[82lsju]

4. Bernard Muir, Stanford athletic director: This is where it gets interesting. If USC is determined to go outside the family, Muir would be a logical recipient of the first phone call. The 47-year-old former NCAA basketball tournament director of operations currently operates the most successful, broad-based -- and clean -- athletic department in the country. Muir would have to be interested in overseeing a top-five football program and all the glory that goes with USC. Not to say Stanford's athletics run themselves but there certainly is a lot less drama. Muir also serves currently as a member of the powerful NCAA men's basketball committee. There aren't many AD jobs better in the country than the gig at Stanford. USC might be one of them.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...den-at-usc

[82lsju]

4. Bernard Muir, Stanford athletic director: This is where it gets interesting. If USC is determined to go outside the family, Muir would be a logical recipient of the first phone call. The 47-year-old former NCAA basketball tournament director of operations currently operates the most successful, broad-based -- and clean -- athletic department in the country. Muir would have to be interested in overseeing a top-five football program and all the glory that goes with USC. Not to say Stanford's athletics run themselves but there certainly is a lot less drama. Muir also serves currently as a member of the powerful NCAA men's basketball committee. There aren't many AD jobs better in the country than the gig at Stanford. USC might be one of them.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...den-at-usc

[Cadet84]

Last time I checked Stanford was the top 5 football program. USC? Not so much.

[Cadet84]

Last time I checked Stanford was the top 5 football program. USC? Not so much.

[winflop]

I would pay money to be a fly on the wall when he tells some USC football booster that he's not firing Helton because he thinks the football team is "so close" to breaking through.

[winflop]

I would pay money to be a fly on the wall when he tells some USC football booster that he's not firing Helton because he thinks the football team is "so close" to breaking through.

[ahuang06]

I hadn't heard of the NCAA men's basketball committee. Are they responsible for the tournament - or just rules & regulations?

[ahuang06]

I hadn't heard of the NCAA men's basketball committee. Are they responsible for the tournament - or just rules & regulations?

[terry]

The author, Dennis Dodd, has been drinking the U*S*C Kool-Aid.

His description of U*S*C as "top five" football program is obsolete. U*S*C hasn't finished in the top five since 2008. In the 7 seasons since then, U*S*C has finished higher than 19th just once.

Muir currently oversees a more successful program -- Stanford was #3 this year, and has finished in the top 10 in the polls 5 times in the last 6 seasons.

Dodd delusionally refers to U*S*C's winning one Pac-12 football championship since 2010. Never happened. Either Stanford or Oregon has won every Pac-12 championship going back to 2009.

[terry]

The author, Dennis Dodd, has been drinking the U*S*C Kool-Aid.

His description of U*S*C as "top five" football program is obsolete. U*S*C hasn't finished in the top five since 2008. In the 7 seasons since then, U*S*C has finished higher than 19th just once.

Muir currently oversees a more successful program -- Stanford was #3 this year, and has finished in the top 10 in the polls 5 times in the last 6 seasons.

Dodd delusionally refers to U*S*C's winning one Pac-12 football championship since 2010. Never happened. Either Stanford or Oregon has won every Pac-12 championship going back to 2009.

[JJJ]

I hadn't heard of the NCAA men's basketball committee. Are they responsible for the tournament - or just rules & regulations?

This factoid took me by surprise too. Wasn't aware, don't know what it is, but makes his "evaluations" even more curious.

[JJJ]

I hadn't heard of the NCAA men's basketball committee. Are they responsible for the tournament - or just rules & regulations?

This factoid took me by surprise too. Wasn't aware, don't know what it is, but makes his "evaluations" even more curious.

[fullmetal]

Muir wouldn't leave Stanford.  Stanford is a job where you can let a once-proud basketball program lay fallow, accidentally burn down a softball powerhouse due to mishandling and lack of transparency, and watch a once-proud baseball team struggle through painful seasons under a deservedly-tenured head coach...and not feel heat.  Stanford boosters are clearly less vocal than U$C boosters.

Nothing against Muir, I just get a little upset at how bad things are for these teams that I used to see in the postseason's upper echelons.

[fullmetal]

Muir wouldn't leave Stanford.  Stanford is a job where you can let a once-proud basketball program lay fallow, accidentally burn down a softball powerhouse due to mishandling and lack of transparency, and watch a once-proud baseball team struggle through painful seasons under a deservedly-tenured head coach...and not feel heat.  Stanford boosters are clearly less vocal than U$C boosters.

Nothing against Muir, I just get a little upset at how bad things are for these teams that I used to see in the postseason's upper echelons.

[BostonCard]

I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

[BostonCard]

I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

[Mick]

Muir wouldn't leave Stanford.  Stanford is a job where you can let a once-proud basketball program lay fallow, accidentally burn down a softball powerhouse due to mishandling and lack of transparency, and watch a once-proud baseball team struggle through painful seasons under a deservedly-tenured head coach...and not feel heat.  Stanford boosters are clearly less vocal than U$C boosters.

Nothing against Muir, I just get a little upset at how bad things are for these teams that I used to see in the postseason's upper echelons.

+1.  Muir can't leave.  Stanford is the ideal place for him.  I'm praying to St. Anthony that he ends up at Top Five or no-bettter-than-#19 Trojans...but it won't happen.  This is the perfect place for Muir.  He can stink in important ways, but he is teflon in a way that Ronnie never was.

[Mick]

Muir wouldn't leave Stanford.  Stanford is a job where you can let a once-proud basketball program lay fallow, accidentally burn down a softball powerhouse due to mishandling and lack of transparency, and watch a once-proud baseball team struggle through painful seasons under a deservedly-tenured head coach...and not feel heat.  Stanford boosters are clearly less vocal than U$C boosters.

Nothing against Muir, I just get a little upset at how bad things are for these teams that I used to see in the postseason's upper echelons.

+1.  Muir can't leave.  Stanford is the ideal place for him.  I'm praying to St. Anthony that he ends up at Top Five or no-bettter-than-#19 Trojans...but it won't happen.  This is the perfect place for Muir.  He can stink in important ways, but he is teflon in a way that Ronnie never was.

[oldalum]

from the NCAA website: "The 10-member NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Committee is responsible for selecting, seeding and bracketing the field for the NCAA Tournament."  This means that Muir knows what a good, NCAA tournament-worthy team looks like!  :)

[oldalum]

from the NCAA website: "The 10-member NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Committee is responsible for selecting, seeding and bracketing the field for the NCAA Tournament."  This means that Muir knows what a good, NCAA tournament-worthy team looks like!  :)

[winflop]

I hadn't heard of the NCAA men's basketball committee. Are they responsible for the tournament - or just rules & regulations?

They choose the teams and make the brackets.

[winflop]

I hadn't heard of the NCAA men's basketball committee. Are they responsible for the tournament - or just rules & regulations?

They choose the teams and make the brackets.

[winflop]

I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

Well he didn't hire Shaw, and AFAIK Shaw hires all of his assistants.  So in effect Muir hasn't done anything to materially help or hinder football, and I'm sorry but an AD doesn't get a lot of credit for not messing up that which is working well.  OTOH, he was intimately involved in the softball fiasco - won't go into details but I'm sure you can find the multiple detailed articles on what went down.  He has failed the MBB program by not replacing Dawkins and allowing mediocrity to continue while the fan base becomes nearly invisible. 

I don't think it's fair to place any responsibility on baseball at Muir's feet though.  The program had already dropped a notch before he came, and unlike MBB he's not going to push a legend and CBHOF coach out the door.  Marquess has earned the right to leave on his terms, even if the decline is similar to that of MBB (which I would argue it isn't).

I am willing to give Muir credit if someone can identify the QUALITY coaching hires he has made and/or any programs whose performance has MATERIALLY improved since he became AD.  I haven't seen either yet but I don't pay as much attention here so I just may not be aware of it.  Nonetheless, my opinion remains that Muir is a storeminder who seeks to maintain status quo.

[winflop]

I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

Well he didn't hire Shaw, and AFAIK Shaw hires all of his assistants.  So in effect Muir hasn't done anything to materially help or hinder football, and I'm sorry but an AD doesn't get a lot of credit for not messing up that which is working well.  OTOH, he was intimately involved in the softball fiasco - won't go into details but I'm sure you can find the multiple detailed articles on what went down.  He has failed the MBB program by not replacing Dawkins and allowing mediocrity to continue while the fan base becomes nearly invisible. 

I don't think it's fair to place any responsibility on baseball at Muir's feet though.  The program had already dropped a notch before he came, and unlike MBB he's not going to push a legend and CBHOF coach out the door.  Marquess has earned the right to leave on his terms, even if the decline is similar to that of MBB (which I would argue it isn't).

I am willing to give Muir credit if someone can identify the QUALITY coaching hires he has made and/or any programs whose performance has MATERIALLY improved since he became AD.  I haven't seen either yet but I don't pay as much attention here so I just may not be aware of it.  Nonetheless, my opinion remains that Muir is a storeminder who seeks to maintain status quo.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14578.msg156067#msg156067 date=1454994315]
I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

Well he didn't hire Shaw, and AFAIK Shaw hires all of his assistants.  So in effect Muir hasn't done anything to materially help or hinder football, and I'm sorry but an AD doesn't get a lot of credit for not messing up that which is working well.  OTOH, he was intimately involved in the softball fiasco - won't go into details but I'm sure you can find the multiple detailed articles on what went down.  He has failed the MBB program by not replacing Dawkins and allowing mediocrity to continue while the fan base becomes nearly invisible. 

I don't think it's fair to place any responsibility on baseball at Muir's feet though.  The program had already dropped a notch before he came, and unlike MBB he's not going to push a legend and CBHOF coach out the door.  Marquess has earned the right to leave on his terms, even if the decline is similar to that of MBB (which I would argue it isn't).

I am willing to give Muir credit if someone can identify the QUALITY coaching hires he has made and/or any programs whose performance has MATERIALLY improved since he became AD.  I haven't seen either yet but I don't pay as much attention here so I just may not be aware of it.  Nonetheless, my opinion remains that Muir is a storeminder who seeks to maintain status quo.
[/quote]

He also didn't hire Dawkins.  So do you then give Muir a pass for neither helping nor hindering basketball?

As for softball, I've read the many articles, and the presented information doesn't make anyone, including Muir, look good.  But as I mentioned in my earlier post, those articles most likely don't show the whole story, and in particular draw heavily from sources who have a strong point of view (and yeah, an axe to grind, which doesn't make them wrong).  Moreover, as I also mentioned it sounds like Muir was in a no-win situation; had he given the prior coach unwavering support, chances are the other half of the team would have quit in protest and bad-mouthed him and the coach.  It's not a defense of Muir, who may well have screwed it up royally, but an admission that I don't have all the information and cannot bring myself to indict him.

I think it is easy to question specific decisions in the absence of knowing what would have happened with a counterfactual, which may have been as or more disastrous as the actual decision.  And it seems a bit much to call for someone to be fired on that basis.  This isn't some abstract thing; Muir is a real person, and what the consequences of what you would propose would affect him in very real professional and personal ways, which tends to get ignored on message boards.  That's not to say that some people's performance hasn't fallen flat over the course of many years, and that we shouldn't move on from someone like Dawkins, who most of us believe has been a sub-par coach (although not without hesitation, because again, Dawkins isn't some computer abstraction, but a real person who by all accounts is a fairly decent human being and representative of this coach, even if he is a poor basketball coach).  But I think our calling for someone's head ought to be much higher.  Imagine if random people on twitter and message boards were calling for you to be fired with very limited information and without knowing you or giving you a chance to state your case.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14578.msg156067#msg156067 date=1454994315]
I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

Well he didn't hire Shaw, and AFAIK Shaw hires all of his assistants.  So in effect Muir hasn't done anything to materially help or hinder football, and I'm sorry but an AD doesn't get a lot of credit for not messing up that which is working well.  OTOH, he was intimately involved in the softball fiasco - won't go into details but I'm sure you can find the multiple detailed articles on what went down.  He has failed the MBB program by not replacing Dawkins and allowing mediocrity to continue while the fan base becomes nearly invisible. 

I don't think it's fair to place any responsibility on baseball at Muir's feet though.  The program had already dropped a notch before he came, and unlike MBB he's not going to push a legend and CBHOF coach out the door.  Marquess has earned the right to leave on his terms, even if the decline is similar to that of MBB (which I would argue it isn't).

I am willing to give Muir credit if someone can identify the QUALITY coaching hires he has made and/or any programs whose performance has MATERIALLY improved since he became AD.  I haven't seen either yet but I don't pay as much attention here so I just may not be aware of it.  Nonetheless, my opinion remains that Muir is a storeminder who seeks to maintain status quo.
[/quote]

He also didn't hire Dawkins.  So do you then give Muir a pass for neither helping nor hindering basketball?

As for softball, I've read the many articles, and the presented information doesn't make anyone, including Muir, look good.  But as I mentioned in my earlier post, those articles most likely don't show the whole story, and in particular draw heavily from sources who have a strong point of view (and yeah, an axe to grind, which doesn't make them wrong).  Moreover, as I also mentioned it sounds like Muir was in a no-win situation; had he given the prior coach unwavering support, chances are the other half of the team would have quit in protest and bad-mouthed him and the coach.  It's not a defense of Muir, who may well have screwed it up royally, but an admission that I don't have all the information and cannot bring myself to indict him.

I think it is easy to question specific decisions in the absence of knowing what would have happened with a counterfactual, which may have been as or more disastrous as the actual decision.  And it seems a bit much to call for someone to be fired on that basis.  This isn't some abstract thing; Muir is a real person, and what the consequences of what you would propose would affect him in very real professional and personal ways, which tends to get ignored on message boards.  That's not to say that some people's performance hasn't fallen flat over the course of many years, and that we shouldn't move on from someone like Dawkins, who most of us believe has been a sub-par coach (although not without hesitation, because again, Dawkins isn't some computer abstraction, but a real person who by all accounts is a fairly decent human being and representative of this coach, even if he is a poor basketball coach).  But I think our calling for someone's head ought to be much higher.  Imagine if random people on twitter and message boards were calling for you to be fired with very limited information and without knowing you or giving you a chance to state your case.

BC

[Mick]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14578.msg156067#msg156067 date=1454994315]
I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

Well he didn't hire Shaw, and AFAIK Shaw hires all of his assistants.  So in effect Muir hasn't done anything to materially help or hinder football, and I'm sorry but an AD doesn't get a lot of credit for not messing up that which is working well.  OTOH, he was intimately involved in the softball fiasco - won't go into details but I'm sure you can find the multiple detailed articles on what went down.  He has failed the MBB program by not replacing Dawkins and allowing mediocrity to continue while the fan base becomes nearly invisible. 
[/quote]

I'm happy to indict him.  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:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...esignation
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coach...325754.php
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula-spo...-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.

Last year's record, 17-27 overall, 2-22 in league.

[Mick]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14578.msg156067#msg156067 date=1454994315]
I understand and share some of the frustration with Muir, but if we are going to pan him for the downs of the men's and (to a lesser extent) women's basketball teams, as well as the baseball and softball teams, shouldn't he get some credit for the fact that the football team has gone to three Rose Bowls in his four years or are we going to discount that as him just coasting on Bowlsby's accomplishments (never mind that he also inherited Marquis).  Teams go up, and teams go down; diverse teams have had substantial success under Muir's oversight.  It seems a bit unfair to blame him when teams fail to live up to our expectations but not credit him when teams do well.

Based on very limited information, it sounds like the softball team coaching situation was poorly handled, but a) I don't have enough information to be sure that Muir messed it up and b) the situation strikes me as a classic no-win scenario. 

BC

Well he didn't hire Shaw, and AFAIK Shaw hires all of his assistants.  So in effect Muir hasn't done anything to materially help or hinder football, and I'm sorry but an AD doesn't get a lot of credit for not messing up that which is working well.  OTOH, he was intimately involved in the softball fiasco - won't go into details but I'm sure you can find the multiple detailed articles on what went down.  He has failed the MBB program by not replacing Dawkins and allowing mediocrity to continue while the fan base becomes nearly invisible. 
[/quote]

I'm happy to indict him.  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:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...esignation
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coach...325754.php
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula-spo...-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.

Last year's record, 17-27 overall, 2-22 in league.

[Treebound]

I believe that Etchemendy is Muir's direct boss.  I would be very intrigued to hear what Etch thinks of his AD hire?  The Rittiman debacle is just that.    Dawkins continues to slide below mediocrity, while Shaw continues to improve (I'll credit Bob B for that wonderful hire and the one prior).    I will credit Bernard in hiring the women's swimming coach  (Meehan) as he appears to be improving that team dramatically in spite of having some superstars off this year to train for Rio (anyone hear of Ladecky?). 

With a new president coming on board, many things will likely change.  Does he like hoops?

As for this SC thread - not going to happen.  The "lack of institutional control" means too many late night phone calls.  How many arrests has that "program" suffered in just the last six months?  What a joke....if they even go to class.  I feel a little sorry for Haden, but only a little.

[Treebound]

I believe that Etchemendy is Muir's direct boss.  I would be very intrigued to hear what Etch thinks of his AD hire?  The Rittiman debacle is just that.    Dawkins continues to slide below mediocrity, while Shaw continues to improve (I'll credit Bob B for that wonderful hire and the one prior).    I will credit Bernard in hiring the women's swimming coach  (Meehan) as he appears to be improving that team dramatically in spite of having some superstars off this year to train for Rio (anyone hear of Ladecky?). 

With a new president coming on board, many things will likely change.  Does he like hoops?

As for this SC thread - not going to happen.  The "lack of institutional control" means too many late night phone calls.  How many arrests has that "program" suffered in just the last six months?  What a joke....if they even go to class.  I feel a little sorry for Haden, but only a little.

[82lsju]

I believe that Etchemendy is Muir's direct boss.  I would be very intrigued to hear what Etch thinks of his AD hire? 

...

With a new president coming on board, many things will likely change.  Does he like hoops?

Etchemendy may not be around after June 2017

Both Hennessy and Denning praised the dedication and many accomplishments of Stanford Provost John Etchemendy and thanked him for his partnership in leading the university for the past 15 years. "To ensure a smooth transition to new leadership, the provost has graciously agreed to stay on for up to one year with my successor, but he will not be a candidate for the position of president," Hennessy said.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june...61115.html

[82lsju]

I believe that Etchemendy is Muir's direct boss.  I would be very intrigued to hear what Etch thinks of his AD hire? 

...

With a new president coming on board, many things will likely change.  Does he like hoops?

Etchemendy may not be around after June 2017

Both Hennessy and Denning praised the dedication and many accomplishments of Stanford Provost John Etchemendy and thanked him for his partnership in leading the university for the past 15 years. "To ensure a smooth transition to new leadership, the provost has graciously agreed to stay on for up to one year with my successor, but he will not be a candidate for the position of president," Hennessy said.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june...61115.html

[winflop]

He also didn't hire Dawkins.  So do you then give Muir a pass for neither helping nor hindering basketball?

BC

I would if MBB were doing well.  But it isn't, and it wasn't before he got here and it hasn't improved since he got here.  So he will get blame for NOT acting and, in effect, accepting mediocrity.  He is hindering the program by not making a change.

[winflop]

He also didn't hire Dawkins.  So do you then give Muir a pass for neither helping nor hindering basketball?

BC

I would if MBB were doing well.  But it isn't, and it wasn't before he got here and it hasn't improved since he got here.  So he will get blame for NOT acting and, in effect, accepting mediocrity.  He is hindering the program by not making a change.

[winflop]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=14578.msg156120#msg156120 date=1455054291]
I believe that Etchemendy is Muir's direct boss.  I would be very intrigued to hear what Etch thinks of his AD hire? 

...

With a new president coming on board, many things will likely change.  Does he like hoops?

Etchemendy may not be around after June 2017

Both Hennessy and Denning praised the dedication and many accomplishments of Stanford Provost John Etchemendy and thanked him for his partnership in leading the university for the past 15 years. "To ensure a smooth transition to new leadership, the provost has graciously agreed to stay on for up to one year with my successor, but he will not be a candidate for the position of president," Hennessy said.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june...61115.html
[/quote]

And because of this Muir will not be going anywhere until a new Provost is in place, unless he makes another major screwup like he did with softball.

[winflop]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=14578.msg156120#msg156120 date=1455054291]
I believe that Etchemendy is Muir's direct boss.  I would be very intrigued to hear what Etch thinks of his AD hire? 

...

With a new president coming on board, many things will likely change.  Does he like hoops?

Etchemendy may not be around after June 2017

Both Hennessy and Denning praised the dedication and many accomplishments of Stanford Provost John Etchemendy and thanked him for his partnership in leading the university for the past 15 years. "To ensure a smooth transition to new leadership, the provost has graciously agreed to stay on for up to one year with my successor, but he will not be a candidate for the position of president," Hennessy said.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june...61115.html
[/quote]

And because of this Muir will not be going anywhere until a new Provost is in place, unless he makes another major screwup like he did with softball.

[BobK]

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 brobdingnagian 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.

[BobK]

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 brobdingnagian 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.

[Leftcoast]

Last year's record, 17-27 overall, 2-22 in league.

One small correction - the Softball team's record last year was 17-37. 

http://www.gostanford.com/SportSelect.db...EASON=2014

[Leftcoast]

Last year's record, 17-27 overall, 2-22 in league.

One small correction - the Softball team's record last year was 17-37. 

http://www.gostanford.com/SportSelect.db...EASON=2014