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.
well since you seem to know all about the complaints, can you tell us what a title ix investigator is empowered to investigate? because all those complaints in the outside world would seem to point to a "hostile work environment" claim, but if you know what the investigator's powers are, then you can answer your own question. how many players are you saying "revolted"? my understanding is that there were five at the meeting along with parents who met with the ad. none of the other players were invited, which is how the five got away with claiming to have authorization to speak on behalf of five freshmen on the team.