Nobody 'in the know' is talking. Hard to form an opinion either way. Your reaction here is reasonable, but my thinking is that if Stanford made the bold move to push out an 18-year coach, then the complaints of the 'Stanford 9' must've had some merit to them. Their complains extended beyond just the issue w/ the 'trainer,' if not mistaken. But to remain fair, we just don't know enough. Private school, no open records, not getting a clear picture from both sides.
Stanford softball
- Thread starter guero_gordo
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Nobody 'in the know' is talking. Hard to form an opinion either way. Your reaction here is reasonable, but my thinking is that if Stanford made the bold move to push out an 18-year coach, then the complaints of the 'Stanford 9' must've had some merit to them. Their complains extended beyond just the issue w/ the 'trainer,' if not mistaken. But to remain fair, we just don't know enough. Private school, no open records, not getting a clear picture from both sides.
you have leah white, no relation to mike white, mixed up with nyree white, who is mike white's daughter, was a pitcher at stanford and quit the team for her own reasons last year. the story is that she asked for a medical resignation so she could keep her scholarship and was denied. then her "family" (read mike white) got involved. what none of us know is the full range of allegations made at the original meeting with the ad. eventually, however, all the team members knew who was involved and who said what about whom, since the parent of one of the complaining players circulated his "notes" of the meeting to all parents - even those whose kids were apparently being targeted as "favorites" (thus implying they had not earned their places as starters). the title ix investigation cleared the head coach of any violations. so it appears that it comes down to players complaining about not enough playing time and the ad buying in without ever having spoken with players who were not complaining. on top of that, the complainers claimed they had authority to speak for last year's freshmen, who did not attend the meeting. later when the freshmen learned what had happened at the meeting, they felt they were misrepresented. so it really boiled down to a complaining minority of players, which is probably why they decline to speak. the first question would be, in view of the title ix investigator's findings, do you feel what you did was right? how would they justify complaining about "favorites" when the performance record of those they complained about is out there for all to see?
Why does Rittman decline to speak?
- Sep 29, 2014
- 2,421
- 113
I will grant I could be 100% wrong but there would be almost no chance of an AD firing a 18 year coach or of that coach voluntarily resigning (unless they wanted to leave anyway) because kids parents complained about playing time, unless that parent has their name on a university building. What was obviously the issue was the sexual harassment charges, while Rittman was cleared Marcello was convicted (granted it might have been a kangaroo university court but convicted none the less). At that point the only thing left to decide was whether or not they felt they could separate Rittman's responsibility as Head coach (even if he did not have direct authority over Marcello) from what happened once the AD or Provost decided they could not separate the two then there was not much left to discuss.
what's in it for him to do so? he would have to get down and dirty, which would put him on the same level as the whiners' parents. would anyone do that with a family to take care of? the other thing is that if it was a forced resignation, he probably worked out a deal where they gave him a severance package and in accepting it he had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. it's pretty common practice. the point for him going forward is that the title ix investigation cleared him completely. he doesn't have to say anything at this point. the investigator's letter was sent to all team members and that says it all. anyone who keeps trying to finger him is just going to be shot down by the fact that the investigation found him innocent. what people should maybe think about is looking at what that says about the accusers. if i were an employer, i wouldn't hire any of them.
you're assuming the ad didn't make any mistakes. people make mistakes all the time in handling employment issues.
What's in it for the players to comment? Actually, I think he would have a lot to gain if he said he stands by every decision he made.
Also, once you call them whiners, you've taken sides. You're no longer open-minded.
Last edited:
Cannot say this is the case but often someone resigns in lieu of termination for consideration of a severance package which is contingent on no public comment by either side.
never said i was open minded. i got interested in this when i saw carley hoover (who was then out on injury at stanford) being trashed on a board. mighty strange behavior. who trashes someone out on injury? the trasher then went on to trash starters on the team and it went on from there about rittman having favorites, being unfair, etc. i would say that's someone with an agenda - and it got played out. in the absence of a finding that rittman was responsible for sexual harassment directly or indirectly, it comes down to those who complained about what? nothing a title ix investigator found merited saying he was guilty of anything, even favoritism. so it was, as noted by the players who quit, about playing time. otherwise, the complainers would be out there complaining about the investigator's findings.
of course the ad is going to stand by his decisions. people do that all the time, too. doesn't mean they were the right decisions. i recommended we let a management level employee go based on his behavior and warned he would cost us money. got voted down. we finally let him go when he crossed the line on a discrimination issue. think anyone who voted against letting him go ever admitted they were wrong? nope.
Did Title IX investigators clear him of all accusations, or just Title IX issues? Players claimed favoritism, giving players derogatory nicknames, mishandling a player's concussion, pressuring hurt players to get back on the field, breaking practice rules, ignoring complaints about alcohol use among players and employing a guy like Marcello. Did the Title IX investigators have an opinion on those things?
I'm talking about something that I know nothing about beyond what I've read. I'm not claiming that the coach should've been fired. I don't know. I'm just saying I've not read anything that makes me take sides on it. I just find it hard to believe that an 18-year coach is forced out because a group of players came to the AD to complain about playing time. Also find it hard to believe that a good coach is going to be subject to a revolt of this many players. But, maybe I'm naive. Hope we get more out of Stanford before long. Will be interesting to see if Rittman is a head coach again soon. That might tell us more about the court of public opinion among those in college athletics.
