[d4cohn]

Most importantly, do we think any coach would want to come in if Hanson were fired mid-season, i.e., right now?

I agree with Owen; I think firing Coach Hanson midseason is not fair to her or the players. Now that Bernard has given her the opportunity to coach this season, he should see that commitment through until the end of the season. The only reason this conversation has started now, as opposed to at season's end, is because fullmetal and others originally posed the question of where everyone stood with regards to having confidence in her.

I can't speak for other people, but for me, the reason that I have been very vocal on this page about the need for a coaching change is because of what I have heard from players regarding this coaching staff's coaching and management of this program. As a sample, these quotes from Alexa's column summarize what I have heard  (Link: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/05/19/...n-the-axe/) :

“Honestly, I don’t think Coach Hanson is qualified enough to be coaching at this level,” another said. “[She’s] in over her head.”

“The sad thing is, a recruit is coming here in the hopes of elite athletics and prestigious academics,” a third player said, “not knowing that they are about to sacrifice so much for so little.”

The second quote, in particular, highlights, for me, the importance of making a coaching change at season's end. As Alexa states later in her column, "In the best athletic program in the nation — one that has won 128 national titles and 21 Directors’ Cups, and one that has embraced all-around excellence as its defining standard — every sport and every student-athlete should be put in the position to succeed."

Ultimately, I just believe that it is imperative that Bernard make a change this offseason, because softball should be no different than any other sport with regards to quality coaching. That is why I have been vocal on this subject.

[d4cohn]

Most importantly, do we think any coach would want to come in if Hanson were fired mid-season, i.e., right now?

I agree with Owen; I think firing Coach Hanson midseason is not fair to her or the players. Now that Bernard has given her the opportunity to coach this season, he should see that commitment through until the end of the season. The only reason this conversation has started now, as opposed to at season's end, is because fullmetal and others originally posed the question of where everyone stood with regards to having confidence in her.

I can't speak for other people, but for me, the reason that I have been very vocal on this page about the need for a coaching change is because of what I have heard from players regarding this coaching staff's coaching and management of this program. As a sample, these quotes from Alexa's column summarize what I have heard  (Link: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/05/19/...n-the-axe/) :

“Honestly, I don’t think Coach Hanson is qualified enough to be coaching at this level,” another said. “[She’s] in over her head.”

“The sad thing is, a recruit is coming here in the hopes of elite athletics and prestigious academics,” a third player said, “not knowing that they are about to sacrifice so much for so little.”

The second quote, in particular, highlights, for me, the importance of making a coaching change at season's end. As Alexa states later in her column, "In the best athletic program in the nation — one that has won 128 national titles and 21 Directors’ Cups, and one that has embraced all-around excellence as its defining standard — every sport and every student-athlete should be put in the position to succeed."

Ultimately, I just believe that it is imperative that Bernard make a change this offseason, because softball should be no different than any other sport with regards to quality coaching. That is why I have been vocal on this subject.

[Mick]

I think firing Hanson mid-season would be a mistake, just as I think firing any coach midseason is a mistake (outside of for-cause).  It will be difficult enough for Muir to hire a coach in the off-season without polluting the job further with yet another ill-considered step.

That said, the Buddy Teevens of softball is in so far over her head that she has no business setting foot on Stanford's softball field.  She and her staff are beyond overmatched, and everyone except Muir has known it since she was hired.  It must be a real treat to recruit when other coaches say "have you seen how poorly their highly-rated recruits are doing?  Why would you go to Stanford?

Stanford's poisonous parents who set the softball program ablaze have ensured that qualified softball coaches will just laugh at a Stanford recruiting call.  No decent coach will look at this program when the last out is recorded.  Bad parents, bad athletic director.  This program is going to be mediocre at best for a very long time.

[Mick]

I think firing Hanson mid-season would be a mistake, just as I think firing any coach midseason is a mistake (outside of for-cause).  It will be difficult enough for Muir to hire a coach in the off-season without polluting the job further with yet another ill-considered step.

That said, the Buddy Teevens of softball is in so far over her head that she has no business setting foot on Stanford's softball field.  She and her staff are beyond overmatched, and everyone except Muir has known it since she was hired.  It must be a real treat to recruit when other coaches say "have you seen how poorly their highly-rated recruits are doing?  Why would you go to Stanford?

Stanford's poisonous parents who set the softball program ablaze have ensured that qualified softball coaches will just laugh at a Stanford recruiting call.  No decent coach will look at this program when the last out is recorded.  Bad parents, bad athletic director.  This program is going to be mediocre at best for a very long time.

[fullmetal]

Every four to five years, the entire roster of the softball team will be completely different.  Given a commitment of resources and varsity status, I think Muir can make a good pitch as to why a good coach should consider taking Stanford's money and trying their hand at rebuilding the program.  The university ensures some prestige, the program history commands attention, and what coach worth their salt wouldn't think that they would be good enough to take the program back to glory?

[fullmetal]

Every four to five years, the entire roster of the softball team will be completely different.  Given a commitment of resources and varsity status, I think Muir can make a good pitch as to why a good coach should consider taking Stanford's money and trying their hand at rebuilding the program.  The university ensures some prestige, the program history commands attention, and what coach worth their salt wouldn't think that they would be good enough to take the program back to glory?

[BobK]

Great points full metal. 

[BobK]

Great points full metal. 

[BostonCard]

Yes.  If Hansen, who is deemed to be incompetent, can still recruit top-100 players, a year after going winless in conference, imagine what a good coach could do.  Perhaps many of the coaches who turned us down last time might be more amenable this time around; the open civil war within the team has passed as most of the Rittman players will be graduating, and the old adage "don't replace the legend; replace the person replacing the legend" applies.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes.  If Hansen, who is deemed to be incompetent, can still recruit top-100 players, a year after going winless in conference, imagine what a good coach could do.  Perhaps many of the coaches who turned us down last time might be more amenable this time around; the open civil war within the team has passed as most of the Rittman players will be graduating, and the old adage "don't replace the legend; replace the person replacing the legend" applies.

BC

[Mick]

Great points full metal.

Yes, great points.  So given what Stanford pays and the cost of living in Silicon Valley, you think we'll have our choice of choices?

[Mick]

Great points full metal.

Yes, great points.  So given what Stanford pays and the cost of living in Silicon Valley, you think we'll have our choice of choices?

[BostonCard]

Stanford offers subsidized housing to coaches at the Olmsted road.  Ironically, this site features a quote from Rittman:

https://giving.stanford.edu/stanford-ben...ff-housing

"After commuting an hour and a half every day for 14 years, it's nice to actually enjoy eating meals with my family. ... I have been able to attend so many more of my children's school and athletic activities."
—John Rittman, Head Softball Coach

Obviously, the Bay Area is expensive and not for everyone, and yes the cost of living could be a big issue for some potential coaches.  But I think it is reasonable to expect that with less chaos going on, the prospects for being able to hire a quality coach are much better now than they were three years ago.

Are you suggesting we not fire Hanson because we won't be able to get anyone better?

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford offers subsidized housing to coaches at the Olmsted road.  Ironically, this site features a quote from Rittman:

https://giving.stanford.edu/stanford-ben...ff-housing

"After commuting an hour and a half every day for 14 years, it's nice to actually enjoy eating meals with my family. ... I have been able to attend so many more of my children's school and athletic activities."
—John Rittman, Head Softball Coach

Obviously, the Bay Area is expensive and not for everyone, and yes the cost of living could be a big issue for some potential coaches.  But I think it is reasonable to expect that with less chaos going on, the prospects for being able to hire a quality coach are much better now than they were three years ago.

Are you suggesting we not fire Hanson because we won't be able to get anyone better?

BC

[mbdude]

Doesn't Stanford provide on-campus housing for coaches? Article recently about a head coach and his family who live on campus?

[mbdude]

Doesn't Stanford provide on-campus housing for coaches? Article recently about a head coach and his family who live on campus?

[Mick]

Stanford offers subsidized housing to coaches at the Olmsted road.  Ironically, this site features a quote from Rittman:

https://giving.stanford.edu/stanford-ben...ff-housing

"After commuting an hour and a half every day for 14 years, it's nice to actually enjoy eating meals with my family. ... I have been able to attend so many more of my children's school and athletic activities."
—John Rittman, Head Softball Coach

Obviously, the Bay Area is expensive and not for everyone, and yes the cost of living could be a big issue for some potential coaches.  But I think it is reasonable to expect that with less chaos going on, the prospects for being able to hire a quality coach are much better now than they were three years ago.

Are you suggesting we not fire Hanson because we won't be able to get anyone better?

BC

Heavens, no.  Hanson is insufficient to the task.  We need a world-class softball coach.  I think most Director's Cup sports at Stanford can attract those people, because most of those sports don't have the built-in baggage.  Softball is different.  I know that last go-round we had a handful of superb coaches decline us.  I'm wondering if they'll be much more accepting now or if program stench has lessened at all.  And candidly, I wonder how many of the very finest softball coaches have practices longer than the NCAA allows, but don't have watchdog parents (or others) jotting down start-and-stop times.

And housing isn't the only cost, although I note you said "subsidized" versus "free."  I did a cost of living comparison between Ann Arbor and Palo Alto.  PA is way more expensive, and if you include housing it's WWWAAAAYYYYYY more expensive.

There are nine Pac-12 softball teams.  Six of them are in the top 25, Cal is #26. Only Stanford and Oregon State are unranked.  Here's the current pac-12 rankings and records.  I don't see Hanson doing well here.

Oregon, #3 (27-0)
Arizona, #5 (29-1)
Washington, #6 (24-3)
Utah, #11 (21-4)
UCLA, #15 (21-8)
Arizona State, #21 (19-8)
Cal, #26 (17-8)
Stanford, unranked,(16-10)
Oregon State, unranked, (15-11)

[Mick]

Stanford offers subsidized housing to coaches at the Olmsted road.  Ironically, this site features a quote from Rittman:

https://giving.stanford.edu/stanford-ben...ff-housing

"After commuting an hour and a half every day for 14 years, it's nice to actually enjoy eating meals with my family. ... I have been able to attend so many more of my children's school and athletic activities."
—John Rittman, Head Softball Coach

Obviously, the Bay Area is expensive and not for everyone, and yes the cost of living could be a big issue for some potential coaches.  But I think it is reasonable to expect that with less chaos going on, the prospects for being able to hire a quality coach are much better now than they were three years ago.

Are you suggesting we not fire Hanson because we won't be able to get anyone better?

BC

Heavens, no.  Hanson is insufficient to the task.  We need a world-class softball coach.  I think most Director's Cup sports at Stanford can attract those people, because most of those sports don't have the built-in baggage.  Softball is different.  I know that last go-round we had a handful of superb coaches decline us.  I'm wondering if they'll be much more accepting now or if program stench has lessened at all.  And candidly, I wonder how many of the very finest softball coaches have practices longer than the NCAA allows, but don't have watchdog parents (or others) jotting down start-and-stop times.

And housing isn't the only cost, although I note you said "subsidized" versus "free."  I did a cost of living comparison between Ann Arbor and Palo Alto.  PA is way more expensive, and if you include housing it's WWWAAAAYYYYYY more expensive.

There are nine Pac-12 softball teams.  Six of them are in the top 25, Cal is #26. Only Stanford and Oregon State are unranked.  Here's the current pac-12 rankings and records.  I don't see Hanson doing well here.

Oregon, #3 (27-0)
Arizona, #5 (29-1)
Washington, #6 (24-3)
Utah, #11 (21-4)
UCLA, #15 (21-8)
Arizona State, #21 (19-8)
Cal, #26 (17-8)
Stanford, unranked,(16-10)
Oregon State, unranked, (15-11)

[Mick]

Rittman of course was immediately hired by Kansas then Florida the next year and now TEAM USA. All as an assistant however. 
No we aren't going to fire a coach mid season with
1.  a winning record
2.  The # 14 recruiting class now frosh

By the way, Rittman is the Associate Head Coach at Kansas now.  They're 18-12, finished 31-20 last year.

[Mick]

Rittman of course was immediately hired by Kansas then Florida the next year and now TEAM USA. All as an assistant however. 
No we aren't going to fire a coach mid season with
1.  a winning record
2.  The # 14 recruiting class now frosh

By the way, Rittman is the Associate Head Coach at Kansas now.  They're 18-12, finished 31-20 last year.

[BostonCard]

Are parents still logging the practice hours?  Presumably anyone who was a freshman under Rittman will be a senior now and thus will be gone next year.  And it almost sounds like you are blaming the parents for NCAA violations committed by Rittman.  When I was a resident, shortly after the ACGME implemented an 80-hour work week limit and a 24 (+6) hour limit in shifts, we were required to log our hours by the program (for auditing by the ACGME).  The program then got upset at the subset of people who honestly reported their hours (most residents reported fewer hours than they work, but the program was way out of compliance and some of the residents didn't want to hide that).  Was that the residents' fault or maybe should the program have taken steps to remain in compliance.  Would you have wanted to be in that hospital if you knew that the residents were working longer hours than the guideline?

[BostonCard]

Are parents still logging the practice hours?  Presumably anyone who was a freshman under Rittman will be a senior now and thus will be gone next year.  And it almost sounds like you are blaming the parents for NCAA violations committed by Rittman.  When I was a resident, shortly after the ACGME implemented an 80-hour work week limit and a 24 (+6) hour limit in shifts, we were required to log our hours by the program (for auditing by the ACGME).  The program then got upset at the subset of people who honestly reported their hours (most residents reported fewer hours than they work, but the program was way out of compliance and some of the residents didn't want to hide that).  Was that the residents' fault or maybe should the program have taken steps to remain in compliance.  Would you have wanted to be in that hospital if you knew that the residents were working longer hours than the guideline?

[BobK]

Thanks Mick.  But is bio wasn't updated.  Why not?  Curious

[BobK]

Thanks Mick.  But is bio wasn't updated.  Why not?  Curious

[Mick]

Are parents still logging the practice hours?  Presumably anyone who was a freshman under Rittman will be a senior now and thus will be gone next year.  And it almost sounds like you are blaming the parents for NCAA violations committed by Rittman.  When I was a resident, shortly after the ACGME implemented an 80-hour work week limit and a 24 (+6) hour limit in shifts, we were required to log our hours by the program (for auditing by the ACGME).  The program then got upset at the subset of people who honestly reported their hours (most residents reported fewer hours than they work, but the program was way out of compliance and some of the residents didn't want to hide that).  Was that the residents' fault or maybe should the program have taken steps to remain in compliance.  Would you have wanted to be in that hospital if you knew that the residents were working longer hours than the guideline?

No, I'm not blaming the parents.  What I am saying is that I don't think Rittman is or was the only top level coach that fudges hours, but he's probably the only one who had parents after him, particularly given that that was a direct threat they made during the meeting with Muir.  And the appearance of that threat or Muir's reaction may not have diminished in the eyes of coaching candidates.  Or maybe it has.  We'll find out later this year.

And you're right, I'd rather have a resident who works less.  But I don't know why you're comparing a medical doctor with a softball coach or why you're comparing 80/24s with the much, much less time required by softball programs.  Health versus entertainment doesn't seem like a valid comparison.

I will say that my son was more attracted to the 15-20 hours per week demanded by the Ivy volleyball programs at Harvard and Princeton over the hours demanded by the MPSF volleyball programs that recruited him.  But he made that decision at the college choice level, knowing that he didn't want to suffer the 2x-or-more demands from the MPSF programs.

[Mick]

Are parents still logging the practice hours?  Presumably anyone who was a freshman under Rittman will be a senior now and thus will be gone next year.  And it almost sounds like you are blaming the parents for NCAA violations committed by Rittman.  When I was a resident, shortly after the ACGME implemented an 80-hour work week limit and a 24 (+6) hour limit in shifts, we were required to log our hours by the program (for auditing by the ACGME).  The program then got upset at the subset of people who honestly reported their hours (most residents reported fewer hours than they work, but the program was way out of compliance and some of the residents didn't want to hide that).  Was that the residents' fault or maybe should the program have taken steps to remain in compliance.  Would you have wanted to be in that hospital if you knew that the residents were working longer hours than the guideline?

No, I'm not blaming the parents.  What I am saying is that I don't think Rittman is or was the only top level coach that fudges hours, but he's probably the only one who had parents after him, particularly given that that was a direct threat they made during the meeting with Muir.  And the appearance of that threat or Muir's reaction may not have diminished in the eyes of coaching candidates.  Or maybe it has.  We'll find out later this year.

And you're right, I'd rather have a resident who works less.  But I don't know why you're comparing a medical doctor with a softball coach or why you're comparing 80/24s with the much, much less time required by softball programs.  Health versus entertainment doesn't seem like a valid comparison.

I will say that my son was more attracted to the 15-20 hours per week demanded by the Ivy volleyball programs at Harvard and Princeton over the hours demanded by the MPSF volleyball programs that recruited him.  But he made that decision at the college choice level, knowing that he didn't want to suffer the 2x-or-more demands from the MPSF programs.

[fullmetal]

Tangent: There's been a kerfluffle in the rowing world around the overreporting of women's rowing numbers on the roster that seems to have been heavily fudged in order to help comply with Title IX. 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...-scrutiny/

Apparently it's not an unheard of practice...I would hope Stanford would never engage in this.  UW's women's rowing head coach is in her first year there...previously employed by Stanford for nearly a decade.

Of course, roster fudging is not new: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/sports....html?_r=2

[fullmetal]

Tangent: There's been a kerfluffle in the rowing world around the overreporting of women's rowing numbers on the roster that seems to have been heavily fudged in order to help comply with Title IX. 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...-scrutiny/

Apparently it's not an unheard of practice...I would hope Stanford would never engage in this.  UW's women's rowing head coach is in her first year there...previously employed by Stanford for nearly a decade.

Of course, roster fudging is not new: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/sports....html?_r=2

[2006alum]

No, I'm not blaming the parents.  What I am saying is that I don't think Rittman is or was the only top level coach that fudges hours, but he's probably the only one who had parents after him, particularly given that that was a direct threat they made during the meeting with Muir.  And the appearance of that threat or Muir's reaction may not have diminished in the eyes of coaching candidates.  Or maybe it has.  We'll find out later this year.

I am in no way qualified to speak as to the prevalence of this trend in softball, but putting on my lawyer hat for a moment, Rittman (like any other coach) has absolutely no justification for violating this in such a flagrant fashion. It puts him in the position to be held hostage by a single parent who's keeping track and wants the coach out, and if the result is major sanctions and a show-cause penalty that forces the University into a position where they have no choice but to fire an otherwise outstanding coach, then the practice should be avoided at all costs. Unless the NCAA's show cause penalties against Rittman were really about the other allegations and they used the practice hours as the justification, then this seems like a pretty serious offense you would want to avoid.

[2006alum]

No, I'm not blaming the parents.  What I am saying is that I don't think Rittman is or was the only top level coach that fudges hours, but he's probably the only one who had parents after him, particularly given that that was a direct threat they made during the meeting with Muir.  And the appearance of that threat or Muir's reaction may not have diminished in the eyes of coaching candidates.  Or maybe it has.  We'll find out later this year.

I am in no way qualified to speak as to the prevalence of this trend in softball, but putting on my lawyer hat for a moment, Rittman (like any other coach) has absolutely no justification for violating this in such a flagrant fashion. It puts him in the position to be held hostage by a single parent who's keeping track and wants the coach out, and if the result is major sanctions and a show-cause penalty that forces the University into a position where they have no choice but to fire an otherwise outstanding coach, then the practice should be avoided at all costs. Unless the NCAA's show cause penalties against Rittman were really about the other allegations and they used the practice hours as the justification, then this seems like a pretty serious offense you would want to avoid.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190489#msg190489 date=1490305612]
No, I'm not blaming the parents.  What I am saying is that I don't think Rittman is or was the only top level coach that fudges hours, but he's probably the only one who had parents after him, particularly given that that was a direct threat they made during the meeting with Muir.  And the appearance of that threat or Muir's reaction may not have diminished in the eyes of coaching candidates.  Or maybe it has.  We'll find out later this year.

I am in no way qualified to speak as to the prevalence of this trend in softball, but putting on my lawyer hat for a moment, Rittman (like any other coach) has absolutely no justification for violating this in such a flagrant fashion. It puts him in the position to be held hostage by a single parent who's keeping track and wants the coach out, and if the result is major sanctions and a show-cause penalty that forces the University into a position where they have no choice but to fire an otherwise outstanding coach, then the practice should be avoided at all costs. Unless the NCAA's show cause penalties against Rittman were really about the other allegations and they used the practice hours as the justification, then this seems like a pretty serious offense you would want to avoid.
[/quote]

By "flagrant fashion" what do you mean?  it seems to me that there's only one way to violate the NCAA rule on practice time limits, and that's in the way that he did it: have his players practice longer then allowed, then lie on his records.  Is that what you meant by "flagrant fashion" or were you referring to something else?  Specifically, is there a non-flagrant way to violate the rule, perhaps a subtle way?

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190489#msg190489 date=1490305612]
No, I'm not blaming the parents.  What I am saying is that I don't think Rittman is or was the only top level coach that fudges hours, but he's probably the only one who had parents after him, particularly given that that was a direct threat they made during the meeting with Muir.  And the appearance of that threat or Muir's reaction may not have diminished in the eyes of coaching candidates.  Or maybe it has.  We'll find out later this year.

I am in no way qualified to speak as to the prevalence of this trend in softball, but putting on my lawyer hat for a moment, Rittman (like any other coach) has absolutely no justification for violating this in such a flagrant fashion. It puts him in the position to be held hostage by a single parent who's keeping track and wants the coach out, and if the result is major sanctions and a show-cause penalty that forces the University into a position where they have no choice but to fire an otherwise outstanding coach, then the practice should be avoided at all costs. Unless the NCAA's show cause penalties against Rittman were really about the other allegations and they used the practice hours as the justification, then this seems like a pretty serious offense you would want to avoid.
[/quote]

By "flagrant fashion" what do you mean?  it seems to me that there's only one way to violate the NCAA rule on practice time limits, and that's in the way that he did it: have his players practice longer then allowed, then lie on his records.  Is that what you meant by "flagrant fashion" or were you referring to something else?  Specifically, is there a non-flagrant way to violate the rule, perhaps a subtle way?

[Owen Tufornomor]

There are nine Pac-12 softball teams.  Six of them are in the top 25, ןɐɔ is #26. Only Stanford and Oregon State are unranked.  Here's the current pac-12 rankings and records.  I don't see Hanson doing well here.

Oregon, #3 (27-0)
Arizona, #5 (29-1)
Washington, #6 (24-3)
Utah, #11 (21-4)
UCLA, #15 (21-8)
Arizona State, #21 (19-8)
ןɐɔ, #26 (17-8)
Stanford, unranked,(16-10)
Oregon State, unranked, (15-11)

Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.
Here is what my crystal ball is telling me:

                                                                    5-19

I break it down like this:                   

TEAMS	          COMBINED # OF GAMES TO BE PLAYED	          WINS
Oregon-Arizona	                                          6	            "1/4"      (0 or 1, more likely 0)
Washington-Utah	                                          6	            "3/4"      (0 or 1, more likely 1)
UCLA-Cal-AZ State	                                          9	          "2 1/2"    (2 or 3, equally likely)
Oregon State	                                          3	          "1 1/2"    (1 or 2, equally likely)
TOTAL	                                          24	              5

           

If it turns out, however, that the wins total falls a good bit short of my calculated guess (as low as, say, 2 or 3 wins) I won't be *absolutely shocked*. Much depends in particular on how steep the inevitable drop-off in team hitting proves to be in the nonconference to conference play transition (not sure, but I think the '16 team finished with a sub-.200 BA in Pac-12 play) and I see that as a big question mark. Should that (20+ losses) occur, expect to see some speculative second-guessing pertaining to the question of whether or not the scheduling of so soft a nonconference lineup of opponents left the team impactfully (ultimately, in the W/L column) less prepared for Pac-12 play than it could have been, should have been.

[Owen Tufornomor]

There are nine Pac-12 softball teams.  Six of them are in the top 25, ןɐɔ is #26. Only Stanford and Oregon State are unranked.  Here's the current pac-12 rankings and records.  I don't see Hanson doing well here.

Oregon, #3 (27-0)
Arizona, #5 (29-1)
Washington, #6 (24-3)
Utah, #11 (21-4)
UCLA, #15 (21-8)
Arizona State, #21 (19-8)
ןɐɔ, #26 (17-8)
Stanford, unranked,(16-10)
Oregon State, unranked, (15-11)

Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.
Here is what my crystal ball is telling me:

                                                                    5-19

I break it down like this:                   

TEAMS	          COMBINED # OF GAMES TO BE PLAYED	          WINS
Oregon-Arizona	                                          6	            "1/4"      (0 or 1, more likely 0)
Washington-Utah	                                          6	            "3/4"      (0 or 1, more likely 1)
UCLA-Cal-AZ State	                                          9	          "2 1/2"    (2 or 3, equally likely)
Oregon State	                                          3	          "1 1/2"    (1 or 2, equally likely)
TOTAL	                                          24	              5

           

If it turns out, however, that the wins total falls a good bit short of my calculated guess (as low as, say, 2 or 3 wins) I won't be *absolutely shocked*. Much depends in particular on how steep the inevitable drop-off in team hitting proves to be in the nonconference to conference play transition (not sure, but I think the '16 team finished with a sub-.200 BA in Pac-12 play) and I see that as a big question mark. Should that (20+ losses) occur, expect to see some speculative second-guessing pertaining to the question of whether or not the scheduling of so soft a nonconference lineup of opponents left the team impactfully (ultimately, in the W/L column) less prepared for Pac-12 play than it could have been, should have been.

[CTcard]

And candidly, I wonder how many of the very finest softball coaches have practices longer than the NCAA allows, but don't have watchdog parents (or others) jotting down start-and-stop times.

Personally, I don't care much about the answer to that question.

Rather strongly, I don't want my school to continue to employ coaches who knowingly file false reports to the school and the NCAA. I don't believe that Stanford should employ a coach found personally responsible for NCAA level II violations and under a show-cause penalty. That makes me cry when they are able coaches, but doesn't change the balance.

Other programs cheating (or not) wouldn't change my stance.

[CTcard]

And candidly, I wonder how many of the very finest softball coaches have practices longer than the NCAA allows, but don't have watchdog parents (or others) jotting down start-and-stop times.

Personally, I don't care much about the answer to that question.

Rather strongly, I don't want my school to continue to employ coaches who knowingly file false reports to the school and the NCAA. I don't believe that Stanford should employ a coach found personally responsible for NCAA level II violations and under a show-cause penalty. That makes me cry when they are able coaches, but doesn't change the balance.

Other programs cheating (or not) wouldn't change my stance.

[2006alum]

By "flagrant fashion" what do you mean?  it seems to me that there's only one way to violate the NCAA rule on practice time limits, and that's in the way that he did it: have his players practice longer then allowed, then lie on his records.  Is that what you meant by "flagrant fashion" or were you referring to something else?  Specifically, is there a non-flagrant way to violate the rule, perhaps a subtle way?

It seems to me there's a difference between a knowing and accidental violation. I suspect there could be instances in which coaches accidentally lose track of the number of hours, miscalculate totals, have an assistant be unaware of the rule or of the applicable hours limitations, etc. But a willful and ongoing series of violations that requires repeated falsification of records is, IMHO, flagrant.

See Merriam-Webster:

2: conspicuously offensive flagrant errors; especially :  so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality

[2006alum]

By "flagrant fashion" what do you mean?  it seems to me that there's only one way to violate the NCAA rule on practice time limits, and that's in the way that he did it: have his players practice longer then allowed, then lie on his records.  Is that what you meant by "flagrant fashion" or were you referring to something else?  Specifically, is there a non-flagrant way to violate the rule, perhaps a subtle way?

It seems to me there's a difference between a knowing and accidental violation. I suspect there could be instances in which coaches accidentally lose track of the number of hours, miscalculate totals, have an assistant be unaware of the rule or of the applicable hours limitations, etc. But a willful and ongoing series of violations that requires repeated falsification of records is, IMHO, flagrant.

See Merriam-Webster:

2: conspicuously offensive flagrant errors; especially :  so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality

[M T]

Some of the items in this discussion are seemingly expressed opinions of the authors.  For instance, "flagrant".  If someone can provide NCAA or Stanford use of that word regarding Rittman's activities, it would be illuminating.  Until that is provided, such a word is just someone's opinion.

I looked around for information on Rittman, the situation that happened at Stanford, and the subsequent (quick) hiring of him at Kansas. 
The NCAA public announcement is at
  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...35990526=1

This indicates that "Stanford University did not monitor countable athletically related activity for its softball program".
"The former head softball coach did not promote an atmosphere of compliance when he directed, supervised and had knowledge of countable activity violations in his program"

I do not see "falsification or records" or "flagrant" in the NCAA's report.  The "show-cause order" was
"During that time [one year], if an NCAA member school hires the coach, it must conduct compliance education sessions for the coach."

The best article I found was
  http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coach...325754.php
Again, the words are the reporters opinion:

Judging from the transcript [of the meeting between some active & former players & parents with Muir], the meeting was long on opinions critical of Rittman, his staff and the medical treatment some players received, but short on examples of the coach’s shortcomings. There was vague talk of coaches bad-mouthing players, urging players to change class schedules for practice needs and overworking pitchers. Players described feelings of depression and disputes with coaches over financial aid. At times, the discussion bordered on the trivial: Rich and others said the coaches made a point of greeting some parents at games and ignoring others
...
The university found that Rittman conducted practices slightly beyond the NCAA limit of 20 hours a week, several players and parents said.

  (Obviously there is more than this in that article.)

By the way, I found a number of KU articles on Rittman, none of which mentioned any NCAA "show cause" orders (nor even the controversy at Stanford). 


In my own opinion, I am not critical of Muir.  The situation on the team had deteriorated badly before the meeting with Muir.  Whether the disgruntled parents & players were a majority is not important.  They were more than a few.  Whether Rittman was essentially blameless or culpable, the team was fractured.  There was no clean way to resolve this.  If I were in Muir's shoes & looking for a coach, I'd be looking for someone that ALL the players would be able to accept & work with & hopefully mend together.  Oh yea, if that person can coach softball, that would be good too.  I'd first ask if the current coach has gotten the team onto an even keel and prepared for the future.

[M T]

Some of the items in this discussion are seemingly expressed opinions of the authors.  For instance, "flagrant".  If someone can provide NCAA or Stanford use of that word regarding Rittman's activities, it would be illuminating.  Until that is provided, such a word is just someone's opinion.

I looked around for information on Rittman, the situation that happened at Stanford, and the subsequent (quick) hiring of him at Kansas. 
The NCAA public announcement is at
  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...35990526=1

This indicates that "Stanford University did not monitor countable athletically related activity for its softball program".
"The former head softball coach did not promote an atmosphere of compliance when he directed, supervised and had knowledge of countable activity violations in his program"

I do not see "falsification or records" or "flagrant" in the NCAA's report.  The "show-cause order" was
"During that time [one year], if an NCAA member school hires the coach, it must conduct compliance education sessions for the coach."

The best article I found was
  http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coach...325754.php
Again, the words are the reporters opinion:

Judging from the transcript [of the meeting between some active & former players & parents with Muir], the meeting was long on opinions critical of Rittman, his staff and the medical treatment some players received, but short on examples of the coach’s shortcomings. There was vague talk of coaches bad-mouthing players, urging players to change class schedules for practice needs and overworking pitchers. Players described feelings of depression and disputes with coaches over financial aid. At times, the discussion bordered on the trivial: Rich and others said the coaches made a point of greeting some parents at games and ignoring others
...
The university found that Rittman conducted practices slightly beyond the NCAA limit of 20 hours a week, several players and parents said.

  (Obviously there is more than this in that article.)

By the way, I found a number of KU articles on Rittman, none of which mentioned any NCAA "show cause" orders (nor even the controversy at Stanford). 


In my own opinion, I am not critical of Muir.  The situation on the team had deteriorated badly before the meeting with Muir.  Whether the disgruntled parents & players were a majority is not important.  They were more than a few.  Whether Rittman was essentially blameless or culpable, the team was fractured.  There was no clean way to resolve this.  If I were in Muir's shoes & looking for a coach, I'd be looking for someone that ALL the players would be able to accept & work with & hopefully mend together.  Oh yea, if that person can coach softball, that would be good too.  I'd first ask if the current coach has gotten the team onto an even keel and prepared for the future.