Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

Fastpitch Discussions

The fall of Stanford softball

What's on your mind?

by jonriv » Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:49 pm

So it's your thought that an AD fired an 18 year veteran because some parents were pissed about playing time? That makes more sense?

Was the coach under contract? I'm sure with labor laws in Cali it's not that easy to just firing someone without cause-especially an 18 year veteran

I don't know what happened, but neither do you. Which scenario seems more realistic
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by Battle » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:04 pm

jonriv wrote:So it's your thought that an AD fired an 18 year veteran because some parents were pissed about playing time? That makes more sense?

Was the coach under contract? I'm sure with labor laws in Cali it's not that easy to just firing someone without cause-especially an 18 year veteran

I don't know what happened, but neither do you. Which scenario seems more realistic

That's right. So get off your high horse and follow the system that you so adamantly defend. If you are going to assume anything, assume that the AD is a horse's ass with no spine to fight for his coach until proven otherwise. The things that you said is damaging without any real proof. You can't "unsay" those kinds of things even if the accusations are bullshit...
We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way!
User avatar
Battle
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:40 am

by jonriv » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:13 pm

Why is the assumption that the ad is wrong? The investigation showed the trainer had perpetuated a "hostile workplace". If the coach was made aware and did nothing( which is what was accused) the university would be in their own interest to fire the coach to show they took action

Btw. This is not a trial, there is no presumption of innocence. A company/university will base its decision on the facts at hand and its own self interest
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by Battle » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:22 pm

jonriv wrote:Why is the assumption that the ad is wrong? The investigation showed the trainer had perpetuated a "hostile workplace". If the coach was made aware and did nothing( which is what was accused) the university would be in their own interest to fire the coach to show they took action

Btw. This is not a trial, there is no presumption of innocence. A company/university will base its decision on the facts at hand and its own self interest

Really? Just fire him? After 18 years? Yeah, lets not give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's believe the "hey my kid is better than the starter". What was proven to be hostile?

It falls in with the stupidity of the public when it comes to arrests too. "Cop arrested him so he must have done it." "There must be something to it." :roll:
We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way!
User avatar
Battle
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:40 am

by jonriv » Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:25 am

The only one than can talk( due to state and federal privacy laws) is rittman- he has stayed quiet

Stanford might still be in trouble if there was any illegal activities and they did not report it

Yes fired if the coach was made aware of a hostile work situation and took no action. A hostile work environment puts the school at risk for high fines and possible lawsuits. The coach, as a manager has a responsibility. A failure to act is indeed a basis of termination

If this trainer was acting inappropriately or in a way that made some players uncomfortable( comments, dirty jokes. Advances etc) and this coach was made aware( which is the charge). The coach saw the writing on the wall and resigned. I'm not sure how anything else makes sense.
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by Battle » Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:26 pm

jonriv wrote:If this trainer was acting inappropriately or in a way that made some players uncomfortable( comments, dirty jokes. Advances etc) and this coach was made aware( which is the charge). The coach saw the writing on the wall and resigned. I'm not sure how anything else makes sense.

I've already hinted to you how something else makes sense. If the coach feels the AD is not going to stand up for him when he is right instead of hosing him for political or legal reasons then it's time to go. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way!
User avatar
Battle
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:40 am

by jtat32 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:58 pm

Reading the article, it doesn't sound like many of the players really know what happened. I'm guessing that only a few people really do know, and they're all likely bound by non-disclosure agreements.

It's going to be a challenge for all involved to return to a "team" environment. I don't have much personal insight into the team, but I'm guessing that if any collection of players and coaches can overcome this, it would be this one.
User avatar
jtat32
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:53 am

by exD1dad » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:40 pm

I'm guessing there's some kind of contractual clause that Rittman violated to make it easy for his firing. My cousin (who's the highest paid D1 compliance AD in the country @ South Carolina) could easily verify this if you guys want me to call her 8-)
"It's not giving up if you discover you've been chasing the wrong destiny" -Morley LA street artist who posted this on Melrose Avenue in Jan '14
User avatar
exD1dad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:58 am

by fasterpitch92701 » Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:04 pm

Battle... I have to agree with you. Apologies
User avatar
fasterpitch92701
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:41 pm

Previous

Return to Fastpitch Discussions

cron