their seats when their section changed to a required donation, the seats they were offered without a donation were not good (and being in their late 70s at the time they were not keen on relocating to the sunny side)....

[82lsju]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

as I recall the donations were initially required for a couple of sections on the shady side and the sections on the 50 on the sunny side.  Later (not sure on the year) a lot more of the shady side required a donation, one of our tailgate group who had had tickets since the late 1950s gave up their seats when their section changed to a required donation, the seats they were offered without a donation were not good (and being in their late 70s at the time they were not keen on relocating to the sunny side)....

[fullmetal]

I addressed my checks to the SFSU Baseball Program and mailed or handed them to the coach. Can't you do that at Stanford?

That would be easier if I lived west of the Rockies :)

[fullmetal]

I addressed my checks to the SFSU Baseball Program and mailed or handed them to the coach. Can't you do that at Stanford?

That would be easier if I lived west of the Rockies :)

[winflop]

I addressed my checks to the SFSU Baseball Program and mailed or handed them to the coach. Can't you do that at Stanford?

That would be easier if I lived west of the Rockies :)

I hand my checks to the head coaches of the programs I continue to support, but I'm sure that if (when) I'm not living in the area anymore they'll be just as happy to receive them by mail.

I'm less concerned about growing the required donations for football seats. That was frankly catching up. It would have been successful if the program had continued to excel, but with the dropoff the timing was awful. Can't blame Muir for not having that foresight.

[winflop]

I addressed my checks to the SFSU Baseball Program and mailed or handed them to the coach. Can't you do that at Stanford?

That would be easier if I lived west of the Rockies :)

I hand my checks to the head coaches of the programs I continue to support, but I'm sure that if (when) I'm not living in the area anymore they'll be just as happy to receive them by mail.

I'm less concerned about growing the required donations for football seats. That was frankly catching up. It would have been successful if the program had continued to excel, but with the dropoff the timing was awful. Can't blame Muir for not having that foresight.

[terry]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

The "seat license concept" was not Muir's work. It was first introduced at Stanford in 2006. It is not fair to criticize Muir for the "seat license concept."

If you wanted to criticize Muir for his expansion of Stanford's pre-existing seat license program, you could have said that. 

Your post does not include enough data to persuade me that Muir's expansion of the seat license program "failed." Before I could judge the success or failure of that program, I would want to see some data about total ticket sales and total revenues (including seat license donations) before and after the expansion of the seat license program.

I see some anecdotal accounts in this thread about some ticket holders who chose not to pay newly implemented seat license fees in their sections. But I don't think those anecdotes are enough to judge the overall success or failure of the expansion of the seat license program. It was inevitable that some people would be unhappy about the seat license donations and would not renew. I would want to know how many existing ticket holders failed to renew due to the seat license and how many of those ticket holders were replaced by other ticket buyers who were willing to pay for the seat licenses. I would like to see some data about overall renewal or non-renewal rates. And as mentioned above, I would want to see some data about overall ticket sales and overall revenues, including license fees.

In addition, I'd be interesting in knowing what kind of seat license programs our competitors have and what their experiences have been. I have the impression that Stanford's expansion of the seat license program put us more in line with other schools, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there have been some other developments in the last few years that may have affected ticket sales and renewals -- the decline in the team's on-field performance, the new tax law's elimination of deductibility for seat licenses, the Covid-related ban on attendance in 2020, and the Covid-related uncertainties of 2021. Those and other issues make it more difficult to judge the long-term success or failure of the expanded seat license program.

[terry]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

The "seat license concept" was not Muir's work. It was first introduced at Stanford in 2006. It is not fair to criticize Muir for the "seat license concept."

If you wanted to criticize Muir for his expansion of Stanford's pre-existing seat license program, you could have said that. 

Your post does not include enough data to persuade me that Muir's expansion of the seat license program "failed." Before I could judge the success or failure of that program, I would want to see some data about total ticket sales and total revenues (including seat license donations) before and after the expansion of the seat license program.

I see some anecdotal accounts in this thread about some ticket holders who chose not to pay newly implemented seat license fees in their sections. But I don't think those anecdotes are enough to judge the overall success or failure of the expansion of the seat license program. It was inevitable that some people would be unhappy about the seat license donations and would not renew. I would want to know how many existing ticket holders failed to renew due to the seat license and how many of those ticket holders were replaced by other ticket buyers who were willing to pay for the seat licenses. I would like to see some data about overall renewal or non-renewal rates. And as mentioned above, I would want to see some data about overall ticket sales and overall revenues, including license fees.

In addition, I'd be interesting in knowing what kind of seat license programs our competitors have and what their experiences have been. I have the impression that Stanford's expansion of the seat license program put us more in line with other schools, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there have been some other developments in the last few years that may have affected ticket sales and renewals -- the decline in the team's on-field performance, the new tax law's elimination of deductibility for seat licenses, the Covid-related ban on attendance in 2020, and the Covid-related uncertainties of 2021. Those and other issues make it more difficult to judge the long-term success or failure of the expanded seat license program.

[82lsju]

Your post does not include enough data to persuade me that Muir's expansion of the seat license program "failed." Before I could judge the success or failure of that program, I would want to see some data about total ticket sales and total revenues (including seat license donations) before and after the expansion of the seat license program.

some data

2018-19 (most recent data I could find)

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

Football gate $10.7m
B/C gifts $10.1m

some others that popped up in google search

2015-16

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $14.2m
B/C gifts $10.3m

they also list "other annual gifts" $2.3m

2014-15

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf 

football gate $13.2m
annual gifts $12.1m

they also list "one time revenues" $12.3m
they say this includes "non-recurring gifts and endowment payouts"

2013-14

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $13.2m
annual gifts $12.3m

they also list "one time revenues" $12.3m
they say this includes "non-recurring gifts and endowment payouts"

2012-13

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $7.3m
annual gifts $11.9m (note says it includes $9.6m in B/C gifts)

2011-12

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $9.7m
annual gifts $12.3m (note says $9.2m in B/C gifts)

[82lsju]

Your post does not include enough data to persuade me that Muir's expansion of the seat license program "failed." Before I could judge the success or failure of that program, I would want to see some data about total ticket sales and total revenues (including seat license donations) before and after the expansion of the seat license program.

some data

2018-19 (most recent data I could find)

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

Football gate $10.7m
B/C gifts $10.1m

some others that popped up in google search

2015-16

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $14.2m
B/C gifts $10.3m

they also list "other annual gifts" $2.3m

2014-15

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf 

football gate $13.2m
annual gifts $12.1m

they also list "one time revenues" $12.3m
they say this includes "non-recurring gifts and endowment payouts"

2013-14

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $13.2m
annual gifts $12.3m

they also list "one time revenues" $12.3m
they say this includes "non-recurring gifts and endowment payouts"

2012-13

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $7.3m
annual gifts $11.9m (note says it includes $9.6m in B/C gifts)

2011-12

https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

football gate $9.7m
annual gifts $12.3m (note says $9.2m in B/C gifts)

[Mick]

I don't think there was ever a question of Rittman's recruiting and coaching abilities.

The issue was the fact that he skirted NCAA rules (and was caught).

https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-s...story.html

The findings were severe enough that Rittman was given a one-year show cause penalty.

BC

For me, the softball fiasco was the first sign that Muir was shockingly bad at his job. In short, five Stanford softball parents demanded a meeting with Muir in which he was essentially blindsided. The meeting was initiated in part by Oregon softball coach, Mike White, whose daughter had been on the team and left because of a medical hardship...and lost her scholarship.
The parents intentionally bypassed Coach Rittman, and Muir saw fit to exclude him from the meeting or any communications about the team. An NCAA Athletic Director who allows parents to bypass a coach and exclude him from a meeting involving his players and refuses to tell the coach about it and conducts an investigation using a not-really-independent law firm that depends heavily on Stanford University revenue which does not interview key players, as those players stated?? Any of those five would be awful, but all together? Indicates he doesn't know what he is doing, that he's easily intimidated, that he doesn't back his coach. There are so many better ways to handle the situation than he did. Meet with the coach. Inform the coach. Conduct a meeting with all sides. BTW, the parents at the meeting claimed they had backing from the entire team...which they didn't. Muir ran it like a scared kid.

These links are from the Stanford Daily, the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, and they tell the story:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28...esignation
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/27/o...its-knees/
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coac...325754.php

Here were the five outcomes of that fiasco:

1) He clearly indicated to all of the other coaches that he'll go behind their back and won't support them.
2) He reached out to coaches of the top dozen softball schools, and they just laaaaaughed. "You treat and fire John like you did and you want me? I don't think so.
3) He was forced to hire Buddy Teevens an overmatched coach from Dartmouth.
4) He gave all the other softball coaches superb ammunition to compete for recruits.
5) A number of starting players quit and a number of recruits opted to go elsewhere.

[Mick]

I don't think there was ever a question of Rittman's recruiting and coaching abilities.

The issue was the fact that he skirted NCAA rules (and was caught).

https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-s...story.html

The findings were severe enough that Rittman was given a one-year show cause penalty.

BC

For me, the softball fiasco was the first sign that Muir was shockingly bad at his job. In short, five Stanford softball parents demanded a meeting with Muir in which he was essentially blindsided. The meeting was initiated in part by Oregon softball coach, Mike White, whose daughter had been on the team and left because of a medical hardship...and lost her scholarship.
The parents intentionally bypassed Coach Rittman, and Muir saw fit to exclude him from the meeting or any communications about the team. An NCAA Athletic Director who allows parents to bypass a coach and exclude him from a meeting involving his players and refuses to tell the coach about it and conducts an investigation using a not-really-independent law firm that depends heavily on Stanford University revenue which does not interview key players, as those players stated?? Any of those five would be awful, but all together? Indicates he doesn't know what he is doing, that he's easily intimidated, that he doesn't back his coach. There are so many better ways to handle the situation than he did. Meet with the coach. Inform the coach. Conduct a meeting with all sides. BTW, the parents at the meeting claimed they had backing from the entire team...which they didn't. Muir ran it like a scared kid.

These links are from the Stanford Daily, the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, and they tell the story:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28...esignation
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/27/o...its-knees/
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coac...325754.php

Here were the five outcomes of that fiasco:

1) He clearly indicated to all of the other coaches that he'll go behind their back and won't support them.
2) He reached out to coaches of the top dozen softball schools, and they just laaaaaughed. "You treat and fire John like you did and you want me? I don't think so.
3) He was forced to hire Buddy Teevens an overmatched coach from Dartmouth.
4) He gave all the other softball coaches superb ammunition to compete for recruits.
5) A number of starting players quit and a number of recruits opted to go elsewhere.

[SamuelMcF]

Not sure if anyone else is seeing what I'm seeing in Mick's post (it's full of markup), so pasting it here again verbatim:

-----------

For me, the softball fiasco was the first sign that Muir was shockingly bad at his job. In short, five Stanford softball parents demanded a meeting with Muir in which he was essentially blindsided. The meeting was initiated in part by Oregon softball coach, Mike White, whose daughter had been on the team and left because of a medical hardship...and lost her scholarship. The parents intentionally bypassed Coach Rittman, and Muir saw fit to exclude him from the meeting or any communications about the team. An NCAA Athletic Director who allows parents to bypass a coach and exclude him from a meeting involving his players and refuses to tell the coach about it and conducts an investigation using a not-really-independent law firm that depends heavily on Stanford University revenue which does not interview key players? Any of those five would be awful, but all together? Indicates he doesn't know what he is doing, that he's easily intimidated, that he doesn't back his coach. There are so many better ways to handle the situation than he did. Meet with the coach. Inform the coach. Conduct a meeting with all sides. BTW, the parents at the meeting claimed they had backing from the entire team...which they didn't. Muir ran it like a scared kid.

These links are from the Stanford Daily, the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, and they tell the story:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28...esignation
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coac...325754.php
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/27/o...its-knees/

Here were the five outcomes of that fiasco:

1) He clearly indicated to all of the other coaches that he'll go behind their back and won't support them.
2) He reached out to coaches of the top dozen softball schools, and they just laaaaaughed. "You treat and fire John Rittman like you did and you want me? I don't think so."
3) He was forced to hire Buddy Teevens an overmatched coach from Dartmouth.
4) He gave all the other softball coaches superb ammunition to compete for recruits.
5) A number of starting players quit and a number of recruits opted to go elsewhere.

[SamuelMcF]

Not sure if anyone else is seeing what I'm seeing in Mick's post (it's full of markup), so pasting it here again verbatim:

-----------

For me, the softball fiasco was the first sign that Muir was shockingly bad at his job. In short, five Stanford softball parents demanded a meeting with Muir in which he was essentially blindsided. The meeting was initiated in part by Oregon softball coach, Mike White, whose daughter had been on the team and left because of a medical hardship...and lost her scholarship. The parents intentionally bypassed Coach Rittman, and Muir saw fit to exclude him from the meeting or any communications about the team. An NCAA Athletic Director who allows parents to bypass a coach and exclude him from a meeting involving his players and refuses to tell the coach about it and conducts an investigation using a not-really-independent law firm that depends heavily on Stanford University revenue which does not interview key players? Any of those five would be awful, but all together? Indicates he doesn't know what he is doing, that he's easily intimidated, that he doesn't back his coach. There are so many better ways to handle the situation than he did. Meet with the coach. Inform the coach. Conduct a meeting with all sides. BTW, the parents at the meeting claimed they had backing from the entire team...which they didn't. Muir ran it like a scared kid.

These links are from the Stanford Daily, the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, and they tell the story:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28...esignation
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coac...325754.php
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/27/o...its-knees/

Here were the five outcomes of that fiasco:

1) He clearly indicated to all of the other coaches that he'll go behind their back and won't support them.
2) He reached out to coaches of the top dozen softball schools, and they just laaaaaughed. "You treat and fire John Rittman like you did and you want me? I don't think so."
3) He was forced to hire Buddy Teevens an overmatched coach from Dartmouth.
4) He gave all the other softball coaches superb ammunition to compete for recruits.
5) A number of starting players quit and a number of recruits opted to go elsewhere.

[Goose]

IMHO there is no question that Muir mishandled the softball situation. It was clear that he knew next to nothing about what was going on and walked into a situation unprepared. He then proceeded to make things worse. Rittman was going to get fired over the extra practice time. That was a given. The rest of what happened was not a given, and Muir certainly demonstrated he didn't have institutional knowledge of, let alone control of the situation.

That said, he didn't get asked to leave. He also apparently didn't get asked to leave because of the budget problems or because of his failed attempt at canceling sports to alleviate it. From that I think we can deduce he isn't going anywhere unless and until there is a replacement available that is viewed by "management" as a better choice. They aren't going to fire and look, at least at this point. What does he have to do to change the situation and actually get fired? Apparently quite a lot.

[Goose]

IMHO there is no question that Muir mishandled the softball situation. It was clear that he knew next to nothing about what was going on and walked into a situation unprepared. He then proceeded to make things worse. Rittman was going to get fired over the extra practice time. That was a given. The rest of what happened was not a given, and Muir certainly demonstrated he didn't have institutional knowledge of, let alone control of the situation.

That said, he didn't get asked to leave. He also apparently didn't get asked to leave because of the budget problems or because of his failed attempt at canceling sports to alleviate it. From that I think we can deduce he isn't going anywhere unless and until there is a replacement available that is viewed by "management" as a better choice. They aren't going to fire and look, at least at this point. What does he have to do to change the situation and actually get fired? Apparently quite a lot.

[BobK]

Actually only Hoover left and she had missed most of Rittman's final year.

LOI signees came, don't recall about commits or never knew.

Please be acurate.

A number of head coaches including Alsister said no.

The mad parent's daughter got to play OF and no she wasn't good in the field.

[BobK]

Actually only Hoover left and she had missed most of Rittman's final year.

LOI signees came, don't recall about commits or never knew.

Please be acurate.

A number of head coaches including Alsister said no.

The mad parent's daughter got to play OF and no she wasn't good in the field.

[BostonCard]

And yet, the fact that he committed an NCAA violation and that the NCAA saw fit to place a show-cause clause upon him are not under dispute.  Most of the other stuff brought up by the players was sort of run of the mill team drama (allegations of favoritism, complaints about coaching style, etc.) or not directly Rittman's responsibility (allegations of harassment against an S&C coach not under Rittman's supervision), but scheduling too many hours of practice or declaring mandatory practices "voluntary" to skirt NCAA rules is a problem.  The best defense I've seen is that such abuses are widespread and it was a convenient way to nail Rittman, but still, having learned about them, the University could not sweep them under the rug.

Also, didn't Walt Harris' players go directly to Bowlsby?  Does the fact that Rittman was a successful coach and Harris a dismal failure mitigate things?

BC

---

That said, he didn't get asked to leave. He also apparently didn't get asked to leave because of the budget problems or because of his failed attempt at canceling sports to alleviate it. From that I think we can deduce he isn't going anywhere unless and until there is a replacement available that is viewed by "management" as a better choice. They aren't going to fire and look, at least at this point. What does he have to do to change the situation and actually get fired? Apparently quite a lot.

I wonder if the powers that be will allow the furore to die down before asking for Muir's resignation.  Muir is still going to have to deal with the budget problems, and it might be better to get that done before bringing in someone new.

BC

[BostonCard]

And yet, the fact that he committed an NCAA violation and that the NCAA saw fit to place a show-cause clause upon him are not under dispute.  Most of the other stuff brought up by the players was sort of run of the mill team drama (allegations of favoritism, complaints about coaching style, etc.) or not directly Rittman's responsibility (allegations of harassment against an S&C coach not under Rittman's supervision), but scheduling too many hours of practice or declaring mandatory practices "voluntary" to skirt NCAA rules is a problem.  The best defense I've seen is that such abuses are widespread and it was a convenient way to nail Rittman, but still, having learned about them, the University could not sweep them under the rug.

Also, didn't Walt Harris' players go directly to Bowlsby?  Does the fact that Rittman was a successful coach and Harris a dismal failure mitigate things?

BC

---

That said, he didn't get asked to leave. He also apparently didn't get asked to leave because of the budget problems or because of his failed attempt at canceling sports to alleviate it. From that I think we can deduce he isn't going anywhere unless and until there is a replacement available that is viewed by "management" as a better choice. They aren't going to fire and look, at least at this point. What does he have to do to change the situation and actually get fired? Apparently quite a lot.

I wonder if the powers that be will allow the furore to die down before asking for Muir's resignation.  Muir is still going to have to deal with the budget problems, and it might be better to get that done before bringing in someone new.

BC

[winflop]

Also, didn't Walt Harris' players go directly to Bowlsby?  Does the fact that Rittman was a successful coach and Harris a dismal failure mitigate things?



BC

---

Yes they did. But that was the players themselves, not their parents. Big difference IMHO.

[winflop]

Also, didn't Walt Harris' players go directly to Bowlsby?  Does the fact that Rittman was a successful coach and Harris a dismal failure mitigate things?



BC

---

Yes they did. But that was the players themselves, not their parents. Big difference IMHO.

[BostonCard]

From the Daily article

On May 12, 2014, a group of five parents and 10 players met with Muir.
…
These “anti-Rittman” players told Muir that five players who supported Rittman’s staff had not been invited to the meeting. 

So the difference here was that some of the players brought their parents with them.  In the Daily’s telling, it was the players that complained, not their parents.

BC

[BostonCard]

From the Daily article

On May 12, 2014, a group of five parents and 10 players met with Muir.
…
These “anti-Rittman” players told Muir that five players who supported Rittman’s staff had not been invited to the meeting. 

So the difference here was that some of the players brought their parents with them.  In the Daily’s telling, it was the players that complained, not their parents.

BC

[Mick]

Also, didn't Walt Harris' players go directly to Bowlsby?  Does the fact that Rittman was a successful coach and Harris a dismal failure mitigate things?
BC

Yes they did. But that was the players themselves, not their parents. Big difference IMHO.

And Harris might be the biggest a*hole I've ever met.  A singularly unpleasant experience.  I don't know about Rittman, but Harris wasn't a good guy, personally speaking.

[Mick]

Also, didn't Walt Harris' players go directly to Bowlsby?  Does the fact that Rittman was a successful coach and Harris a dismal failure mitigate things?
BC

Yes they did. But that was the players themselves, not their parents. Big difference IMHO.

And Harris might be the biggest a*hole I've ever met.  A singularly unpleasant experience.  I don't know about Rittman, but Harris wasn't a good guy, personally speaking.

[BobK]

While I met Harris I spoke to his wife or soon to be wife. Stunning and a fun conversation.

[BobK]

While I met Harris I spoke to his wife or soon to be wife. Stunning and a fun conversation.