[Owen Tufornomor]

My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.
 
One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Prior to being named head coach at Stanford, Rittman spent four seasons as an assistant coach at the University of Washington. With the Huskies, he was responsible for teaching the fundamentals of hitting as well as defensive play. Rittman helped start the program and, within just four seasons, the Huskies had earned a No. 1 national ranking, won the 1996 Pac-10 Championship, made three NCAA Tournament appearances and notched a runner-up finish in their first trip to the Women's College World Series. Washington became the first team since Texas A&M (1983) to advance to the championship game in its first appearance at the WCWS.

Before his appointment at Washington, Rittman spent two seasons as an assistant at Minnesota. During his second year, the Golden Gophers won the Big Ten Conference with a 20-4 league record. The team batting average jumped from .235 to .269 and the Gophers set team and individual records in almost every offensive category. The Minnesota squad led the nation in hits and total bases en route to a No. 15 national ranking. Rittman also helped produce two Golden Gopher All-Americans.

From 1988-90, Rittman was an assistant coach at Oregon. During his stay, the Ducks played in the 1989 Women's College World Series, set several team and individual offensive records and produced an All-American.

[Owen Tufornomor]

My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.
 
One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Prior to being named head coach at Stanford, Rittman spent four seasons as an assistant coach at the University of Washington. With the Huskies, he was responsible for teaching the fundamentals of hitting as well as defensive play. Rittman helped start the program and, within just four seasons, the Huskies had earned a No. 1 national ranking, won the 1996 Pac-10 Championship, made three NCAA Tournament appearances and notched a runner-up finish in their first trip to the Women's College World Series. Washington became the first team since Texas A&M (1983) to advance to the championship game in its first appearance at the WCWS.

Before his appointment at Washington, Rittman spent two seasons as an assistant at Minnesota. During his second year, the Golden Gophers won the Big Ten Conference with a 20-4 league record. The team batting average jumped from .235 to .269 and the Gophers set team and individual records in almost every offensive category. The Minnesota squad led the nation in hits and total bases en route to a No. 15 national ranking. Rittman also helped produce two Golden Gopher All-Americans.

From 1988-90, Rittman was an assistant coach at Oregon. During his stay, the Ducks played in the 1989 Women's College World Series, set several team and individual offensive records and produced an All-American.

[d4cohn]

Sorry Owen. I should have been more extensive with my Utah/Washington comment. Essentially, my point was if you have assigned 1 win between the six Utah/Washington games as the most likely outcome, then in order to achieve that most likely outcome (i.e. 1 win between the two series), I personally thought it would be more likely that the 1 win would come at home against Utah, as opposed to on the road against Washington. I apologize if this line of thinking still runs counter to the probabilistic-based message that you wished to convey; I had based my predicted record on my perception of our Pac-12 opponents, rather than a probability-based approach. In any case, thanks to any brevity in my comments, clearly I am acquitting myself well as an Informatics student.  :)

On another note, we started Pac-12 play with a 1-0 loss to Cal. Carolyn turned in another outstanding pitching performance (1 ER, 2 Hits, 4 SO); however, we struggled mightily on offense, with only two hits and no walks drawn.

[d4cohn]

Sorry Owen. I should have been more extensive with my Utah/Washington comment. Essentially, my point was if you have assigned 1 win between the six Utah/Washington games as the most likely outcome, then in order to achieve that most likely outcome (i.e. 1 win between the two series), I personally thought it would be more likely that the 1 win would come at home against Utah, as opposed to on the road against Washington. I apologize if this line of thinking still runs counter to the probabilistic-based message that you wished to convey; I had based my predicted record on my perception of our Pac-12 opponents, rather than a probability-based approach. In any case, thanks to any brevity in my comments, clearly I am acquitting myself well as an Informatics student.  :)

On another note, we started Pac-12 play with a 1-0 loss to Cal. Carolyn turned in another outstanding pitching performance (1 ER, 2 Hits, 4 SO); however, we struggled mightily on offense, with only two hits and no walks drawn.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190528#msg190528 date=1490385179]


My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?[/quote]

An exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school because they're already exceedingly successful there.  Why would they be at risk?  There's no reason to change.  If they're going to be safe anywhere, it will be the known quantity (current school with highly successful program) versus the unknown quantity (Stanford, with very unsuccessful program and poorly performing recruits). 

Actually, that's not 100% true...Stanford and more specifically Muir are known quantities in the softball world, given the perception of how Rittman was treated.

And you proved my point, perhaps inadvertently, in the latter part of your post.  You referenced Rittman's background as an assistant coach at three programs; Washington, Minnesota and Oregon.  He wasn't a successful head coach.  He finally got his chance at the brass ring, and went to the NCAAs every year but two in a very, very long career at Stanford.

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.

 

The knowledge absolutely exists.  Any AD who will blindside any coach with a meeting of players and parents of which the coach is not aware, nor to which the coach is invited, is by definition an AD who doesn't have my back.  If I'm a very successful coach of a successful program, I already know that my AD has my back, because they do and have for my entire career there.  And I know that Muir will not have my back because the nearest thing he's ever had to a successful coach is John Rittman, and as a successful coach, I can see that he hasn't had Rittman's back.  Rittman who is respected enough to coach for team USA, a spot that Hanson can't see with the Hubble telescope.

One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Then why did Muir have to settle for Hanson?  With the entire country of successful softball coaches, why were we stuck with the female Buddy Teevens?

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190528#msg190528 date=1490385179]


My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?[/quote]

An exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school because they're already exceedingly successful there.  Why would they be at risk?  There's no reason to change.  If they're going to be safe anywhere, it will be the known quantity (current school with highly successful program) versus the unknown quantity (Stanford, with very unsuccessful program and poorly performing recruits). 

Actually, that's not 100% true...Stanford and more specifically Muir are known quantities in the softball world, given the perception of how Rittman was treated.

And you proved my point, perhaps inadvertently, in the latter part of your post.  You referenced Rittman's background as an assistant coach at three programs; Washington, Minnesota and Oregon.  He wasn't a successful head coach.  He finally got his chance at the brass ring, and went to the NCAAs every year but two in a very, very long career at Stanford.

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.

 

The knowledge absolutely exists.  Any AD who will blindside any coach with a meeting of players and parents of which the coach is not aware, nor to which the coach is invited, is by definition an AD who doesn't have my back.  If I'm a very successful coach of a successful program, I already know that my AD has my back, because they do and have for my entire career there.  And I know that Muir will not have my back because the nearest thing he's ever had to a successful coach is John Rittman, and as a successful coach, I can see that he hasn't had Rittman's back.  Rittman who is respected enough to coach for team USA, a spot that Hanson can't see with the Hubble telescope.

One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Then why did Muir have to settle for Hanson?  With the entire country of successful softball coaches, why were we stuck with the female Buddy Teevens?

[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189987#msg189987 date=1489551530]
[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.
[/quote]

Page 1 of 3

Thank you, Mr. Cohn, for the virtual confirmation that this year indeed is a CONTRACT UP FOR RENEWAL year for Coach Hanson.

The day I read http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...esignation was the day I soured to the point of no return on Rachel K. Hanson, as a head coach, or for that matter, as a coach at any level. Among the most disturbing of numerous quite disturbing quotes (and accounts) provided by the article were these:

*  Hanson:  "I don't care whether we win this game or not, we're going to learn a lesson tonight."

*  Leah White, one of the team's best players of Seasons 2012-2014 (best, that is, prior to the arrival of Rachel Hanson and the Dartmouth Duo's other half, Dorian Shaw):  "You need to feel the confidence coming from your coaches. You need to feel like they want you to do well, and I definitely did not get that this year, whatsoever." (I do hope this former player and her outspoken, principled peers named in the article have received due appreciation for getting the word out.)

Today's lesson: It is best that one who would seek to be assured of never having to witness the materialization on an internet forum of a deadly accurate and brutally candid 2000-word critique of one's (in this case, dismal) job performance never, ever, treat a Stanford student-athlete like dirt.

Whatever the circumstances may be, I don't ever want to hear the words "I don't care whether we win this game or not" coming from a coach.

The team batting average posted in Hanson's first season fell 37 points short of that achieved in Rittman's last. Needless to say, the 92-point plummet in batting average suffered by the "Captain Bligh"ed player quoted above must be recognized as a big-time contributor to the team's significant statistical decline on offense.

Unsurprisingly, certainly, Hanson seemed absolutely insulated--absolutely unbothered and unfettered by any possible presence of job security concerns--in conducting her inaugural-year softball duties. In all likelihood there were no such concerns.  None whatsoever. After all, first-year coaches tend to be cut untold tons of slack, and for good reason. But will the second-year coach necessarily be extended mercy in measure equal to or approaching that enjoyed in Year 1? Very, very hard to conceive of that not being the case here, as certain striking Year 2016 observations (which, to my deep regret, cannot be recounted here, but which I would be infinitely more than happy to detail in a private and confidential in-person meeting with Mr. Bernard Muir if extended the opportunity) have left me hard pressed to deny the perception that the toxic weed that was 0-24 was nourished and sustained by an underlying, utterly worry-free application of "I don't care whether we go winless in Pac-12 or not, we're going to learn a lesson this year" brand of manure-fertilizer grounded in this coach's unfortunate (for her powerless players) insulation from any possible job security concerns.

Perhaps, then, you the reader can empathize with the disgust I felt at the sight of what I consider to be an unsatisfactory and indeed, I believe, sinfully OMISSIVE shrug-off of ZERO and TWENTY-FOUR in the form of Hanson's May 27, 2016 retweet of the following:

"Transformation doesn't happen overnight, but as a result of faithful progress in the right direction over time."

In my judgment a demonstrated failure to make the most of one's first two years on the job with respect to striving at all times to achieve success at the highest achievable level does not demonstrate faithful progress in the right direction.

Regarding the upcoming evaluation of Coach Hanson's career contributions to Stanford Softball, a performance analysis of the full three years of this coach's tenure, not merely the final (one hopes) year, must be rendered. After all, this coach, like any other, deserves to be paid in full her due.

Which reminds me (of BobK's earlier articulated point that "Rome wasn't built overnight")... This, from the Internet: "According to the highest viewed response on Quora: 'So far it's taken approximately 1,009,491 days to build Rome. This is based on the traditional founding of the city [21 April 753 BCE], but we should also consider that the city has been sacked and rebuilt several times.' I did the math, that's about 2,764 years." (Updating the math to reflect the fact that the Quora quote is just over a year old yields a result of 2,765 years.) Perhaps Coach Bligh would not be averse to the prospect of a 2,765-year period of confinement to reconstructive limbo, but I know of no one else, outside the ranks of the current coaching regime, who would not be. But I digress...

[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189987#msg189987 date=1489551530]
[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.

This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]

I heard, from a source I trust, that a former player was told this in a meeting she had with Bernard. This former player, from what I was told, was incredulous that the coaching staff would be retained after last year's 0-24 Pac-12 performance, and this was part of the answer given as to why the staff was retained. Bernard also apparently wanted to give Coach Hanson a chance with this freshman class.
[/quote]

Page 1 of 3

Thank you, Mr. Cohn, for the virtual confirmation that this year indeed is a CONTRACT UP FOR RENEWAL year for Coach Hanson.

The day I read http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...esignation was the day I soured to the point of no return on Rachel K. Hanson, as a head coach, or for that matter, as a coach at any level. Among the most disturbing of numerous quite disturbing quotes (and accounts) provided by the article were these:

*  Hanson:  "I don't care whether we win this game or not, we're going to learn a lesson tonight."

*  Leah White, one of the team's best players of Seasons 2012-2014 (best, that is, prior to the arrival of Rachel Hanson and the Dartmouth Duo's other half, Dorian Shaw):  "You need to feel the confidence coming from your coaches. You need to feel like they want you to do well, and I definitely did not get that this year, whatsoever." (I do hope this former player and her outspoken, principled peers named in the article have received due appreciation for getting the word out.)

Today's lesson: It is best that one who would seek to be assured of never having to witness the materialization on an internet forum of a deadly accurate and brutally candid 2000-word critique of one's (in this case, dismal) job performance never, ever, treat a Stanford student-athlete like dirt.

Whatever the circumstances may be, I don't ever want to hear the words "I don't care whether we win this game or not" coming from a coach.

The team batting average posted in Hanson's first season fell 37 points short of that achieved in Rittman's last. Needless to say, the 92-point plummet in batting average suffered by the "Captain Bligh"ed player quoted above must be recognized as a big-time contributor to the team's significant statistical decline on offense.

Unsurprisingly, certainly, Hanson seemed absolutely insulated--absolutely unbothered and unfettered by any possible presence of job security concerns--in conducting her inaugural-year softball duties. In all likelihood there were no such concerns.  None whatsoever. After all, first-year coaches tend to be cut untold tons of slack, and for good reason. But will the second-year coach necessarily be extended mercy in measure equal to or approaching that enjoyed in Year 1? Very, very hard to conceive of that not being the case here, as certain striking Year 2016 observations (which, to my deep regret, cannot be recounted here, but which I would be infinitely more than happy to detail in a private and confidential in-person meeting with Mr. Bernard Muir if extended the opportunity) have left me hard pressed to deny the perception that the toxic weed that was 0-24 was nourished and sustained by an underlying, utterly worry-free application of "I don't care whether we go winless in Pac-12 or not, we're going to learn a lesson this year" brand of manure-fertilizer grounded in this coach's unfortunate (for her powerless players) insulation from any possible job security concerns.

Perhaps, then, you the reader can empathize with the disgust I felt at the sight of what I consider to be an unsatisfactory and indeed, I believe, sinfully OMISSIVE shrug-off of ZERO and TWENTY-FOUR in the form of Hanson's May 27, 2016 retweet of the following:

"Transformation doesn't happen overnight, but as a result of faithful progress in the right direction over time."

In my judgment a demonstrated failure to make the most of one's first two years on the job with respect to striving at all times to achieve success at the highest achievable level does not demonstrate faithful progress in the right direction.

Regarding the upcoming evaluation of Coach Hanson's career contributions to Stanford Softball, a performance analysis of the full three years of this coach's tenure, not merely the final (one hopes) year, must be rendered. After all, this coach, like any other, deserves to be paid in full her due.

Which reminds me (of BobK's earlier articulated point that "Rome wasn't built overnight")... This, from the Internet: "According to the highest viewed response on Quora: 'So far it's taken approximately 1,009,491 days to build Rome. This is based on the traditional founding of the city [21 April 753 BCE], but we should also consider that the city has been sacked and rebuilt several times.' I did the math, that's about 2,764 years." (Updating the math to reflect the fact that the Quora quote is just over a year old yields a result of 2,765 years.) Perhaps Coach Bligh would not be averse to the prospect of a 2,765-year period of confinement to reconstructive limbo, but I know of no one else, outside the ranks of the current coaching regime, who would not be. But I digress...

[Owen Tufornomor]

Page 2 of 3

In mid-spring, 2016, having just witnessed a second consecutive year that seemingly reflected a job-security confidence (held by Fearless Leader) of unsurpassably lofty "I don't care if we win..." degree, I couldn't help but speculate with more than a little suspicion that Hanson more than likely had been guaranteed (at least) 3 years upon being hired. Thanks again, Mr. Cohn, for virtually confirming that to be the case.

Coming off a winless Pac-12 season, Hanson now finds herself in the best possible position to match or surpass the +8 (wins) rebound (from 7-13 to 15-5) posted in her "corresponding" 3rd year at Dartmouth. And oh what an impressive achievement that would be if not for Hanson's having "overnight-transformed" a team that had no business regressing to the point of [i]winlessness, to say the very, very least, into the mother of the Mother of All Goose Eggs[/i]. Not even with the assistance of 0-24 in all its infamy can this coach be assured of tasting the sweet(?) mirage of glory of a repeat of that eye-popping-at-first-sight-only feat of four years ago. And when the last pitch of 2017 has been thrown, the last swing taken, I rather doubt it will take a magnifying glass to determine just how far short the effort fell.

Now, here's why that "+8" rebound at Dartmouth was/is hardly as remarkable as it might seem at a mere glance. Take a look at the conference records (in bold below) compiled by Hanson's teams over the past 6 years.

Year	Dartmouth	Stanford
  0	    11-7	5-19
  1	  10-10	  2-22
  2	    7-13	0-24
  3	    15-5	    ?
  4	    18-2

Notice a pattern here? In each of the two cases illustrated above ("Dartmouth" and "Stanford") Hanson in Year 1 falls short of reaching her predecessor's wins total (see Year 0 results above). Then in Year 2 Hanson again comes up short, this time failing to reach her own wins total from the previous year. And then last, but hardly least, after the 2-year decline comes the Year 3 rebound.

In both cases an obviously better method of measuring progress made (if any) under Hanson's first 3 years of leadership (better than a "tunnel vision" comparison of Year 3 to Year 2, that is) would be a comparison of Year 3 to Year 0 (her predecessor's record). Applying this truer measuring stick, 15-5 represents a comparatively modest (to call it "transformational" would surely be a stretch) upswing of 3 wins (the .611 winning percentage for the 18-game season of Year 0 translating to 12.2 wins [12, rounded] for a 20-game season) for a 3-year period. (Alas, if this year's Stanford team is to match even a rate of progress that modest it will have to produce a "Pac-12" result of 8 wins in defiance of some rather imposing odds. Moreover, whether or not, heaven forbid, this team even will rise from the depths to which Hanson has led it to match the 5 wins bagged by the crippled team of Rittman's final year remains to be seen.)

You may have noticed that Year 4 witnessed further improvement at Dartmouth, record-wise; unfortunately, however, Year 4 marks the fork in the road where the schools' heretofore striking similarity in "pattern" comes to an abrupt end. Why? A few major considerations:

1. The high-impact offensive players of the strongest by far class recruited by Hanson at Stanford--this year's frosh--are approaching their offensive productivity ceiling now. Given that several of them already are making offensive contributions of mammoth proportions, and barring the impossibility that these players may have been blessed with superhuman potential, one's hope of witnessing in these players' post-frosh years a significant surge in their collective offensive productivity (i.e., one sufficient to produce a significant increase in the number of would-be "L"s transformed into "W"s), frankly, seems a pipe dream.

2. Seven weeks down the road this team will be losing 3 core players who proved lethal at the plate in 2017 nonconference play and who as a group play solid and at times spectacular defense to boot.

3. Hanson apparently recruited some good players at Dartmouth (not to mention more good 'uns, post-"Prize Class of 2017", at Stanford), good enough to win an Ivy League Championship in her final year with the Big Green. However, recruiting good players in the elite Pac-12 will land you in the lower half of the conference as a recruiter, and quite possibly near or in the cellar.

Should the current coaching staff be retained indefinitely, somewhat of a narrowing of the gap between Stanford and the upper tier teams can be expected in spite of that most undesired development as the Bigs continue to replace graduating "elites" ("Tens") with more Tens while Stanford sporadically progresses with glacial urgency over the next decade or two from today's level "Seven" or so team to  a Seven and a Half, and then hopefully, someday before we all have departed this earth, perhaps an Eight. Should no change at the top be forthcoming in the foreseeable future I'll feign no surprise if Stanford finds itself shut out throughout the next half-century in its quest to secure its next World Series berth, not to mention a National Championship.

All things considered, then, I anticipate that Year 4 under Hanson, should there be one, will be a year of regression. The only question is, regression to what extent? ("The only question," that is, unless one counts the follow-up question destined to spring from succeeding years, just where will it end?)

[Owen Tufornomor]

Page 2 of 3

In mid-spring, 2016, having just witnessed a second consecutive year that seemingly reflected a job-security confidence (held by Fearless Leader) of unsurpassably lofty "I don't care if we win..." degree, I couldn't help but speculate with more than a little suspicion that Hanson more than likely had been guaranteed (at least) 3 years upon being hired. Thanks again, Mr. Cohn, for virtually confirming that to be the case.

Coming off a winless Pac-12 season, Hanson now finds herself in the best possible position to match or surpass the +8 (wins) rebound (from 7-13 to 15-5) posted in her "corresponding" 3rd year at Dartmouth. And oh what an impressive achievement that would be if not for Hanson's having "overnight-transformed" a team that had no business regressing to the point of [i]winlessness, to say the very, very least, into the mother of the Mother of All Goose Eggs[/i]. Not even with the assistance of 0-24 in all its infamy can this coach be assured of tasting the sweet(?) mirage of glory of a repeat of that eye-popping-at-first-sight-only feat of four years ago. And when the last pitch of 2017 has been thrown, the last swing taken, I rather doubt it will take a magnifying glass to determine just how far short the effort fell.

Now, here's why that "+8" rebound at Dartmouth was/is hardly as remarkable as it might seem at a mere glance. Take a look at the conference records (in bold below) compiled by Hanson's teams over the past 6 years.

Year	Dartmouth	Stanford
  0	    11-7	5-19
  1	  10-10	  2-22
  2	    7-13	0-24
  3	    15-5	    ?
  4	    18-2

Notice a pattern here? In each of the two cases illustrated above ("Dartmouth" and "Stanford") Hanson in Year 1 falls short of reaching her predecessor's wins total (see Year 0 results above). Then in Year 2 Hanson again comes up short, this time failing to reach her own wins total from the previous year. And then last, but hardly least, after the 2-year decline comes the Year 3 rebound.

In both cases an obviously better method of measuring progress made (if any) under Hanson's first 3 years of leadership (better than a "tunnel vision" comparison of Year 3 to Year 2, that is) would be a comparison of Year 3 to Year 0 (her predecessor's record). Applying this truer measuring stick, 15-5 represents a comparatively modest (to call it "transformational" would surely be a stretch) upswing of 3 wins (the .611 winning percentage for the 18-game season of Year 0 translating to 12.2 wins [12, rounded] for a 20-game season) for a 3-year period. (Alas, if this year's Stanford team is to match even a rate of progress that modest it will have to produce a "Pac-12" result of 8 wins in defiance of some rather imposing odds. Moreover, whether or not, heaven forbid, this team even will rise from the depths to which Hanson has led it to match the 5 wins bagged by the crippled team of Rittman's final year remains to be seen.)

You may have noticed that Year 4 witnessed further improvement at Dartmouth, record-wise; unfortunately, however, Year 4 marks the fork in the road where the schools' heretofore striking similarity in "pattern" comes to an abrupt end. Why? A few major considerations:

1. The high-impact offensive players of the strongest by far class recruited by Hanson at Stanford--this year's frosh--are approaching their offensive productivity ceiling now. Given that several of them already are making offensive contributions of mammoth proportions, and barring the impossibility that these players may have been blessed with superhuman potential, one's hope of witnessing in these players' post-frosh years a significant surge in their collective offensive productivity (i.e., one sufficient to produce a significant increase in the number of would-be "L"s transformed into "W"s), frankly, seems a pipe dream.

2. Seven weeks down the road this team will be losing 3 core players who proved lethal at the plate in 2017 nonconference play and who as a group play solid and at times spectacular defense to boot.

3. Hanson apparently recruited some good players at Dartmouth (not to mention more good 'uns, post-"Prize Class of 2017", at Stanford), good enough to win an Ivy League Championship in her final year with the Big Green. However, recruiting good players in the elite Pac-12 will land you in the lower half of the conference as a recruiter, and quite possibly near or in the cellar.

Should the current coaching staff be retained indefinitely, somewhat of a narrowing of the gap between Stanford and the upper tier teams can be expected in spite of that most undesired development as the Bigs continue to replace graduating "elites" ("Tens") with more Tens while Stanford sporadically progresses with glacial urgency over the next decade or two from today's level "Seven" or so team to  a Seven and a Half, and then hopefully, someday before we all have departed this earth, perhaps an Eight. Should no change at the top be forthcoming in the foreseeable future I'll feign no surprise if Stanford finds itself shut out throughout the next half-century in its quest to secure its next World Series berth, not to mention a National Championship.

All things considered, then, I anticipate that Year 4 under Hanson, should there be one, will be a year of regression. The only question is, regression to what extent? ("The only question," that is, unless one counts the follow-up question destined to spring from succeeding years, just where will it end?)

[Owen Tufornomor]

Page 3 of 3

If I were AD at Stanford University, this year's "magic number" with respect to renewing Hanson's contract would be set precisely at 25 conference wins; nonetheless, I personally would tolerate that number being set at an absolute minimum of 8. Should this team fall short of winning 1/3 of its 24 conference games then, to my mind, there can be no reasonable doubt in anyone's mind regarding the proper course of action to take this off-season. It's a no-brainer NO DEAL on the contract renewal; while 8 or 9 wins would be a conversation starter only, not a guaranteed renewal. Ten or more wins in Pac-12 play? (Do you believe in miracles?? Yes!!! - I mean, no, not one of that magnitude.) Seriously, if such a miracle actually were to materialize then I, for one, would voice no objection should the signing of a one-year extension follow, just a matter-of-fact reiteration that I myself would have set the bar at 25 (at the urging of my ethical instincts).

Now, before I wrap this up, how 'bout we review expectations and results of the past season. Are you ready for this? Are you sure you're ready? Okay, here we go...

"We're ready to put Stanford softball back on the map. We want to redefine the program and see what this team is able to do this year. We're going to surprise a lot of people." Such was the vision of one senior player (sounding not unlike someone parroting words heard in a coaches-led team meeting) shortly before the commencement of the 2016 season.

So very sorry to say, truer words were never spoken. Failing to reach even the lowly heights scaled a year earlier (recall that that season's team was deeply divided and distracted by fallout from the then recent ouster of John Rittman as head coach and took a significant hit in talent, experience and depth when three of its accomplished but fed up players "mutinied" under the command of Head Coach Rachel "Captain Bligh" Hanson with 10 games remaining in conference play), the historic Campaign of 2016, further undermined by heightened Hanson era "redefinition," more than took the unsuspecting softball world unawares, as the infamy of an 0-24 ambushing of Stanford Softball's players, parents, alums, admin, sundry fans and philanthropic benefactors put Stanford Softball back on the map.

Every effort must be made to equip our extraordinarily dedicated and hard-working players with all the tools needed to proudly redefine what it means to put Stanford softball back on the map, a phrase most unfortunately perversely redefined under the Hanson regime. Top priority: An upgrade in the coaching department.

In the summers of my youth I regularly recited a brief pledge of sportsmanship known as the Little League Pledge, which reads in part, as follows:

I will play fair
And strive to win
But win or lose
I will always do my best

Needless to say, the players, parents, alums, sundry fans and philanthropic benefactors of Stanford Softball--and yes, of course, the school admin itself!--are deserving of and entitled to leadership in athletics unexceptionally committed to the fundamental ideals embraced by such a pledge.

Let us (meaning you, Mr. Muir) seek, find and employ such worthy leadership (as described above) with respect to the coaching of Stanford softball!

And now, in closing, a prediction; and that is, that at season's end I shall affirm the following:

It is time the reins of Stanford Softball were surrendered to a coaching staff that bleeds Cardinal red.

[Owen Tufornomor]

Page 3 of 3

If I were AD at Stanford University, this year's "magic number" with respect to renewing Hanson's contract would be set precisely at 25 conference wins; nonetheless, I personally would tolerate that number being set at an absolute minimum of 8. Should this team fall short of winning 1/3 of its 24 conference games then, to my mind, there can be no reasonable doubt in anyone's mind regarding the proper course of action to take this off-season. It's a no-brainer NO DEAL on the contract renewal; while 8 or 9 wins would be a conversation starter only, not a guaranteed renewal. Ten or more wins in Pac-12 play? (Do you believe in miracles?? Yes!!! - I mean, no, not one of that magnitude.) Seriously, if such a miracle actually were to materialize then I, for one, would voice no objection should the signing of a one-year extension follow, just a matter-of-fact reiteration that I myself would have set the bar at 25 (at the urging of my ethical instincts).

Now, before I wrap this up, how 'bout we review expectations and results of the past season. Are you ready for this? Are you sure you're ready? Okay, here we go...

"We're ready to put Stanford softball back on the map. We want to redefine the program and see what this team is able to do this year. We're going to surprise a lot of people." Such was the vision of one senior player (sounding not unlike someone parroting words heard in a coaches-led team meeting) shortly before the commencement of the 2016 season.

So very sorry to say, truer words were never spoken. Failing to reach even the lowly heights scaled a year earlier (recall that that season's team was deeply divided and distracted by fallout from the then recent ouster of John Rittman as head coach and took a significant hit in talent, experience and depth when three of its accomplished but fed up players "mutinied" under the command of Head Coach Rachel "Captain Bligh" Hanson with 10 games remaining in conference play), the historic Campaign of 2016, further undermined by heightened Hanson era "redefinition," more than took the unsuspecting softball world unawares, as the infamy of an 0-24 ambushing of Stanford Softball's players, parents, alums, admin, sundry fans and philanthropic benefactors put Stanford Softball back on the map.

Every effort must be made to equip our extraordinarily dedicated and hard-working players with all the tools needed to proudly redefine what it means to put Stanford softball back on the map, a phrase most unfortunately perversely redefined under the Hanson regime. Top priority: An upgrade in the coaching department.

In the summers of my youth I regularly recited a brief pledge of sportsmanship known as the Little League Pledge, which reads in part, as follows:

I will play fair
And strive to win
But win or lose
I will always do my best

Needless to say, the players, parents, alums, sundry fans and philanthropic benefactors of Stanford Softball--and yes, of course, the school admin itself!--are deserving of and entitled to leadership in athletics unexceptionally committed to the fundamental ideals embraced by such a pledge.

Let us (meaning you, Mr. Muir) seek, find and employ such worthy leadership (as described above) with respect to the coaching of Stanford softball!

And now, in closing, a prediction; and that is, that at season's end I shall affirm the following:

It is time the reins of Stanford Softball were surrendered to a coaching staff that bleeds Cardinal red.

[d4cohn]

Thank you for sharing Owen. I hope your letter finds receptive ears.

On another note, we are 0-2 in Pac-12 play after a 7-4 loss to Cal. Lauren Bertoy hit a grand slam, Kylie went 2-for-3, and Kristina Inouye went 3-for-3, but we blew a 4-1 lead by giving up 7 walks and a grand slam.

[d4cohn]

Thank you for sharing Owen. I hope your letter finds receptive ears.

On another note, we are 0-2 in Pac-12 play after a 7-4 loss to Cal. Lauren Bertoy hit a grand slam, Kylie went 2-for-3, and Kristina Inouye went 3-for-3, but we blew a 4-1 lead by giving up 7 walks and a grand slam.

[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190599#msg190599 date=1490476807]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190528#msg190528 date=1490385179]


My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?[/quote]

An exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school because they're already exceedingly successful there.  Why would they be at risk?  There's no reason to change.  If they're going to be safe anywhere, it will be the known quantity (current school with highly successful program) versus the unknown quantity (Stanford, with very unsuccessful program and poorly performing recruits). 

Actually, that's not 100% true...Stanford and more specifically Muir are known quantities in the softball world, given the perception of how Rittman was treated.

And you proved my point, perhaps inadvertently, in the latter part of your post.  You referenced Rittman's background as an assistant coach at three programs; Washington, Minnesota and Oregon.  He wasn't a successful head coach.  He finally got his chance at the brass ring, and went to the NCAAs every year but two in a very, very long career at Stanford.

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.

 

The knowledge absolutely exists.  Any AD who will blindside any coach with a meeting of players and parents of which the coach is not aware, nor to which the coach is invited, is by definition an AD who doesn't have my back.  If I'm a very successful coach of a successful program, I already know that my AD has my back, because they do and have for my entire career there.  And I know that Muir will not have my back because the nearest thing he's ever had to a successful coach is John Rittman, and as a successful coach, I can see that he hasn't had Rittman's back.  Rittman who is respected enough to coach for team USA, a spot that Hanson can't see with the Hubble telescope.

One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Then why did Muir have to settle for Hanson?  With the entire country of successful softball coaches, why were we stuck with the female Buddy Teevens?
[/quote]

Really not much in the mood for doing (dialogue) donuts at the moment, which, unfortunately, is what a continuation of this discussion would entail. (And if you don't quite grasp what I mean by "doing donuts," Mick (admittedly, it's not the greatest metaphor ever), that's cool; probably just as well that you don't.)

Just briefly stopping by to add a figurative explanation point (and a literal one as well, while I'm at it) to the point that I had trusted (perhaps unwarrantedly) would be readily inferred from a reading of the Rittman background summary that I posted earlier. (Probably should have said, "One very obvious reason why it might well be the case that there's an exceedingly successful coach somewhere "out there" who would be[i] quite [/i]interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following"--a clearer clue that would have been, methinks.) Anyway, the inference intended to be drawn was/is as follows:

Should a search for a successor to Hanson be conducted at season's end, that search hardly need be limited to candidates with head coaching experience!

I have no idea whether or not Bernard looked outside the head coaching ranks in his failed 2014 search, but, if not, it may be that he was looking for gold in all the wrong places.

Have a nice evening, Mick.

[Owen Tufornomor]

[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190599#msg190599 date=1490476807]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190528#msg190528 date=1490385179]


My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.  That's the danger.  That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.  I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

Who's to say that such an exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school?[/quote]

An exceedingly successful coach is not at risk at his/her current school because they're already exceedingly successful there.  Why would they be at risk?  There's no reason to change.  If they're going to be safe anywhere, it will be the known quantity (current school with highly successful program) versus the unknown quantity (Stanford, with very unsuccessful program and poorly performing recruits). 

Actually, that's not 100% true...Stanford and more specifically Muir are known quantities in the softball world, given the perception of how Rittman was treated.

And you proved my point, perhaps inadvertently, in the latter part of your post.  You referenced Rittman's background as an assistant coach at three programs; Washington, Minnesota and Oregon.  He wasn't a successful head coach.  He finally got his chance at the brass ring, and went to the NCAAs every year but two in a very, very long career at Stanford.

You claim the existence of knowledge ("I know my AD will not have my back") where none exists. Countless people have been known to apply lessons learned in the school of hard knocks toward a correction of course. Why presume in the absence of evidence that Bernard is not one such person? And if indeed he is, why dismiss in the blink of an eye the possibility that Bernard just might be capable of sitting down with a desirable candidate at interview time and hammering home that most critical of points of concern that he (the candidate) may rest assured that Stanford '17 is not Stanford '14.

 

The knowledge absolutely exists.  Any AD who will blindside any coach with a meeting of players and parents of which the coach is not aware, nor to which the coach is invited, is by definition an AD who doesn't have my back.  If I'm a very successful coach of a successful program, I already know that my AD has my back, because they do and have for my entire career there.  And I know that Muir will not have my back because the nearest thing he's ever had to a successful coach is John Rittman, and as a successful coach, I can see that he hasn't had Rittman's back.  Rittman who is respected enough to coach for team USA, a spot that Hanson can't see with the Hubble telescope.

One very obvious reason why an exceedingly successful coach elsewhere might be interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following:

Then why did Muir have to settle for Hanson?  With the entire country of successful softball coaches, why were we stuck with the female Buddy Teevens?
[/quote]

Really not much in the mood for doing (dialogue) donuts at the moment, which, unfortunately, is what a continuation of this discussion would entail. (And if you don't quite grasp what I mean by "doing donuts," Mick (admittedly, it's not the greatest metaphor ever), that's cool; probably just as well that you don't.)

Just briefly stopping by to add a figurative explanation point (and a literal one as well, while I'm at it) to the point that I had trusted (perhaps unwarrantedly) would be readily inferred from a reading of the Rittman background summary that I posted earlier. (Probably should have said, "One very obvious reason why it might well be the case that there's an exceedingly successful coach somewhere "out there" who would be[i] quite [/i]interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following"--a clearer clue that would have been, methinks.) Anyway, the inference intended to be drawn was/is as follows:

Should a search for a successor to Hanson be conducted at season's end, that search hardly need be limited to candidates with head coaching experience!

I have no idea whether or not Bernard looked outside the head coaching ranks in his failed 2014 search, but, if not, it may be that he was looking for gold in all the wrong places.

Have a nice evening, Mick.

[BobK]

Former Stanford star Mike Aldrede's niece hit the cal grand slam  She went to Tennessee out of HS.
So 2 winnable games and we are 0-2

Mick it was not the softball trainer but the S&C coach who was head of the department. Turley then was promoted to replace him. He had been the national S&C also.
Now maybe the assistants were fired or their contract not renewed I don't know.  But 4 lost their jobs

I personally also  believe in the guilt of the AAD who John reported to,as far as NCAA violations.   

Yes several outstanding people said no to the job.    A brobdingnagian reason was the divided players of course.  Maybe one says yes in May/June

I really feel for the players.  They come first

[BobK]

Former Stanford star Mike Aldrede's niece hit the cal grand slam  She went to Tennessee out of HS.
So 2 winnable games and we are 0-2

Mick it was not the softball trainer but the S&C coach who was head of the department. Turley then was promoted to replace him. He had been the national S&C also.
Now maybe the assistants were fired or their contract not renewed I don't know.  But 4 lost their jobs

I personally also  believe in the guilt of the AAD who John reported to,as far as NCAA violations.   

Yes several outstanding people said no to the job.    A brobdingnagian reason was the divided players of course.  Maybe one says yes in May/June

I really feel for the players.  They come first

[Owen Tufornomor]

Thank you for sharing Owen. I hope your letter finds receptive ears.

On another note, we are 0-2 in Pac-12 play after a 7-4 loss to ןɐɔ. Lauren Bertoy hit a grand slam, Kylie went 2-for-3, and Kristina Inouye went 3-for-3, but we blew a 4-1 lead by giving up 7 walks and a grand slam.

Now if only Monday we could combine Saturday's pitching with Sunday's hitting!

And we so need that "W" tomorrow considering that that nasty 1.15 ERA comes to town next weekend, followed by a trip to Tucson the following weekend. Yikes!

[Owen Tufornomor]

Thank you for sharing Owen. I hope your letter finds receptive ears.

On another note, we are 0-2 in Pac-12 play after a 7-4 loss to ןɐɔ. Lauren Bertoy hit a grand slam, Kylie went 2-for-3, and Kristina Inouye went 3-for-3, but we blew a 4-1 lead by giving up 7 walks and a grand slam.

Now if only Monday we could combine Saturday's pitching with Sunday's hitting!

And we so need that "W" tomorrow considering that that nasty 1.15 ERA comes to town next weekend, followed by a trip to Tucson the following weekend. Yikes!

[Mick]

Really not much in the mood for doing (dialogue) donuts at the moment, which, unfortunately, is what a continuation of this discussion would entail. (And if you don't quite grasp what I mean by "doing donuts," Mick (admittedly, it's not the greatest metaphor ever), that's cool; probably just as well that you don't.)

"If I don't grasp what 'doing donuts' means?"  Jesus, how patronizing.  Even if I hadn't grew up in California with a Buick Gran Sport 400, 400 cubic inch engine with four barrel Rochester carburetor throwing out 280 HP (couldn't afford the Stage 1 Special Package), series 50 on the back, series 60 on the front, I would know what "doing donuts" means, it's self explanatory.  BTW, if you need me to explain any of what I just wrote, just PM me.  Happy to discuss my shady tree mechanic credentials with you any time.  Cars I've rebuilt include that Buick, a Karmann Ghia and a Fiat Spyder 850.  My mother taught me how to change the oil when I was 11 and gap spark plugs and tune a car when I was 12.

Yeah, I'll try and dope out what "doing donuts" means.  Maybe I can crack the code.

Just briefly stopping by to add a figurative explanation point (and a literal one as well, while I'm at it) to the point that I had trusted (perhaps unwarrantedly) would be readily inferred from a reading of the Rittman background summary that I posted earlier. (Probably should have said, "One very obvious reason why it might well be the case that there's an exceedingly successful coach somewhere "out there" who would be[i] quite [/i]interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following"--a clearer clue that would have been, methinks.) Anyway, the inference intended to be drawn was/is as follows:

Should a search for a successor to Hanson be conducted at season's end, that search hardly need be limited to candidates with head coaching experience!

I have no idea whether or not Bernard looked outside the head coaching ranks in his failed 2014 search, but, if not, it may be that he was looking for gold in all the wrong places.

Have a nice evening, Mick.

I don't know if Muir looked at assistants or not.  He didn't end up with one.  Hiring assistants can be a challenge, often -- or usually -- there's a reason they're assistants and not head coaches.  Whole different job description, whole different mindset being in charge.

And speaking of being in charge...I've run groups of up to 90 people.  In a quarter-century of managing people, I have never -- not once -- fired someone for an activity in which I hadn't discussed the core issue with them multiple times, had it in reviews, etc.  Rittman filed false time reports.  That's literally the easiest thing in the world to check.  Practice times are scheduled, a beginning and end.  They should be intermittently monitored.  The sense I got from Rittman's reaction was that the day he got fired for cause was the first time he'd ever heard about this from management.  That takes nothing away from his guilt, he made his own bed.  But I wonder if Muir was aware of it before he was blind-sided by the parents.

If Rittman had counseling sessions and warnings before from Muir and if Muir had clearly communicated both expectations and penalties, then I take it all back.  But I don't get the sense that occurred.

Have a swell day, Owen.

[Mick]

Really not much in the mood for doing (dialogue) donuts at the moment, which, unfortunately, is what a continuation of this discussion would entail. (And if you don't quite grasp what I mean by "doing donuts," Mick (admittedly, it's not the greatest metaphor ever), that's cool; probably just as well that you don't.)

"If I don't grasp what 'doing donuts' means?"  Jesus, how patronizing.  Even if I hadn't grew up in California with a Buick Gran Sport 400, 400 cubic inch engine with four barrel Rochester carburetor throwing out 280 HP (couldn't afford the Stage 1 Special Package), series 50 on the back, series 60 on the front, I would know what "doing donuts" means, it's self explanatory.  BTW, if you need me to explain any of what I just wrote, just PM me.  Happy to discuss my shady tree mechanic credentials with you any time.  Cars I've rebuilt include that Buick, a Karmann Ghia and a Fiat Spyder 850.  My mother taught me how to change the oil when I was 11 and gap spark plugs and tune a car when I was 12.

Yeah, I'll try and dope out what "doing donuts" means.  Maybe I can crack the code.

Just briefly stopping by to add a figurative explanation point (and a literal one as well, while I'm at it) to the point that I had trusted (perhaps unwarrantedly) would be readily inferred from a reading of the Rittman background summary that I posted earlier. (Probably should have said, "One very obvious reason why it might well be the case that there's an exceedingly successful coach somewhere "out there" who would be[i] quite [/i]interested in assuming the top position at this one helluva progressive and prestigious school can be inferred from the following"--a clearer clue that would have been, methinks.) Anyway, the inference intended to be drawn was/is as follows:

Should a search for a successor to Hanson be conducted at season's end, that search hardly need be limited to candidates with head coaching experience!

I have no idea whether or not Bernard looked outside the head coaching ranks in his failed 2014 search, but, if not, it may be that he was looking for gold in all the wrong places.

Have a nice evening, Mick.

I don't know if Muir looked at assistants or not.  He didn't end up with one.  Hiring assistants can be a challenge, often -- or usually -- there's a reason they're assistants and not head coaches.  Whole different job description, whole different mindset being in charge.

And speaking of being in charge...I've run groups of up to 90 people.  In a quarter-century of managing people, I have never -- not once -- fired someone for an activity in which I hadn't discussed the core issue with them multiple times, had it in reviews, etc.  Rittman filed false time reports.  That's literally the easiest thing in the world to check.  Practice times are scheduled, a beginning and end.  They should be intermittently monitored.  The sense I got from Rittman's reaction was that the day he got fired for cause was the first time he'd ever heard about this from management.  That takes nothing away from his guilt, he made his own bed.  But I wonder if Muir was aware of it before he was blind-sided by the parents.

If Rittman had counseling sessions and warnings before from Muir and if Muir had clearly communicated both expectations and penalties, then I take it all back.  But I don't get the sense that occurred.

Have a swell day, Owen.

[BobK]

The real question was Rittman's boss  aware ? 

[BobK]

The real question was Rittman's boss  aware ? 

[Mick]

The real question was Rittman's aware ?

Yes, good question.  Based upon the timing of events and the description of his reaction, he sounds like someone who had been completely blindsided.  Like this was the first he'd heard about it from management.

Over the years I have had employees who cut, or try to cut corners, some big and some small.  I call them on it 10 times out of 10.  I understand the impulse, everyone tries to do more with less.  At the same time, I can't have them cutting corners.  So I talk with them about it.  I make recommendations.  I watch them do it my way.  I keep tabs on them.  And if they can't or won't adhere to my instructions, I let them go.

The one thing I don't do is show up at their office door with security to discuss an issue for the first time and say "clean out your desk."  I don't do that, because it is completely unfair and it is horrible management.  Another thing I don't do is agree to have a closed-door meeting with people who have the express purpose of ranking on my employee without discussing it with that employee.  Especially if it means that factions have formed.

It makes me wonder about the so-called "independent" investigation.  I wonder if a truly independent investigation might have found that fault with Muir.  Because if that had been the case, maybe Muir would have had to go too.  And I suspect that the University wanted as little damage as possible, so it would be in the University's best interest to limit the damage to the softball team and a departed S&C coach. 

But this is all speculation.

[Mick]

The real question was Rittman's aware ?

Yes, good question.  Based upon the timing of events and the description of his reaction, he sounds like someone who had been completely blindsided.  Like this was the first he'd heard about it from management.

Over the years I have had employees who cut, or try to cut corners, some big and some small.  I call them on it 10 times out of 10.  I understand the impulse, everyone tries to do more with less.  At the same time, I can't have them cutting corners.  So I talk with them about it.  I make recommendations.  I watch them do it my way.  I keep tabs on them.  And if they can't or won't adhere to my instructions, I let them go.

The one thing I don't do is show up at their office door with security to discuss an issue for the first time and say "clean out your desk."  I don't do that, because it is completely unfair and it is horrible management.  Another thing I don't do is agree to have a closed-door meeting with people who have the express purpose of ranking on my employee without discussing it with that employee.  Especially if it means that factions have formed.

It makes me wonder about the so-called "independent" investigation.  I wonder if a truly independent investigation might have found that fault with Muir.  Because if that had been the case, maybe Muir would have had to go too.  And I suspect that the University wanted as little damage as possible, so it would be in the University's best interest to limit the damage to the softball team and a departed S&C coach. 

But this is all speculation.

[BobK]

Had to edit. Again.  Rittman's boss was not Muir.   

[BobK]

Had to edit. Again.  Rittman's boss was not Muir.   

[M T]

I will remind everyone that the NCAA document stated "Finally, the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the institution failed to monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA." 

It seems that the sequence was
1) 12 May 2014 disgruntled group talked to Muir
1) <unknown day> May 2014 disgruntled group talks to NCAA enforcement (I don't know the order here)
3) some portion of administration and/or athletic department started looking into it, talking to coaches (but apparently not other players or parents??)
4) an assistant coach indicated she was concerned about under-reporting of CADA but had not reported it  (I must admit this item COULD be earlier, but I would think it was here)
5) 30 May 2014 Coaches resigned or terminated
6) Sep 2014  Stanford sends report to the NCAA
7) Oct 2014  Stanford athletes are required to self-report CADA.
8 ) Apr 2015  NCAA delivers notice of inquiry to Stanford
9) ...skipping ahead... Aug 2016  Penalties assessed/agreed upon

Stanford agreed that it (separate from the coach, apparently) should be monitoring CADA.  I think it is clear that Stanford had no mechanism to check on the coaches' reports (across all sports).  It couldn't separately know about the problem, so it had no reason to call Rittman in to discuss an unknown problem before 12 May 2014.

I haven't noticed that the topic of under-reporting of practice hours was brought up with Muir.  Maybe I missed it?  But the disgruntled athletes & parents did talk to NCAA enforcement about something.  (The SFGate report, who had a transcript, wrote "Judging from the transcript, 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."  If there was a complaint of practice time, I would have thought he would have mentioned it.)

If the disgruntled group had talked to the NCAA before talking to Rittman, and Muir was aware of that, the whole nature of the meeting with Muir changes in my mind.    It would be informative to know if they talked to the NCAA first (and then were advised to talk to the University) or if they talked to Muir (and were then advised to, or were frustrated enough to, talk to the NCAA).

[M T]

I will remind everyone that the NCAA document stated "Finally, the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the institution failed to monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA." 

It seems that the sequence was
1) 12 May 2014 disgruntled group talked to Muir
1) <unknown day> May 2014 disgruntled group talks to NCAA enforcement (I don't know the order here)
3) some portion of administration and/or athletic department started looking into it, talking to coaches (but apparently not other players or parents??)
4) an assistant coach indicated she was concerned about under-reporting of CADA but had not reported it  (I must admit this item COULD be earlier, but I would think it was here)
5) 30 May 2014 Coaches resigned or terminated
6) Sep 2014  Stanford sends report to the NCAA
7) Oct 2014  Stanford athletes are required to self-report CADA.
8 ) Apr 2015  NCAA delivers notice of inquiry to Stanford
9) ...skipping ahead... Aug 2016  Penalties assessed/agreed upon

Stanford agreed that it (separate from the coach, apparently) should be monitoring CADA.  I think it is clear that Stanford had no mechanism to check on the coaches' reports (across all sports).  It couldn't separately know about the problem, so it had no reason to call Rittman in to discuss an unknown problem before 12 May 2014.

I haven't noticed that the topic of under-reporting of practice hours was brought up with Muir.  Maybe I missed it?  But the disgruntled athletes & parents did talk to NCAA enforcement about something.  (The SFGate report, who had a transcript, wrote "Judging from the transcript, 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."  If there was a complaint of practice time, I would have thought he would have mentioned it.)

If the disgruntled group had talked to the NCAA before talking to Rittman, and Muir was aware of that, the whole nature of the meeting with Muir changes in my mind.    It would be informative to know if they talked to the NCAA first (and then were advised to talk to the University) or if they talked to Muir (and were then advised to, or were frustrated enough to, talk to the NCAA).

[BobK]

Hours are monitored very closely by the Head Coaches at Stanford I know.  In fact I learned about the SB problem from another coach.    No the parents didn't talk to the NCAA first, but maybe the Oregon Coach did, except he ceased being a parent in Feb when his daughter quit.  No where above was this problem addessed, nor will I further. 

[BobK]

Hours are monitored very closely by the Head Coaches at Stanford I know.  In fact I learned about the SB problem from another coach.    No the parents didn't talk to the NCAA first, but maybe the Oregon Coach did, except he ceased being a parent in Feb when his daughter quit.  No where above was this problem addessed, nor will I further. 

[oldalum]

  the Oregon Coach

Ha!  you have reminded me of one of the major villains in this sad story!  Boo on him!!!  May he trip on his Nike shoelaces!

[oldalum]

  the Oregon Coach

Ha!  you have reminded me of one of the major villains in this sad story!  Boo on him!!!  May he trip on his Nike shoelaces!

[Mick]

I will remind everyone that the NCAA document stated "Finally, the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the institution failed to monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA." 

It seems that the sequence was
1) 12 May 2014 disgruntled group talked to Muir
1) <unknown day> May 2014 disgruntled group talks to NCAA enforcement (I don't know the order here)
3) some portion of administration and/or athletic department started looking into it, talking to coaches (but apparently not other players or parents??)
4) an assistant coach indicated she was concerned about under-reporting of CADA but had not reported it  (I must admit this item COULD be earlier, but I would think it was here)
5) 30 May 2014 Coaches resigned or terminated
6) Sep 2014  Stanford sends report to the NCAA
7) Oct 2014  Stanford athletes are required to self-report CADA.
8 ) Apr 2015  NCAA delivers notice of inquiry to Stanford
9) ...skipping ahead... Aug 2016  Penalties assessed/agreed upon

Stanford agreed that it (separate from the coach, apparently) should be monitoring CADA.  I think it is clear that Stanford had no mechanism to check on the coaches' reports (across all sports).  It couldn't separately know about the problem, so it had no reason to call Rittman in to discuss an unknown problem before 12 May 2014.

I haven't noticed that the topic of under-reporting of practice hours was brought up with Muir.  Maybe I missed it?  But the disgruntled athletes & parents did talk to NCAA enforcement about something.  (The SFGate report, who had a transcript, wrote "Judging from the transcript, 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."  If there was a complaint of practice time, I would have thought he would have mentioned it.)

If the disgruntled group had talked to the NCAA before talking to Rittman, and Muir was aware of that, the whole nature of the meeting with Muir changes in my mind.    It would be informative to know if they talked to the NCAA first (and then were advised to talk to the University) or if they talked to Muir (and were then advised to, or were frustrated enough to, talk to the NCAA).

The practice time rules were the first thing mentioned, apparently.  See the table in the attached article.  I'd forgotten that the pro-Rittman players stated that the collective weekly overrun was one (1) hour against the 20 hour NCAA limit and that they disputed that voluntary bullpen sessions were considered mandatory:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...signation/

I don't think the disgruntleds talked to the NCAA first.  I think they threatened Muir, who then went to the NCAA.  I don't see the NCAA saying to a bunch of disgruntleds "Thanks for letting us know, why don't you go talk to the AD?"  Rather, I see them saying, "Thanks for letting us know, we'll take it from here."

[Mick]

I will remind everyone that the NCAA document stated "Finally, the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the institution failed to monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA." 

It seems that the sequence was
1) 12 May 2014 disgruntled group talked to Muir
1) <unknown day> May 2014 disgruntled group talks to NCAA enforcement (I don't know the order here)
3) some portion of administration and/or athletic department started looking into it, talking to coaches (but apparently not other players or parents??)
4) an assistant coach indicated she was concerned about under-reporting of CADA but had not reported it  (I must admit this item COULD be earlier, but I would think it was here)
5) 30 May 2014 Coaches resigned or terminated
6) Sep 2014  Stanford sends report to the NCAA
7) Oct 2014  Stanford athletes are required to self-report CADA.
8 ) Apr 2015  NCAA delivers notice of inquiry to Stanford
9) ...skipping ahead... Aug 2016  Penalties assessed/agreed upon

Stanford agreed that it (separate from the coach, apparently) should be monitoring CADA.  I think it is clear that Stanford had no mechanism to check on the coaches' reports (across all sports).  It couldn't separately know about the problem, so it had no reason to call Rittman in to discuss an unknown problem before 12 May 2014.

I haven't noticed that the topic of under-reporting of practice hours was brought up with Muir.  Maybe I missed it?  But the disgruntled athletes & parents did talk to NCAA enforcement about something.  (The SFGate report, who had a transcript, wrote "Judging from the transcript, 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."  If there was a complaint of practice time, I would have thought he would have mentioned it.)

If the disgruntled group had talked to the NCAA before talking to Rittman, and Muir was aware of that, the whole nature of the meeting with Muir changes in my mind.    It would be informative to know if they talked to the NCAA first (and then were advised to talk to the University) or if they talked to Muir (and were then advised to, or were frustrated enough to, talk to the NCAA).

The practice time rules were the first thing mentioned, apparently.  See the table in the attached article.  I'd forgotten that the pro-Rittman players stated that the collective weekly overrun was one (1) hour against the 20 hour NCAA limit and that they disputed that voluntary bullpen sessions were considered mandatory:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...signation/

I don't think the disgruntleds talked to the NCAA first.  I think they threatened Muir, who then went to the NCAA.  I don't see the NCAA saying to a bunch of disgruntleds "Thanks for letting us know, why don't you go talk to the AD?"  Rather, I see them saying, "Thanks for letting us know, we'll take it from here."

[d4cohn]

[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg190715#msg190715 date=1490641525]  the Oregon Coach

Ha!  you have reminded me of one of the major villains in this sad story!  Boo on him!!!  May he trip on his Nike shoelaces!
[/quote]

Mike White and the Ducks are the only undefeated team in the country (29-0), and finished off a double- header road sweep of a top-10 Utah team (Utah swept UCLA on the road last weekend), who we face next weekend at home. Meanwhile, we got swept today at Cal, losing 7-1. (An interesting aside: Mike White apparently recommended Coach Hanson to Bernard back in 2014).

Cal is not a great offensive team (8th in BA at .288), but they manufactured offense every inning, like they have done all weekend, scoring two runs in the first, a run in the third, two runs in the fourth and two runs in the sixth. Cal stole four bases, and generally had productive outs over the final two games that allowed runners to advance.

Stanford, on the other hand, has attempted only 1 sacrifice bunt and stolen 9 bases all year (lowest in the Pac-12). We don't manufacture offense; instead, our offensive strategy consists of desperately trying to string together hits (when we are only hitting .158 as a team in conference), or if that fails, use the long-ball.

Coach Hanson's offensive game plan is like a blackjack player who hits every round. Occasionally, the gambit succeeds in getting a 21 (i.e. grand-slam or extra base hit). However, far more often, the strategy goes bust, stranding runners and allowing us to gradually fall further and further behind, thereby increasing the pressure to come up with several runs in later innings with very few outs to work with (as our opponents are just gradually adding to their run totals).

[d4cohn]

[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg190715#msg190715 date=1490641525]  the Oregon Coach

Ha!  you have reminded me of one of the major villains in this sad story!  Boo on him!!!  May he trip on his Nike shoelaces!
[/quote]

Mike White and the Ducks are the only undefeated team in the country (29-0), and finished off a double- header road sweep of a top-10 Utah team (Utah swept UCLA on the road last weekend), who we face next weekend at home. Meanwhile, we got swept today at Cal, losing 7-1. (An interesting aside: Mike White apparently recommended Coach Hanson to Bernard back in 2014).

Cal is not a great offensive team (8th in BA at .288), but they manufactured offense every inning, like they have done all weekend, scoring two runs in the first, a run in the third, two runs in the fourth and two runs in the sixth. Cal stole four bases, and generally had productive outs over the final two games that allowed runners to advance.

Stanford, on the other hand, has attempted only 1 sacrifice bunt and stolen 9 bases all year (lowest in the Pac-12). We don't manufacture offense; instead, our offensive strategy consists of desperately trying to string together hits (when we are only hitting .158 as a team in conference), or if that fails, use the long-ball.

Coach Hanson's offensive game plan is like a blackjack player who hits every round. Occasionally, the gambit succeeds in getting a 21 (i.e. grand-slam or extra base hit). However, far more often, the strategy goes bust, stranding runners and allowing us to gradually fall further and further behind, thereby increasing the pressure to come up with several runs in later innings with very few outs to work with (as our opponents are just gradually adding to their run totals).

[BobK]

Sad day sad series.   

Big weekend maybe I can make a game but really just to boo White. 

Track and of course the F 4

[BobK]

Sad day sad series.   

Big weekend maybe I can make a game but really just to boo White. 

Track and of course the F 4