[oldalum]

Based on his first season (last year), the new men's tennis coach seems like an excellent hire by Muir (the team improved dramatically over the course of his first season, more so than our competitors as demonstrated by our beating them the second time around--something that Dawkins' teams seem to do rarely at best).

[oldalum]

Based on his first season (last year), the new men's tennis coach seems like an excellent hire by Muir (the team improved dramatically over the course of his first season, more so than our competitors as demonstrated by our beating them the second time around--something that Dawkins' teams seem to do rarely at best).

[FrankO]

Muir doesn't know from Shinola... Dick Gould, however, does

[FrankO]

Muir doesn't know from Shinola... Dick Gould, however, does

[fullmetal]

Paul Goldstein ('98) is the new head coach.  Having a former player take the reins usually decreases the ramp-up time, and certainly someone with an established relationship with Dick Gould will do very well.

From his GoStanford.com bio:

Goldstein received his B.A. in human biology from Stanford in 1998 before embarking on an impressive 10-year professional career. After moving into the world’s top-100 in one year on the professional circuit, Goldstein’s ATP world rankings eventually reached as high as No. 58 in singles and No. 40 in doubles. A US Open doubles semifinalist in 2005, Goldstein also boasts career singles wins over current world No. 1 Novak Djokovic, James Blake, Mardy Fish, Lleyton Hewitt and Patrick Rafter. Goldstein was the highest ranked player in the world with a college degree for the majority of his professional career.

The team had a rough weekend in Austin, but the season is yet young, and so are many of the players.

[fullmetal]

Paul Goldstein ('98) is the new head coach.  Having a former player take the reins usually decreases the ramp-up time, and certainly someone with an established relationship with Dick Gould will do very well.

From his GoStanford.com bio:

Goldstein received his B.A. in human biology from Stanford in 1998 before embarking on an impressive 10-year professional career. After moving into the world’s top-100 in one year on the professional circuit, Goldstein’s ATP world rankings eventually reached as high as No. 58 in singles and No. 40 in doubles. A US Open doubles semifinalist in 2005, Goldstein also boasts career singles wins over current world No. 1 Novak Djokovic, James Blake, Mardy Fish, Lleyton Hewitt and Patrick Rafter. Goldstein was the highest ranked player in the world with a college degree for the majority of his professional career.

The team had a rough weekend in Austin, but the season is yet young, and so are many of the players.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I don't know why the pushback at referring to SC as a top five football program.  Sure, the past several iterations have not been great but as an overall program, they are certainly top five.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I don't know why the pushback at referring to SC as a top five football program.  Sure, the past several iterations have not been great but as an overall program, they are certainly top five.

[Mick]

In SB 3 players quit at the end of the season.  But top top Pitchers transferred.  We had zero pitchers for the 2nd half of last season due to injuries.  Thus the poor record.

Interesting the S&C Coach had to leave as did the 2 assistants. 

I'm a of exceedingly large proportions SB fan and have spoken to several parents very upset at Rittman leaving. 

The meeting with parents selected by the disgruntled pair of parents did occur and most parents and more important most players not aware of the meeting. 

And after all this no law suit.    So we still don't know all.

BTW SB recruiting for 2016/2017 and yes 2019 has been really good.

I don't know about the two parents, I think of it as the Stanford Five, because Five parents, five former players and five current players were at the March 12 meeting with Muir and without Rittman or any of the other softball coaches.

Carley Hoover, stud pitcher and #1 recruit in the nation in 2014, transferred immediately after the parent-only, no-coach-invited meeting.  Hannah Winter, Leah White and Cassandra Roulund quit with three weeks left in the season.  They lost the nation's top pitching recruit, Kelly Barnhill, in a decommit from Stanford to Florida and Pitching recruit Kelly Winegarner who decommitted to play for Northwestern.  Sophomore pitcher Madi schreyer transferred to Washington.

[Mick]

In SB 3 players quit at the end of the season.  But top top Pitchers transferred.  We had zero pitchers for the 2nd half of last season due to injuries.  Thus the poor record.

Interesting the S&C Coach had to leave as did the 2 assistants. 

I'm a of exceedingly large proportions SB fan and have spoken to several parents very upset at Rittman leaving. 

The meeting with parents selected by the disgruntled pair of parents did occur and most parents and more important most players not aware of the meeting. 

And after all this no law suit.    So we still don't know all.

BTW SB recruiting for 2016/2017 and yes 2019 has been really good.

I don't know about the two parents, I think of it as the Stanford Five, because Five parents, five former players and five current players were at the March 12 meeting with Muir and without Rittman or any of the other softball coaches.

Carley Hoover, stud pitcher and #1 recruit in the nation in 2014, transferred immediately after the parent-only, no-coach-invited meeting.  Hannah Winter, Leah White and Cassandra Roulund quit with three weeks left in the season.  They lost the nation's top pitching recruit, Kelly Barnhill, in a decommit from Stanford to Florida and Pitching recruit Kelly Winegarner who decommitted to play for Northwestern.  Sophomore pitcher Madi schreyer transferred to Washington.

[BobK]

All true although Barnhart was never a commit and did visit in the fall of last year.  Barnhill might be one of the top 5 pitchers in the country. Hoover another.  5 former players???  News to me as so many former players were livid at what happened to John.

I was just adding as the SB program is coming back.  Not this year probably but the future seems bright. 

[BobK]

All true although Barnhart was never a commit and did visit in the fall of last year.  Barnhill might be one of the top 5 pitchers in the country. Hoover another.  5 former players???  News to me as so many former players were livid at what happened to John.

I was just adding as the SB program is coming back.  Not this year probably but the future seems bright. 

[BostonCard]

Question... when the football players met with Bowlsby, was Wlat Harris there?

The deficiencies appear to be in the process and investigation, which may have been too cursory for something as serious as firing a coach.

Still, isn't the fact that 5 parents and 10 players (four who were then current players plus six former players, according to the Daily link) went to the extremes they did to try and get Rittman fired at least a little bit concerning.  All coaches have to deal with grumbling about playing time, favoritism, and players being in the proverbial doghouse, but it rarely results in an uprising or a schism of the team in two.  The fact that the divisions were this entrenched by the May 12, 2014 meeting is a bit of a red flag on Rittman, don't you think?  This had sh*tstorm painted all over it, no matter which way Muir came down.

Hard to tell whether Muir made the right call or not from the info provided.  It does sound like the investigative process was deficient, though.  But to be honest it is hard to know exactly what went down and why.  Add to that the threat of a Title IX/sexual harassment suit, and even if I had enough information to disagree, it would be hard for me to blame Muir for his decision.

Be that as it may, I hope Bobbk is right about the situation going forward.  Men's volleyball went from worst to national champion in four years, so there is hope for softball.

BC

[BostonCard]

Question... when the football players met with Bowlsby, was Wlat Harris there?

The deficiencies appear to be in the process and investigation, which may have been too cursory for something as serious as firing a coach.

Still, isn't the fact that 5 parents and 10 players (four who were then current players plus six former players, according to the Daily link) went to the extremes they did to try and get Rittman fired at least a little bit concerning.  All coaches have to deal with grumbling about playing time, favoritism, and players being in the proverbial doghouse, but it rarely results in an uprising or a schism of the team in two.  The fact that the divisions were this entrenched by the May 12, 2014 meeting is a bit of a red flag on Rittman, don't you think?  This had sh*tstorm painted all over it, no matter which way Muir came down.

Hard to tell whether Muir made the right call or not from the info provided.  It does sound like the investigative process was deficient, though.  But to be honest it is hard to know exactly what went down and why.  Add to that the threat of a Title IX/sexual harassment suit, and even if I had enough information to disagree, it would be hard for me to blame Muir for his decision.

Be that as it may, I hope Bobbk is right about the situation going forward.  Men's volleyball went from worst to national champion in four years, so there is hope for softball.

BC

[terry]

Good hires by Muir - Greg Meehan, Chris Miltenberg, Paul Goldstein.

[terry]

Good hires by Muir - Greg Meehan, Chris Miltenberg, Paul Goldstein.

[Hulk01]

Joining Terry here, USC fans have lost perspective.  Elite teams beat very good teams, and USC teams haven't done that over the last four years.  Against ranked teams, they are 3-14. 

Compare that with Oregon's 12-9, Stanford's 13-11, and even UCLA's 9-13.

They have an obvious branding problem with a seemingly obvious solution, but damned if any of us are going to tell them what it is.  Carrol figured it out, and it figured far more in his success there than his strategic or tactical acumen, much less genius.

[Hulk01]

Joining Terry here, USC fans have lost perspective.  Elite teams beat very good teams, and USC teams haven't done that over the last four years.  Against ranked teams, they are 3-14. 

Compare that with Oregon's 12-9, Stanford's 13-11, and even UCLA's 9-13.

They have an obvious branding problem with a seemingly obvious solution, but damned if any of us are going to tell them what it is.  Carrol figured it out, and it figured far more in his success there than his strategic or tactical acumen, much less genius.

[winflop]

Good hires by Muir - Greg Meehan, Chris Miltenberg, Paul Goldstein.

Meehan & Miltenberg do look like pretty good hires.  Jury is still out on Goldstein so far his record isn't materially different from Whitlinger's, but he's barely into his second season.

So we have two good hires, two bad hires/non-fires (MBB & softball), one not sure.  So about .500 = mediocre.  Maybe that's why he continues to tolerate Dawkins.

[winflop]

Good hires by Muir - Greg Meehan, Chris Miltenberg, Paul Goldstein.

Meehan & Miltenberg do look like pretty good hires.  Jury is still out on Goldstein so far his record isn't materially different from Whitlinger's, but he's barely into his second season.

So we have two good hires, two bad hires/non-fires (MBB & softball), one not sure.  So about .500 = mediocre.  Maybe that's why he continues to tolerate Dawkins.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=terry link=topic=14578.msg156151#msg156151 date=1455085833]
Good hires by Muir - Greg Meehan, Chris Miltenberg, Paul Goldstein.

Meehan & Miltenberg do look like pretty good hires.  Jury is still out on Goldstein so far his record isn't materially different from Whitlinger's, but he's barely into his second season.

So we have two good hires, two bad hires/non-fires (MBB & softball), one not sure.  So about .500 = mediocre.  Maybe that's why he continues to tolerate Dawkins.
[/quote]

Muir also hired Ted Knapp to replace Skip Kenney as coach of men's swimming.  They are a fringe top 10 team right now after placing 6th at the NCAAs last year and 9th the year before.  The jury is still out on Knapp too.

I was going to give Muir credit for hiring Anne Walker, the coach of the NCAA championship women's golf team.  But she was hired by the interim AD just before Muir started at Stanford.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=terry link=topic=14578.msg156151#msg156151 date=1455085833]
Good hires by Muir - Greg Meehan, Chris Miltenberg, Paul Goldstein.

Meehan & Miltenberg do look like pretty good hires.  Jury is still out on Goldstein so far his record isn't materially different from Whitlinger's, but he's barely into his second season.

So we have two good hires, two bad hires/non-fires (MBB & softball), one not sure.  So about .500 = mediocre.  Maybe that's why he continues to tolerate Dawkins.
[/quote]

Muir also hired Ted Knapp to replace Skip Kenney as coach of men's swimming.  They are a fringe top 10 team right now after placing 6th at the NCAAs last year and 9th the year before.  The jury is still out on Knapp too.

I was going to give Muir credit for hiring Anne Walker, the coach of the NCAA championship women's golf team.  But she was hired by the interim AD just before Muir started at Stanford.

[Mick]

Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

As to why that specific firm, an investigation is supposed to be an independent investigation of several factions, one of which was making claims that the other (at a minimum) disagreed with.  It should be truly independent, rather than from a firm that (a) was not particularly well known for investigations and (b) was one of the two primary law firms of the university, deriving many millions of dollars annually from Stanford.  A firm which, if some industry gossip is accurate, is not on the most solid of footing and has been publicly seeking a merger.  I would not want the appearance that the investigation's outcome was on demand by Muir or the AD.

As to why an investigation at all, the mess was brobdingnagian and awful and had overtones of impropriety and illegality and NCAA sanctions which were all opinions and accusations leveled by part of the team.  If Muir doesn't have an investigation, he gets accused of sweeping-under-the-rug, and at a minimum, I rather think the Stanford Five parents demanded it or they would go to the media immediately.  He didn't have a choice.

[Mick]

Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

As to why that specific firm, an investigation is supposed to be an independent investigation of several factions, one of which was making claims that the other (at a minimum) disagreed with.  It should be truly independent, rather than from a firm that (a) was not particularly well known for investigations and (b) was one of the two primary law firms of the university, deriving many millions of dollars annually from Stanford.  A firm which, if some industry gossip is accurate, is not on the most solid of footing and has been publicly seeking a merger.  I would not want the appearance that the investigation's outcome was on demand by Muir or the AD.

As to why an investigation at all, the mess was brobdingnagian and awful and had overtones of impropriety and illegality and NCAA sanctions which were all opinions and accusations leveled by part of the team.  If Muir doesn't have an investigation, he gets accused of sweeping-under-the-rug, and at a minimum, I rather think the Stanford Five parents demanded it or they would go to the media immediately.  He didn't have a choice.

[Mick]

Both Jack Elway and Walt Idiotface were fired after players asked for, and got, meetings with athletic directors to air their complaints about the coaching. (Elway claimed to have been blindsided; I don't know what Idiotface said, but if he didn't know that a lot of the players hated him, he was -- well, an idiot.) Were those end-runs by the players also? Do athletes not have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with a coach's conduct to the coach's superior?

I'm inclined to think they do. That doesn't mean necessarily mean their complaints are justified or should be acted upon; that depends on the nature of their complaints, the extent to which their allegations can be verified, and -- in some cases -- how widespread they are.

In short...yes, they were end runs, and yes, athletes have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with a coach's conduct or skills to the coach's superior...although I note that you did not say "without going to the coach first."

Apart from that, there were at least three, and potentially four big differences: First, Elway and idiotface were unsuccessful, Wlat on a comic scale.  Rittman was not.  Secondly, parents weren't involved with Elway or idiotface, it was men complaining to men about other men.  Thirdly, the majority of complaints about the football coaches had to do with competence, which wasn't the question with 16-NCAAs-in-18 seasons Rittman.  If either Elway or idiotface had gone to sixteen bowl games in 18 years, they'd still be here.  Fourth, the coach of Oregon's softball team allegenly asked the parent of a player to initiate the meeting.  One wonders if that was because that coach had a daughter on the team, who had to retire because of medical reasons and was denied retention of her scholarship.

[Mick]

Both Jack Elway and Walt Idiotface were fired after players asked for, and got, meetings with athletic directors to air their complaints about the coaching. (Elway claimed to have been blindsided; I don't know what Idiotface said, but if he didn't know that a lot of the players hated him, he was -- well, an idiot.) Were those end-runs by the players also? Do athletes not have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with a coach's conduct to the coach's superior?

I'm inclined to think they do. That doesn't mean necessarily mean their complaints are justified or should be acted upon; that depends on the nature of their complaints, the extent to which their allegations can be verified, and -- in some cases -- how widespread they are.

In short...yes, they were end runs, and yes, athletes have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with a coach's conduct or skills to the coach's superior...although I note that you did not say "without going to the coach first."

Apart from that, there were at least three, and potentially four big differences: First, Elway and idiotface were unsuccessful, Wlat on a comic scale.  Rittman was not.  Secondly, parents weren't involved with Elway or idiotface, it was men complaining to men about other men.  Thirdly, the majority of complaints about the football coaches had to do with competence, which wasn't the question with 16-NCAAs-in-18 seasons Rittman.  If either Elway or idiotface had gone to sixteen bowl games in 18 years, they'd still be here.  Fourth, the coach of Oregon's softball team allegenly asked the parent of a player to initiate the meeting.  One wonders if that was because that coach had a daughter on the team, who had to retire because of medical reasons and was denied retention of her scholarship.

[Mick]

Question... when the football players met with Bowlsby, was Wlat Harris there?

No. Chris Marinelli and Alex Fletcher and ten teammates with the full support of the vast majority of the team asked for the meeting with Bowlsby right before the Big Game.  This was after Harris was clearly flailing and overtly punitive during a 1-11 season.  Idiotface was not there.

The deficiencies appear to be in the process and investigation, which may have been too cursory for something as serious as firing a coach.  Still, isn't the fact that 5 parents and 10 players (four who were then current players plus six former players, according to the Daily link) went to the extremes they did to try and get Rittman fired at least a little bit concerning. All coaches have to deal with grumbling about playing time, favoritism, and players being in the proverbial doghouse, but it rarely results in an uprising or a schism of the team in two.  The fact that the divisions were this entrenched by the May 12, 2014 meeting is a bit of a red flag on Rittman, don't you think?  This had sh*tstorm painted all over it, no matter which way Muir came down.

Two thoughts.  First, I don't think you had entrenched divisions, I think you had one division that clearly blindsided other players, that kept them from the meeting, the planning, the discussions and other parental involvement.  Second, if this happens in Rittman's second year, like it did with idiotface, then yes, I think you say it's a red flag.  But this was a coach who had gone to the NCAAs in 16 of 18 seasons, who resuscitated the Stanford softball program from the dead, and who had never had anything like this happen IN EIGHTEEN SEASONS!!  Maybe...just MAYBE...an AD has his back, perhaps, just a little tiny bit?

Secondly, part of the sh*tstorm involved the alleged "sexual hostility" from Dr. Brandon Marcello, former Director of Sports Performance who served teams at Stanford other than softball for seven years before he was let go.  So we are to believe that this alleged sexual predator had no issues for six years, then transformed into a demon?  Both this employee and the softball players with whom he was supposedly involved denied all allegations.  Well okay, like lots of people, an accusation of impropriety is sufficient to fire this man, despite the people who claimed it never happened.  Okay.  So using your "Where-there's-smoke-there's-fire" argument, (a) why wasn't Muir fired, since this employee was a general employee of the athletic department and not an employee of the softball program, and (b) why weren't other coaches fired?  Surely this putative sexual predator didn't confine his loathsome activities to just the softball team?  Weren't other female athletes harrassed? 

Hard to tell whether Muir made the right call or not from the info provided.  It does sound like the investigative process was deficient, though.  But to be honest it is hard to know exactly what went down and why.  Add to that the threat of a Title IX/sexual harassment suit, and even if I had enough information to disagree, it would be hard for me to blame Muir for his decision.

Muir made incorrect calls throughout.  I wouldn't be as exercised as I am about this if Muir had done four things:

1)  Involve the coach from the beginning.  I see no indication that the AD had a conversation with his nearly-two-decades-of-employment-with-stunning-success head coach, in between the initial demand for the meeting from the Stanford Five and the actual meeting.  He had plenty of time to at least have a conversation with his award-winning coach.  Now if he did that on purpose because he hated Rittman and wanted him fired, well that's another story...with another implication for Muir.  Incidentally, what a great message Muir gave to all of his other coaches, to wit "if the parents or players of your team want you gone, and they drum up a bunch of half truths, I will blindside you with no hesitation, no matter how long you have been here."

2)  My sense is that this could have been avoided with an upward feedback mechanism.  Quite frankly, every AD should be doing confidential upward feedback about their coaches, and it should be part of that coach's review.  My assumption, based upon the behaviors exhibited is that no upward feedback was done.  If that was the case, that's a massive fail on the part of the AD, Stanford's inhouse counsel, Stanford's HR department, and the law firm providing them employment advice.  Not only does it air issues confidentially, it demands a response from the coach AND it provides a paper trail.  Now, if Stanford conducted the upward feedback, and the coach ignored it, that's one thing...but my sense is that both the AD and the coach were floored by the players and parents and their allegations.  Had it been done, it would have been part of both the AD's and the coach's permanent record...and Muir would have been let go as well.  Third, if Stanford performed upward feedback and Rittman essentially received a clean review, then the motives of the players and parents would have been called into question far more forcefully.

3)  Hired a truly independent law firm to conduct a thorough investigation.  The sense I get, and for reasons I've made clear in other posts, is that the investigation was not independent, that it was done by a firm that does not specialize in these investigations, that the firm was beholden to Stanford's annual fee stream, and frankly...I wonder how much of it was to cover Muir's rear end, because he seems asleep at the switch to me.

4)  Hired a Division 1 coach with experience at the major level.  At least half-a-dozen top-level coaches turned down an interview.  Can you imagine?  A chance to coach at Stanford University, with all the resources, and weather and recruiting advantages, etc.  Why wouldn't those coaches jump at the chance to coach Stanford?  My only conclusion, is because their boss would be one Mr. Muir.  And the best he could do was the ex-Dartmouth coach (Buddy Teevens, anyone?), jumping up several levels to...frankly...exhibit some of the behaviors that were alleged about the former coach.  Long time players quit, claim that the new coach isn't ready for the big time.  2-22 in league, half of the losses under the mercy rule.  So long, NCAAs.

[Mick]

Question... when the football players met with Bowlsby, was Wlat Harris there?

No. Chris Marinelli and Alex Fletcher and ten teammates with the full support of the vast majority of the team asked for the meeting with Bowlsby right before the Big Game.  This was after Harris was clearly flailing and overtly punitive during a 1-11 season.  Idiotface was not there.

The deficiencies appear to be in the process and investigation, which may have been too cursory for something as serious as firing a coach.  Still, isn't the fact that 5 parents and 10 players (four who were then current players plus six former players, according to the Daily link) went to the extremes they did to try and get Rittman fired at least a little bit concerning. All coaches have to deal with grumbling about playing time, favoritism, and players being in the proverbial doghouse, but it rarely results in an uprising or a schism of the team in two.  The fact that the divisions were this entrenched by the May 12, 2014 meeting is a bit of a red flag on Rittman, don't you think?  This had sh*tstorm painted all over it, no matter which way Muir came down.

Two thoughts.  First, I don't think you had entrenched divisions, I think you had one division that clearly blindsided other players, that kept them from the meeting, the planning, the discussions and other parental involvement.  Second, if this happens in Rittman's second year, like it did with idiotface, then yes, I think you say it's a red flag.  But this was a coach who had gone to the NCAAs in 16 of 18 seasons, who resuscitated the Stanford softball program from the dead, and who had never had anything like this happen IN EIGHTEEN SEASONS!!  Maybe...just MAYBE...an AD has his back, perhaps, just a little tiny bit?

Secondly, part of the sh*tstorm involved the alleged "sexual hostility" from Dr. Brandon Marcello, former Director of Sports Performance who served teams at Stanford other than softball for seven years before he was let go.  So we are to believe that this alleged sexual predator had no issues for six years, then transformed into a demon?  Both this employee and the softball players with whom he was supposedly involved denied all allegations.  Well okay, like lots of people, an accusation of impropriety is sufficient to fire this man, despite the people who claimed it never happened.  Okay.  So using your "Where-there's-smoke-there's-fire" argument, (a) why wasn't Muir fired, since this employee was a general employee of the athletic department and not an employee of the softball program, and (b) why weren't other coaches fired?  Surely this putative sexual predator didn't confine his loathsome activities to just the softball team?  Weren't other female athletes harrassed? 

Hard to tell whether Muir made the right call or not from the info provided.  It does sound like the investigative process was deficient, though.  But to be honest it is hard to know exactly what went down and why.  Add to that the threat of a Title IX/sexual harassment suit, and even if I had enough information to disagree, it would be hard for me to blame Muir for his decision.

Muir made incorrect calls throughout.  I wouldn't be as exercised as I am about this if Muir had done four things:

1)  Involve the coach from the beginning.  I see no indication that the AD had a conversation with his nearly-two-decades-of-employment-with-stunning-success head coach, in between the initial demand for the meeting from the Stanford Five and the actual meeting.  He had plenty of time to at least have a conversation with his award-winning coach.  Now if he did that on purpose because he hated Rittman and wanted him fired, well that's another story...with another implication for Muir.  Incidentally, what a great message Muir gave to all of his other coaches, to wit "if the parents or players of your team want you gone, and they drum up a bunch of half truths, I will blindside you with no hesitation, no matter how long you have been here."

2)  My sense is that this could have been avoided with an upward feedback mechanism.  Quite frankly, every AD should be doing confidential upward feedback about their coaches, and it should be part of that coach's review.  My assumption, based upon the behaviors exhibited is that no upward feedback was done.  If that was the case, that's a massive fail on the part of the AD, Stanford's inhouse counsel, Stanford's HR department, and the law firm providing them employment advice.  Not only does it air issues confidentially, it demands a response from the coach AND it provides a paper trail.  Now, if Stanford conducted the upward feedback, and the coach ignored it, that's one thing...but my sense is that both the AD and the coach were floored by the players and parents and their allegations.  Had it been done, it would have been part of both the AD's and the coach's permanent record...and Muir would have been let go as well.  Third, if Stanford performed upward feedback and Rittman essentially received a clean review, then the motives of the players and parents would have been called into question far more forcefully.

3)  Hired a truly independent law firm to conduct a thorough investigation.  The sense I get, and for reasons I've made clear in other posts, is that the investigation was not independent, that it was done by a firm that does not specialize in these investigations, that the firm was beholden to Stanford's annual fee stream, and frankly...I wonder how much of it was to cover Muir's rear end, because he seems asleep at the switch to me.

4)  Hired a Division 1 coach with experience at the major level.  At least half-a-dozen top-level coaches turned down an interview.  Can you imagine?  A chance to coach at Stanford University, with all the resources, and weather and recruiting advantages, etc.  Why wouldn't those coaches jump at the chance to coach Stanford?  My only conclusion, is because their boss would be one Mr. Muir.  And the best he could do was the ex-Dartmouth coach (Buddy Teevens, anyone?), jumping up several levels to...frankly...exhibit some of the behaviors that were alleged about the former coach.  Long time players quit, claim that the new coach isn't ready for the big time.  2-22 in league, half of the losses under the mercy rule.  So long, NCAAs.

[ColoradoTree]

Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all. 

[ColoradoTree]

Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all. 

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

I disagree. To me the investigation's responsibility is to the truth, however the school's reputation might or might not suffer.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

I disagree. To me the investigation's responsibility is to the truth, however the school's reputation might or might not suffer.

[BostonCard]

I don't dispute what you are saying, because I don't really disagree with the substance of what you are saying, just with the certainty that you assign your interpretation of events.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't dispute what you are saying, because I don't really disagree with the substance of what you are saying, just with the certainty that you assign your interpretation of events.

BC

[Mick]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford. To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light. So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

Interesting.  So by hiring a less-than-independent law firm to execute what has been publicly termed an independent investigation, it's actually better to hire a firm with close ties and dependency on Stanford.  In order to frame Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash any potential negative publicity.  I see where you're going with this, and in fact, I think you're right, that's what happened.

[Mick]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford. To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light. So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

Interesting.  So by hiring a less-than-independent law firm to execute what has been publicly termed an independent investigation, it's actually better to hire a firm with close ties and dependency on Stanford.  In order to frame Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash any potential negative publicity.  I see where you're going with this, and in fact, I think you're right, that's what happened.

[BostonCard]

Interesting.  So by hiring a less-than-independent law firm to execute what has been publicly termed an independent investigation, it's actually better to hire a firm with close ties and dependency on Stanford.  In order to frame Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash any potential negative publicity.  I see where you're going with this, and in fact, I think you're right, that's what happened.

Except that... don't most firms that are looking to minimize the damage find that "nothing happened" and that all the allegations against the coach are by a bunch of malcontents with an axe to grind?

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting.  So by hiring a less-than-independent law firm to execute what has been publicly termed an independent investigation, it's actually better to hire a firm with close ties and dependency on Stanford.  In order to frame Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash any potential negative publicity.  I see where you're going with this, and in fact, I think you're right, that's what happened.

Except that... don't most firms that are looking to minimize the damage find that "nothing happened" and that all the allegations against the coach are by a bunch of malcontents with an axe to grind?

BC

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14578.msg156235#msg156235 date=1455153546]
Interesting.  So by hiring a less-than-independent law firm to execute what has been publicly termed an independent investigation, it's actually better to hire a firm with close ties and dependency on Stanford.  In order to frame Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash any potential negative publicity.  I see where you're going with this, and in fact, I think you're right, that's what happened.

Except that... don't most firms that are looking to minimize the damage find that "nothing happened" and that all the allegations against the coach are by a bunch of malcontents with an axe to grind?

BC
[/quote]


All true.  Most firms and universities go that route, but we have three elements that affect Stanford that don't affect most other colleges, to wit:

First, what you describe does not account for the fact that said malcontents have a perfect storm with which they have credibly threatened to go to the media and the NCAA about technical violations. That is the kind of investigation that Stanford really wants to avoid.  And there is a potential predator -- and you know how it is in America, particularly in colleges -- the mere accusation (though rejected by all parties) is enough to cause a stain and a stink.  The Stanford brand can't take that damage, whereas at almost any other school -- look at UDFG which considers itself a moral and ethical...ho, ho, ho, hee hee, hah hah.  I can't even say that with a straight face.  At any other school, they take that chance, they keep the star coach.  But Stanford sells itself as a different kind of place.  Look at how we discuss the Stanford brand on this board, and the kinds of players we want and the kinds of coaches we want and how we want it all to be perfect and we strive for perfection.  Here at Stanford, if a coach is hitting on someone, he gets fired, even if he's in bowl games. 

Second, Stanford cares more about its brand than about winning, and Stanford's AD was arrogant enough to think that he could take this public without (a) affecting recruiting (b) losing players and recruits and © that he would be able to hire a top-flight coach.  Definitely wrong on the latter two.  People are complaining that this year's recruiting is terrific, but...let's see where we are halfway through the season.  Still, as we all know, winning can take a back seat.  Look at Dawkins.  I actually had a journalist friend compare the Stanford softball team with the men's basketball team because both coaches are in wayyy over their heads and yet they keep their jobs.

Third, I rather suspect that both the AD and the new coach figured that most of the players actually felt the same as the Stanford Five presented in the March 12 meeting (Stanford parents wouldn't lie to get playing time for their kids would they?  :o :P :-* ) also, the AD and coach clearly felt, with a degree of arrogance, that they could simply order the pro-Rittman contingent to keep quiet.  Just look at the "no comments" in the articles from the anti-Rittman contingent, who were all too happy to keep quiet and look at the supervisory tactics that the new coach took to quell dissension and remove dissenters.  If you read the tactics used to describe Rittman, they fit the new coach pretty well.

So.  Fear of exposure+Brand over winning+Mistaken belief they could keep it quiet = Sxxtstorm, hugely successful coach resigns, inferior coach hired, top players and best two pitching recruits transfer, recruiting damaged, 2-22 Pac-12 season with 1/2 the games "mercy rule" losses...and Bernard Muir keeps his job. 

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14578.msg156235#msg156235 date=1455153546]
Interesting.  So by hiring a less-than-independent law firm to execute what has been publicly termed an independent investigation, it's actually better to hire a firm with close ties and dependency on Stanford.  In order to frame Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash any potential negative publicity.  I see where you're going with this, and in fact, I think you're right, that's what happened.

Except that... don't most firms that are looking to minimize the damage find that "nothing happened" and that all the allegations against the coach are by a bunch of malcontents with an axe to grind?

BC
[/quote]


All true.  Most firms and universities go that route, but we have three elements that affect Stanford that don't affect most other colleges, to wit:

First, what you describe does not account for the fact that said malcontents have a perfect storm with which they have credibly threatened to go to the media and the NCAA about technical violations. That is the kind of investigation that Stanford really wants to avoid.  And there is a potential predator -- and you know how it is in America, particularly in colleges -- the mere accusation (though rejected by all parties) is enough to cause a stain and a stink.  The Stanford brand can't take that damage, whereas at almost any other school -- look at UDFG which considers itself a moral and ethical...ho, ho, ho, hee hee, hah hah.  I can't even say that with a straight face.  At any other school, they take that chance, they keep the star coach.  But Stanford sells itself as a different kind of place.  Look at how we discuss the Stanford brand on this board, and the kinds of players we want and the kinds of coaches we want and how we want it all to be perfect and we strive for perfection.  Here at Stanford, if a coach is hitting on someone, he gets fired, even if he's in bowl games. 

Second, Stanford cares more about its brand than about winning, and Stanford's AD was arrogant enough to think that he could take this public without (a) affecting recruiting (b) losing players and recruits and © that he would be able to hire a top-flight coach.  Definitely wrong on the latter two.  People are complaining that this year's recruiting is terrific, but...let's see where we are halfway through the season.  Still, as we all know, winning can take a back seat.  Look at Dawkins.  I actually had a journalist friend compare the Stanford softball team with the men's basketball team because both coaches are in wayyy over their heads and yet they keep their jobs.

Third, I rather suspect that both the AD and the new coach figured that most of the players actually felt the same as the Stanford Five presented in the March 12 meeting (Stanford parents wouldn't lie to get playing time for their kids would they?  :o :P :-* ) also, the AD and coach clearly felt, with a degree of arrogance, that they could simply order the pro-Rittman contingent to keep quiet.  Just look at the "no comments" in the articles from the anti-Rittman contingent, who were all too happy to keep quiet and look at the supervisory tactics that the new coach took to quell dissension and remove dissenters.  If you read the tactics used to describe Rittman, they fit the new coach pretty well.

So.  Fear of exposure+Brand over winning+Mistaken belief they could keep it quiet = Sxxtstorm, hugely successful coach resigns, inferior coach hired, top players and best two pitching recruits transfer, recruiting damaged, 2-22 Pac-12 season with 1/2 the games "mercy rule" losses...and Bernard Muir keeps his job.