Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
iwitness

Registered:
Posts: 1,153
Reply with quote  #91 
Out scored 100-20 in P12
0-11.........and counting
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 4,773
Reply with quote  #92 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot


Well when you come back Dunnin, you come back strong!
Hey jayrot, how's the little one?  Enjoying parenthood?

One thing White apparently never learned as a parent is to not get involved with the coaching decisions of his own daughter's coach!

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 16,855
Reply with quote  #93 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
Hey jayrot, how's the little one?  Enjoying parenthood?

One thing White apparently never learned as a parent is to not get involved with the coaching decisions of his own daughter's coach!


Hey! Parenthood is both great and exhausting.

White was clearly out of her league in the PAC. I'll leave it at that.
1janiedough

Registered:
Posts: 2,350
Reply with quote  #94 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot
Hey! Parenthood is both great and exhausting. White was clearly out of her league in the PAC. I'll leave it at that.



Did it chap Mike White's ass or what?
Fpitch9

Registered:
Posts: 4,214
Reply with quote  #95 
Stanford allowed crybaby, entitled players(shocking, at an entitled school, I know), and their even more ridiculous, my kid is the best, whiny ass parents, to run off the best coach the program has had. And a good man, at that. To think, they were once a really good program and one wonders, what might have been. Hoover and Barnhill. Yikes. And yes, for Barnhill it did come down to Stanford and Florida. For a top flight pitcher in recent memory, her commitment was as late as I can recall. Easy decision once the powers that be forced him out. Hell, rittman was even hired as an assistant at uf after that, which lasted a hot minute when USA softball came calling.

I recall the idiotic posts on here from idiotic parents of players who weren't good enough to see the field, but felt they should be starting. so they ran a good man into the ground. Stanford is getting what they deserve bc the administration didn't have a pair to stand up for their coach. They caved into spineless, gutless, pathetic individuals that pass themselves off as human beings.
AustinSoftball

Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #96 
Fpitch9, the players and families that allegedly ousted Rittman were hand picked by Rittman.  Either he placed talent over personality or commitment to the team or he did not know how to manage dissension on a team.  No University President can tolerate the kinds of allegations that were made EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT TRUE. The inability of the administration to disprove those stories inevitably leads to a dismissal of the person at the top of the team.  Winning at all costs is not the end game at a school like Stanford.  I have a lot of respect for the Florida coach who benched 3 players because of a lack of team conduct EVEN THOUGH IT COST HIM THE PLAYOFFS THAT YEAR.  That's leadership and a commitment to the core team regardless of the talent. He let the best 3 players on his team go to save the team even though he knew the remaining players were not as talented.  But in the long run, the kinds of things the three were involved in were going to bring the entire team down.  I know the top coaches in softball often turn down talent because the think it is not a good fit to the chemistry of the team.    
Bama_CF

Registered:
Posts: 1,447
Reply with quote  #97 
It really is staggering. Stanford has lost 42 consecutive Pac-12 games, starting in the latter part of the 2015 season. And very few of them have been close games.

I have no knowledge at all about what is or is not true regarding the mess that ended up with Rittman's resignation. But I know the current coach has no clue and the only chance for Stanford to even begin to turn things around is to get rid of this staff and make an investment to hire a real coach and leader. And the athletic director needs to find out from OTHERS who that might be. 

__________________

 

Jusayin

Registered:
Posts: 93
Reply with quote  #98 
Just in case you guys are into stats, here are Stanford's statistics in Pac-12 play:

Team BA: .181
Team ERA: 10.35

That's world-class bad.
1janiedough

Registered:
Posts: 2,350
Reply with quote  #99 
I bet Amy Hogue could turn that program around!
Softball98mom

Registered:
Posts: 120
Reply with quote  #100 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1janiedough
I bet Amy Hogue could turn that program around!


Get some high academic transfers from other programs with great players on the bench & a new coach and they're in business...
AustinSoftball

Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #101 
I doubt Stanford takes many transfers and most of the high academic players who can play are getting all the time they want on the field.  You can't raid Harvard or Princeton and the players on those benches could not play in that conference.  And, you can't approach players on another team.  You have to build Stanford through recruiting of high school players.
total1096

Registered:
Posts: 35
Reply with quote  #102 
Beat Oregon State today. All is well.
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #103 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1janiedough



Hi DunninLA!!  I totally forgot about that part...is the whole thing with Nyree White where it all started?
OK, going back three years now and roughly 500 posts detailing the activities of the non-starting players, their parents, and White.   White, per a couple of parents involved in the meetings, was very involved in the whole thing.
d4cohn

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #104 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bama_CF
It really is staggering. Stanford has lost 42 consecutive Pac-12 games, starting in the latter part of the 2015 season. And very few of them have been close games.

I have no knowledge at all about what is or is not true regarding the mess that ended up with Rittman's resignation. But I know the current coach has no clue and the only chance for Stanford to even begin to turn things around is to get rid of this staff and make an investment to hire a real coach and leader. And the athletic director needs to find out from OTHERS who that might be. 


Hopefully, the AD will make a change once these final two games are done. 3 lost seasons and a 4-66 Pac-12 record later...
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,392
Reply with quote  #105 
Everyone likes to bang on Stanford but no mention that Cal only has 2 more conference wins. I don't care if they go 0-for you can't beat the sheepskin, which for females is all that matters in the end.
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #106 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spazsdad
Everyone likes to bang on Stanford but no mention that Cal only has 2 more conference wins. I don't care if they go 0-for you can't beat the sheepskin, which for females is all that matters in the end.


To compare Cal this year, (granted a down year) but especially over the last three years, to where Stanford is, is comical!!
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 3,715
Reply with quote  #107 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spazsdad
Everyone likes to bang on Stanford but no mention that Cal only has 2 more conference wins. I don't care if they go 0-for you can't beat the sheepskin, which for females is all that matters in the end.


The results of recruiting student/athletes over athlete/students is reflected in the game of softball's win/loss columns.

__________________
"Whatever, if I get the opportunity I wack and stack em."
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #108 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyGrayce


The results of recruiting student/athletes over athlete/students is reflected in the game of softball's win/loss columns.


Yes because the priorities should clearly be athletics over academics.
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #109 

Quote:
Yes because the priorities should clearly be athletics over academics.


Clearly? Would you expound on the above.

I could argue the media attention alone would muddy 'priorities'.

 

 

Unregistered
Reply with quote  #110 
you really should stop talking to yourself [biggrin]
smileyface

Registered:
Posts: 178
Reply with quote  #111 
The coach they hired is just a lousy coach.  She throws a young catcher in there to fend for herself when it comes to pitch calling. This catcher is supposed to call pitches for a lot of really good pac12 batters and the only way she could be somewhat successful at this if in her spare time she watches tons and tons of film on them. She is probably trying to get a degree in some field that most of us cant even pronounce and on top of that she has to do the coaches job for her.
  
I don't really think academic standards is a viable excuse for poor recruiting. The baseball and football programs at Stanford don't seem to have a problem and I would tend to think there are a lot smarter girls playing sports than there are boys [smile]
d4cohn

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #112 
http://www.gostanford.com/coaches.aspx?roster=612

It appears that Coach Hanson will be returning for next season, but Coach Langenfeld as pitching coach will not be returning next season.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 177
Reply with quote  #113 
Some really pathetic responses here.  Previous coach is fired. Players leave the program and pitching, both on the team and committed, leave.  So, you blame the coach for the lack of wins.  Laughable.  Then, you have the butt hurt parents continue the stink in an attempt to get the new coach relived of her duties and bring the old coach back.  So, you blame the new coach.  Coach can't win.  Now you have someone bit  ching about a catcher having to call her own game.  If it were the other way around, you'd bit  ch because the catcher can't call her own game.  Laughable.  
__________________
Those mountains in front of you will seem like little hills when you are beyond them and they are in the past!
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 100
Reply with quote  #114 
As someone said before, Stanford, overall, has the best college women's sports program in the country. That's why it's a travesty. There is no reason why Stanford shouldn't be recruiting the top players in the country like Barnhill (and like they do for other sports both men's and women's). Hanson has been at the helm 3 years.  Has there been significant progress shown in recruiting, attracting top transfers or on the field performance? It doesn't appear that way to me.

I have no idea what her contract status is but if it's up, I can't see why they'd retain her. When Rittman was fired, a lot of coaches were scared off, sure, but it's been 3 years. I'd guess that some reasonably high-level HC would be willing to go to a program with the potential that Stanford has, and if not, I'm sure some top-program assistants would be interested.
AustinSoftball

Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #115 
Most of us on here are softball junkies, so there is one angle we do not completely understand.  How low will a top academic school go in admitting athletes for women's sports.  The Ivies have an index that is generally used, but those coaches can only get one or two players with lower stats on the team. But for Ivy play, that is enough to make Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth competitive.  They are not competitive nationally as they rank in the bottom part of the 100 teams ranking.  I doubt if any of the current Ivy players could play for a PAC 12 team.  

I have a hunch the Stanford admissions has a tight rope on the coaches in terms of who they can recruit.  If that is the case, it is not the coach, it is the school making a decision to weigh academics over wins.  I know two Houston players in another sports whose sisters went to Stanford five years ago and they did not get in this past year even though they were power 5 conference players.  Big time academics in a small undergraduate school are very competitive and they could fill the class with valedictorians. If you won't allow the recruiting to compete with other PAC schools, you might as well have a coach that fits that model producing academic all americans.     
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #116 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinSoftball
Most of us on here are softball junkies, so there is one angle we do not completely understand.  How low will a top academic school go in admitting athletes for women's sports.  The Ivies have an index that is generally used, but those coaches can only get one or two players with lower stats on the team. But for Ivy play, that is enough to make Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth competitive.  They are not competitive nationally as they rank in the bottom part of the 100 teams ranking.  I doubt if any of the current Ivy players could play for a PAC 12 team.  

I have a hunch the Stanford admissions has a tight rope on the coaches in terms of who they can recruit.  If that is the case, it is not the coach, it is the school making a decision to weigh academics over wins.  I know two Houston players in another sports whose sisters went to Stanford five years ago and they did not get in this past year even though they were power 5 conference players.  Big time academics in a small undergraduate school are very competitive and they could fill the class with valedictorians. If you won't allow the recruiting to compete with other PAC schools, you might as well have a coach that fits that model producing academic all americans.     
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #117 
The previous coaching staff was able to find a competitive balance??
AustinSoftball

Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #118 
I have a hunch the admissions standards have tightened as Stanford fights to be number 1 every year competing against Yale and Harvard, not UCLA and UW.  The old coach's recruits might not be able to get in now.  I bet Stanford football is different.  We know Stanford could attract excellent female athletes who are in the top 25% of students, but if the administration wants the top 5%, it is not possible to get those excellent softball players into the school.  Remember, this school admits the top 1% into the regular student body.
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 100
Reply with quote  #119 
Stanford has always been able to recruit excellent talent in all their sports, including softball. Just prior to Rittman being fired the team had a pitching staff that included Carley Hoover (National Gatorade player of the year in HS) and Madi Schreyer (WA Gatorade player of the year). The team also included all-American caliber position players such as Kayla Bonstrom (AZ Gatorade player of the year). Stanford is certainly difficult to get into (6.2% of applicants accepted), but it is a national draw school for sports. They get smart kids from all over the country including Hoover (SC), Schreyer (WA) and Bonstrom (AZ). There are very, very few schools that can pull from that wide of a geographical area. 
 
I don't know Stanford's policy specifically, but I know that schools (top academic schools included), can and do give admissions waivers for kids who are great athletes who don't have the grades or admissions scores to get in on their own. Obviously, they need to be careful because once the student is admitted they need to be able to stay in school as well, but that does widen the pool of candidates.  Many top schools won't do this all the time, but I know one school that allows one waiver per recruiting class without special approval.

Even if the academic standards somehow became tighter in the last 3 years, there are tons of smart kids that would love a scholarship to one of the best, if not the best academic and sporting universities in the country. There doesn't seem to be an appreciable drop in recruiting for other sports so it seems to me this is on the coach. 
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 3,715
Reply with quote  #120 

__________________
"Whatever, if I get the opportunity I wack and stack em."
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: