[pefloresjr]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

The donation came from a foundation that had never donated to Stanford before. It was highly suspicious and should have been thoroughly vetted

Why?  After a daughter is admitted through the regular process, her wealthy family is interested in donating to the university.  There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that.  We could probably find hundreds of such situations if we examined all donations, even though few would be as large.  This idea that it "should" have been examined for criminal behavior makes no sense.  Feels like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking over an area where there was no real reason to look for such activity.  It makes sense now, but when the donation had no bearing on admission, it is not at all obvious to examine it.  And even if it were examined, it would have looked like a family donating to support the school of their family member.  The bribe portion only came out because Singer the dirtbag decided to try to cut his sentence by talking.  Stanford "investigators" would have had no way to pressure Singer to talk in the way the Feds. did.  Muir bears no real responsibility for this.  More robust systems make sense now, but I place no fault on Muir for the scandal.  

Also, if fans complaining about an AD not firing coaches soon enough soon after they take a job was sufficient to get rid of him or be happy that he leaves, no AD would be employed for more than a year at any university.  I am not saying Muir is the greatest, but the criticism of him seems extremely paltry.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

The donation came from a foundation that had never donated to Stanford before. It was highly suspicious and should have been thoroughly vetted

Why?  After a daughter is admitted through the regular process, her wealthy family is interested in donating to the university.  There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that.  We could probably find hundreds of such situations if we examined all donations, even though few would be as large.  This idea that it "should" have been examined for criminal behavior makes no sense.  Feels like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking over an area where there was no real reason to look for such activity.  It makes sense now, but when the donation had no bearing on admission, it is not at all obvious to examine it.  And even if it were examined, it would have looked like a family donating to support the school of their family member.  The bribe portion only came out because Singer the dirtbag decided to try to cut his sentence by talking.  Stanford "investigators" would have had no way to pressure Singer to talk in the way the Feds. did.  Muir bears no real responsibility for this.  More robust systems make sense now, but I place no fault on Muir for the scandal.  

Also, if fans complaining about an AD not firing coaches soon enough soon after they take a job was sufficient to get rid of him or be happy that he leaves, no AD would be employed for more than a year at any university.  I am not saying Muir is the greatest, but the criticism of him seems extremely paltry.  

Cheers,
Pete F.