[BostonCard]

Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be.  Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.

So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?

I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with.  I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions).  But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better.  I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue).  It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.  Many people felt that Shaw had overstayed his welcome and were happy when he stepped aside.  Now a couple years into the Taylor era, it is not entirely clear that things have improved any.

I don't think Muir leaves a high bar to clear (even though there are a handful of sports outside of the major ones where he has made some pretty good hires).  But that does not mean that his replacement will clear it, and it is not unreasonable for fullmetal to point that out.

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC

[BostonCard]

Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be.  Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.

So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?

I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with.  I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions).  But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better.  I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue).  It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.  Many people felt that Shaw had overstayed his welcome and were happy when he stepped aside.  Now a couple years into the Taylor era, it is not entirely clear that things have improved any.

I don't think Muir leaves a high bar to clear (even though there are a handful of sports outside of the major ones where he has made some pretty good hires).  But that does not mean that his replacement will clear it, and it is not unreasonable for fullmetal to point that out.

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC