[Giants]

Thanks for posting, McKenwood. I guess we'll see if Muir ends up departing anytime soon.

My guess is that his future tenure is probably dependent on how the President and BoT view his responsibility for situation in his department.  If he made the decision on his own to expand the AD staff when not needed and to reduce revenues by cutting 11 sports and associated over head count, then my guess he will be gone soon.  Unfortunately, I do not think either thing happened just because he decided to do it.  I do not see Stanford allowing department heads to expand or reduce staff levels solely on their own.  I am sure when Covid came along he was told he had to reduce his budget, so he came up with cutting 11 sports.  Again, I do not think he did this without some sort of blessing by the people above him.  What happened then is they all miscalculated how the Alumni would react and suddenly found themselves in embarrassed in the press.  Since the University approved this, the President and BoT assume much of the bad guy role.
My guess they will let some time pass and then ask him to move on, that level of embarrassment is seldom tolerated without someone paying a price for it.

“What happened then is they miscalculated how the Alumni would react…..”

My question - How is it possible they could have miscalculated after what happened at Berkeley when they tried to cut five sports.  The reaction by the Alumni there quickly turned the idea into a complete mess, particularly after a number of notable alums said they would withhold their considerable giving to the University’s general fund.  Eventually, the sports were restored. 

I think it was obvious to most impartial observers that Stanford would eventually restore the cut sports for the same reason - a loss of funding to the University from the big donor community. 

Quite frankly, whoever made the decision demonstrated an arrogance that is surprising for Stanford.  I can’t believe for a moment that Muir was the responsible party.

[Giants]

Thanks for posting, McKenwood. I guess we'll see if Muir ends up departing anytime soon.

My guess is that his future tenure is probably dependent on how the President and BoT view his responsibility for situation in his department.  If he made the decision on his own to expand the AD staff when not needed and to reduce revenues by cutting 11 sports and associated over head count, then my guess he will be gone soon.  Unfortunately, I do not think either thing happened just because he decided to do it.  I do not see Stanford allowing department heads to expand or reduce staff levels solely on their own.  I am sure when Covid came along he was told he had to reduce his budget, so he came up with cutting 11 sports.  Again, I do not think he did this without some sort of blessing by the people above him.  What happened then is they all miscalculated how the Alumni would react and suddenly found themselves in embarrassed in the press.  Since the University approved this, the President and BoT assume much of the bad guy role.
My guess they will let some time pass and then ask him to move on, that level of embarrassment is seldom tolerated without someone paying a price for it.

“What happened then is they miscalculated how the Alumni would react…..”

My question - How is it possible they could have miscalculated after what happened at Berkeley when they tried to cut five sports.  The reaction by the Alumni there quickly turned the idea into a complete mess, particularly after a number of notable alums said they would withhold their considerable giving to the University’s general fund.  Eventually, the sports were restored. 

I think it was obvious to most impartial observers that Stanford would eventually restore the cut sports for the same reason - a loss of funding to the University from the big donor community. 

Quite frankly, whoever made the decision demonstrated an arrogance that is surprising for Stanford.  I can’t believe for a moment that Muir was the responsible party.

[Goose]

Maybe.  But I expect some work around. The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 


If it becomes an employee issue, college sports as we know them are gone.  So there is going to have to be some negotiation to work out a viable solution.  Interesting to see if Congress gets involved.

While an athlete MAY wish to be compensated for the use of his name or likeness, nothing says that he must insist on it. In some cases it may enhance his value if he gets his name out there, or he may just regard it as a "cost" of doing business. If somebody won't let Stanford put his name on a billboard, fine. That won't kill anything. It is the "knock on" effects of this rule about paying guys to play sports that will be the problem. If the congress doesn't get involved, amateur sports is dead. No organization could collude with independent teams to enforce any regulations. This has been a known issue for years. It is just finally being litigated and the judgements are just now coming down. It only takes a few guys who insist on getting paid by a booster in order to play and you have the problem. The University could do something about it if they wanted to, but the conference or NCAA could not. If one of the PAC-12 members says it is ok if their athletes get paid, nobody else can say a word. Will Congress act? I would bet not until much damage is done, if then.

[Goose]

Maybe.  But I expect some work around. The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 


If it becomes an employee issue, college sports as we know them are gone.  So there is going to have to be some negotiation to work out a viable solution.  Interesting to see if Congress gets involved.

While an athlete MAY wish to be compensated for the use of his name or likeness, nothing says that he must insist on it. In some cases it may enhance his value if he gets his name out there, or he may just regard it as a "cost" of doing business. If somebody won't let Stanford put his name on a billboard, fine. That won't kill anything. It is the "knock on" effects of this rule about paying guys to play sports that will be the problem. If the congress doesn't get involved, amateur sports is dead. No organization could collude with independent teams to enforce any regulations. This has been a known issue for years. It is just finally being litigated and the judgements are just now coming down. It only takes a few guys who insist on getting paid by a booster in order to play and you have the problem. The University could do something about it if they wanted to, but the conference or NCAA could not. If one of the PAC-12 members says it is ok if their athletes get paid, nobody else can say a word. Will Congress act? I would bet not until much damage is done, if then.

[Spiny_Norman]

Muir should be asked to leave now. Stanford needs a visionary in the AD position and one who can garner the respect of the senior management team. The new AD needs to engage the President and Provost (and the conference and the NCAA) as Stanford will be faced with some stark choices in the coming years and whether it wants to compete in football and MBB at the highest level. The new AD also needs to sell the vision to Stanford's stakeholders outside senior management and be able to garner the financial resources necessary, especially if football is not bring in the income necesssary.

McKenwood, my thinking is much the same as yours. I don't know the inside details of the 11 sports fiasco. But Muir has to take responsibility for it as well as for Varsity Blues and the systemic financial shortfall. It's an axiom in the business world that the leader who got you into a hole cannot get you out. Stanford needs a new leader in Athletics.

Someone like Martin Jarmond at UCLA. It's too early to assess his real impact but to me he is majoring on the majors - football, MBB and alumni/donor relations. He's also injected a ton of energy into a department that had become rather stale. Sound familiar? Here is a recent LA Times article on Jarmond.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/stor...cla-year-1

[Spiny_Norman]

Muir should be asked to leave now. Stanford needs a visionary in the AD position and one who can garner the respect of the senior management team. The new AD needs to engage the President and Provost (and the conference and the NCAA) as Stanford will be faced with some stark choices in the coming years and whether it wants to compete in football and MBB at the highest level. The new AD also needs to sell the vision to Stanford's stakeholders outside senior management and be able to garner the financial resources necessary, especially if football is not bring in the income necesssary.

McKenwood, my thinking is much the same as yours. I don't know the inside details of the 11 sports fiasco. But Muir has to take responsibility for it as well as for Varsity Blues and the systemic financial shortfall. It's an axiom in the business world that the leader who got you into a hole cannot get you out. Stanford needs a new leader in Athletics.

Someone like Martin Jarmond at UCLA. It's too early to assess his real impact but to me he is majoring on the majors - football, MBB and alumni/donor relations. He's also injected a ton of energy into a department that had become rather stale. Sound familiar? Here is a recent LA Times article on Jarmond.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/stor...cla-year-1

[terry]

Looking at it from a different perspective would anyone on this board donate to a department that is headed by Muir? 

Yes. I would, and I did. 

I have never donated to the athletic director. It's not about the athletic director, whoever that might be at any given time. I donate to the university and to the athletic program. I donate for the benefit of the student athletes and of the school.

[terry]

Looking at it from a different perspective would anyone on this board donate to a department that is headed by Muir? 

Yes. I would, and I did. 

I have never donated to the athletic director. It's not about the athletic director, whoever that might be at any given time. I donate to the university and to the athletic program. I donate for the benefit of the student athletes and of the school.

[BobK]

Well said Terry. Always have always will

[BobK]

Well said Terry. Always have always will

[Treebound]

I'm with Terry and Bob.  I continue to donate for the student athletes that work their tails off every day.   Muir has been mediocre and Stanford doesn't settle for mediocre.    The seat should be very hot right now.  I think it is.

[Treebound]

I'm with Terry and Bob.  I continue to donate for the student athletes that work their tails off every day.   Muir has been mediocre and Stanford doesn't settle for mediocre.    The seat should be very hot right now.  I think it is.

[82lsju]

well I did get a call from the B/C club during the time when the 11 sports were being cut and during that time did send an email to the provost and president, for both I expressed about my unhappiness with the cuts, and wrote/said I would decrease my puny annual B/C donation if the sports were not restored (and that the donation would not get redistributed to another part of the University).  I'm sure my specific complaint had no impact but if enough people had taken a similar action....

on the email to the provost/president they were all off loaded to the SAA, I got a canned email response to my original email but when I replied to that Howard Wolf actually replied, I did send him an email when the 11 sports were reinstated that aI was glad that the University had done the right thing

[82lsju]

well I did get a call from the B/C club during the time when the 11 sports were being cut and during that time did send an email to the provost and president, for both I expressed about my unhappiness with the cuts, and wrote/said I would decrease my puny annual B/C donation if the sports were not restored (and that the donation would not get redistributed to another part of the University).  I'm sure my specific complaint had no impact but if enough people had taken a similar action....

on the email to the provost/president they were all off loaded to the SAA, I got a canned email response to my original email but when I replied to that Howard Wolf actually replied, I did send him an email when the 11 sports were reinstated that aI was glad that the University had done the right thing

[pefloresjr]

I have also donated throughout his tenure and, although I threatened to cut my small donations due to the sports cuts, I was hoping I wouldn't have to because supporting the student athletes is my first priority.  I am somewhere between agnostic and negative about Muir.  I think we need better leadership and much more creative approaches to the current challenges that the Stanford model of student athletics is facing.  On the other hand, I like the hiring choices for many of the sports.  Haase has had plenty of time, but I am still willing to give his good recruiting a chance to turn things around.  Shaw has mostly continued to have surprising amounts of success despite slipping recruiting, but he has earned a great deal more time to get it turned around.  I don't see any way to tie the Director's Cup results this year to Muir because of the uncontrollable impacts of the pandemic and the ongoing changing of the rules to make it more and more difficult for Stanford to win.  

I would like to see improvement, but I think people are fooling themselves if they think Muir is on the hot seat.  I think Stanford will be facing a serious crisis about its sports programs very soon and Muir is likely to be in charge when it happens unless he wants to seek other options voluntarily.  I hope in the future, the university engages with the community when they make significant decisions unlike the last episode with the cancelled sports.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I have also donated throughout his tenure and, although I threatened to cut my small donations due to the sports cuts, I was hoping I wouldn't have to because supporting the student athletes is my first priority.  I am somewhere between agnostic and negative about Muir.  I think we need better leadership and much more creative approaches to the current challenges that the Stanford model of student athletics is facing.  On the other hand, I like the hiring choices for many of the sports.  Haase has had plenty of time, but I am still willing to give his good recruiting a chance to turn things around.  Shaw has mostly continued to have surprising amounts of success despite slipping recruiting, but he has earned a great deal more time to get it turned around.  I don't see any way to tie the Director's Cup results this year to Muir because of the uncontrollable impacts of the pandemic and the ongoing changing of the rules to make it more and more difficult for Stanford to win.  

I would like to see improvement, but I think people are fooling themselves if they think Muir is on the hot seat.  I think Stanford will be facing a serious crisis about its sports programs very soon and Muir is likely to be in charge when it happens unless he wants to seek other options voluntarily.  I hope in the future, the university engages with the community when they make significant decisions unlike the last episode with the cancelled sports.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[winflop]

well I did get a call from the B/C club during the time when the 11 sports were being cut and during that time did send an email to the provost and president, for both I expressed about my unhappiness with the cuts, and wrote/said I would decrease my puny annual B/C donation if the sports were not restored (and that the donation would not get redistributed to another part of the University).  I'm sure my specific complaint had no impact but if enough people had taken a similar action....

on the email to the provost/president they were all off loaded to the SAA, I got a canned email response to my original email but when I replied to that Howard Wolf actually replied, I did send him an email when the 11 sports were reinstated that aI was glad that the University had done the right thing

My annual donations are also rather puny, and I also wrote to various people including the development director and Howard Wolff. However, I have not and I will not restore my donations until Muir is gone. instead, I donate directly to specific programs (mainly men's & women's golf) whose players & coaches actually value & appreciate my puny donations and put them to productive use that I can see directly rather than seeing them get swallowed up in the great financial morass that is the horribly managed Athletic Department.

[winflop]

well I did get a call from the B/C club during the time when the 11 sports were being cut and during that time did send an email to the provost and president, for both I expressed about my unhappiness with the cuts, and wrote/said I would decrease my puny annual B/C donation if the sports were not restored (and that the donation would not get redistributed to another part of the University).  I'm sure my specific complaint had no impact but if enough people had taken a similar action....

on the email to the provost/president they were all off loaded to the SAA, I got a canned email response to my original email but when I replied to that Howard Wolf actually replied, I did send him an email when the 11 sports were reinstated that aI was glad that the University had done the right thing

My annual donations are also rather puny, and I also wrote to various people including the development director and Howard Wolff. However, I have not and I will not restore my donations until Muir is gone. instead, I donate directly to specific programs (mainly men's & women's golf) whose players & coaches actually value & appreciate my puny donations and put them to productive use that I can see directly rather than seeing them get swallowed up in the great financial morass that is the horribly managed Athletic Department.

[Phogge]

If any of you guys are going to hold off your contributions and still would love to help a bunch of kids (plenty of black, brown and white) who play for a school on Poverty Row and who have little or any chance to market themselves then please write a “puny” check to SF State or some other underfunded program.

A couple of my friends on this board already have and it was much appreciated.

[Phogge]

If any of you guys are going to hold off your contributions and still would love to help a bunch of kids (plenty of black, brown and white) who play for a school on Poverty Row and who have little or any chance to market themselves then please write a “puny” check to SF State or some other underfunded program.

A couple of my friends on this board already have and it was much appreciated.

[teejers1]

well I did get a call from the B/C club during the time when the 11 sports were being cut and during that time did send an email to the provost and president, for both I expressed about my unhappiness with the cuts, and wrote/said I would decrease my puny annual B/C donation if the sports were not restored (and that the donation would not get redistributed to another part of the University).  I'm sure my specific complaint had no impact but if enough people had taken a similar action....

on the email to the provost/president they were all off loaded to the SAA, I got a canned email response to my original email but when I replied to that Howard Wolf actually replied, I did send him an email when the 11 sports were reinstated that aI was glad that the University had done the right thing

My annual donations are also rather puny, and I also wrote to various people including the development director and Howard Wolff. However, I have not and I will not restore my donations until Muir is gone. instead, I donate directly to specific programs (mainly men's & women's golf) whose players & coaches actually value & appreciate my puny donations and put them to productive use that I can see directly rather than seeing them get swallowed up in the great financial morass that is the horribly managed Athletic Department.

I didn't think you were allowed to donate to a specific sport anymore.  Didn't the Department do away with that option many years ago?  (I used to do Starting 11 and whatever the MBB program was, but was informed that such programs had been terminated).  I know there remains a FBC for the WBB but don't know any details re: contribution requirements, if any.

I tend to agree that Muir not on a hot seat, despite many mediocre aspects of his performance.  Will add that I think the NIL and player compensation will represent a tectonic shift in collegiate sports, and one that could lead to Stanford bowing out of D1 sports.  I suspect the ADs and coaches will get wind of that, so it would not surprise me to see them flee the sinking ship, so to speak, before it formally goes under.  That would apply only to those interested in continuing to be an AD or a coach (as opposed to retiring).  Long way of saying it's possible Muir goes; and it's possible it has nothing to do with a hot seat.

[teejers1]

well I did get a call from the B/C club during the time when the 11 sports were being cut and during that time did send an email to the provost and president, for both I expressed about my unhappiness with the cuts, and wrote/said I would decrease my puny annual B/C donation if the sports were not restored (and that the donation would not get redistributed to another part of the University).  I'm sure my specific complaint had no impact but if enough people had taken a similar action....

on the email to the provost/president they were all off loaded to the SAA, I got a canned email response to my original email but when I replied to that Howard Wolf actually replied, I did send him an email when the 11 sports were reinstated that aI was glad that the University had done the right thing

My annual donations are also rather puny, and I also wrote to various people including the development director and Howard Wolff. However, I have not and I will not restore my donations until Muir is gone. instead, I donate directly to specific programs (mainly men's & women's golf) whose players & coaches actually value & appreciate my puny donations and put them to productive use that I can see directly rather than seeing them get swallowed up in the great financial morass that is the horribly managed Athletic Department.

I didn't think you were allowed to donate to a specific sport anymore.  Didn't the Department do away with that option many years ago?  (I used to do Starting 11 and whatever the MBB program was, but was informed that such programs had been terminated).  I know there remains a FBC for the WBB but don't know any details re: contribution requirements, if any.

I tend to agree that Muir not on a hot seat, despite many mediocre aspects of his performance.  Will add that I think the NIL and player compensation will represent a tectonic shift in collegiate sports, and one that could lead to Stanford bowing out of D1 sports.  I suspect the ADs and coaches will get wind of that, so it would not surprise me to see them flee the sinking ship, so to speak, before it formally goes under.  That would apply only to those interested in continuing to be an AD or a coach (as opposed to retiring).  Long way of saying it's possible Muir goes; and it's possible it has nothing to do with a hot seat.

[Goose]

I am pretty sure Muir is on the "hot seat" over budget issues and because of the bad publicity associated with dropping some sports, UNLESS both are/were orchestrated from above (which I very much doubt at this point). However, I also think the University isn't going to fire him unless/until they have a replacement lined up. Muir isn't viewed as "that bad", at least not yet. Looking for a replacement will be tricky because the word might get out before "everybody" is ready. I am sure that this will not be a rapid process, but I would be amazed if it hasn't started.

[Goose]

I am pretty sure Muir is on the "hot seat" over budget issues and because of the bad publicity associated with dropping some sports, UNLESS both are/were orchestrated from above (which I very much doubt at this point). However, I also think the University isn't going to fire him unless/until they have a replacement lined up. Muir isn't viewed as "that bad", at least not yet. Looking for a replacement will be tricky because the word might get out before "everybody" is ready. I am sure that this will not be a rapid process, but I would be amazed if it hasn't started.

[BobK]

I haven’t needed to list a sport to donate too for awhile but you could several years after the new budget process by Bowlsby was started

[BobK]

I haven’t needed to list a sport to donate too for awhile but you could several years after the new budget process by Bowlsby was started

[82lsju]

I haven’t needed to list a sport to donate too for awhile but you could several years after the new budget process by Bowlsby was started

on the "giving" page for athletics they have three choices

- B/C Athletics Fund
- B/C priority seating
- "other designation" 

which you specify, it does not appear to limit what you can write for what you want the funds to go but but then again it also does not guarantee your "other designation" happens....

[82lsju]

I haven’t needed to list a sport to donate too for awhile but you could several years after the new budget process by Bowlsby was started

on the "giving" page for athletics they have three choices

- B/C Athletics Fund
- B/C priority seating
- "other designation" 

which you specify, it does not appear to limit what you can write for what you want the funds to go but but then again it also does not guarantee your "other designation" happens....

[BostonCard]

My guess is that even if you could at one point donate to specific programs, the varsity blues scandal probably spelled the death knell for directed donations.

BC

[BostonCard]

My guess is that even if you could at one point donate to specific programs, the varsity blues scandal probably spelled the death knell for directed donations.

BC

[fullmetal]

A few years ago, a donation of mine earmarked for a specific sport was received with a thank you note.  When I replied asking for confirmation that the donation had been earmarked for that specific sport, I received...nothing lol.

[fullmetal]

A few years ago, a donation of mine earmarked for a specific sport was received with a thank you note.  When I replied asking for confirmation that the donation had been earmarked for that specific sport, I received...nothing lol.

[Phogge]

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

[Phogge]

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

[Mick]

Allister said no once.  Yes a sell
Geesh

Yeah, and why was that?
Did it have anything to do with the way Muir handled the departure of the softball coach (two coaches ago)?
You can include that cluster on Muir's list.

Speaking of which, Coach Rittman started Clemson's softball program from scratch two years ago. They were predicted to finish 10th in the 13-team ACC in their first season in 2020's COVID-shortened season and went 19-8. This year they merely went 44-8 and ranked 18th in the country and went 2-2 in the NCAA as an at-large bid.  He was voted the ACC's Coach of the Year. Nationally, Clemson's softball team ranked 4th in overall attendance and 5th in per-game attendance in 2020.

Clemson's roster this year had 2 seniors, 4 juniors, 0 sophomores and 19 freshmen. All starting pitchers, catchers, 1B, 2B and outfielders were freshmen. The 3B and SS were seniors.

Congratulations, Coach Rittman.  Nice to see you haven't lost your fastball...

[Mick]

Allister said no once.  Yes a sell
Geesh

Yeah, and why was that?
Did it have anything to do with the way Muir handled the departure of the softball coach (two coaches ago)?
You can include that cluster on Muir's list.

Speaking of which, Coach Rittman started Clemson's softball program from scratch two years ago. They were predicted to finish 10th in the 13-team ACC in their first season in 2020's COVID-shortened season and went 19-8. This year they merely went 44-8 and ranked 18th in the country and went 2-2 in the NCAA as an at-large bid.  He was voted the ACC's Coach of the Year. Nationally, Clemson's softball team ranked 4th in overall attendance and 5th in per-game attendance in 2020.

Clemson's roster this year had 2 seniors, 4 juniors, 0 sophomores and 19 freshmen. All starting pitchers, catchers, 1B, 2B and outfielders were freshmen. The 3B and SS were seniors.

Congratulations, Coach Rittman.  Nice to see you haven't lost your fastball...

[BostonCard]

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

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

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

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

BC

[BostonCard]

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

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

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

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

BC

[McKenwood]

Looking at it from a different perspective would anyone on this board donate to a department that is headed by Muir? 

Yes. I would, and I did. 

I have never donated to the athletic director. It's not about the athletic director, whoever that might be at any given time. I donate to the university and to the athletic program. I donate for the benefit of the student athletes and of the school.

I still donate but under duress. My donations are tied to my football tickets in Section 114. Based on seat availability this year the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

My larger point still stands namely that why would anyone make significant extra donations to help Stanford out of this whole as long as Muir is in charge? He has proven he cannot manage his department from a financial perspective.

[McKenwood]

Looking at it from a different perspective would anyone on this board donate to a department that is headed by Muir? 

Yes. I would, and I did. 

I have never donated to the athletic director. It's not about the athletic director, whoever that might be at any given time. I donate to the university and to the athletic program. I donate for the benefit of the student athletes and of the school.

I still donate but under duress. My donations are tied to my football tickets in Section 114. Based on seat availability this year the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

My larger point still stands namely that why would anyone make significant extra donations to help Stanford out of this whole as long as Muir is in charge? He has proven he cannot manage his department from a financial perspective.