chitownblue2

December 29th, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^

I don't think they've messed up the search - they're selling a commodity nobody want to buy.

I don't understand why they don't just give it to Bradley - I assume that his continued presence at the school means they think he didn't have anything to do with the scandal, as everyone else implicated has been axed. Given then, just let him do it. He's a good coach, he's essentially been the HC for 5 years anyway.

AAB

December 29th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

about the reaction they'd get by keeping Bradley from people who think it means they're not serious about cleaning house in the wake of the scandal.  If I were them, I wouldn't trust national media figures to appropriately distinguish between Bradley and coaches who have been more directly implicated.  

chitownblue2

December 29th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^

I certainly see your point, but "people and the media are idiots" are always, to me, a crappy reason to do things. Of course, I'm the guy that thought that people would be above talking about MICHIGAN MEN with Rodriguez.

You'd think that if Penn State thought Bradley was involved, he'd be gone. His presence, I assume, means they think he's clear. As such, I'd like to see them make the argument that he's uninvolved, he's qualified, and he's the best choice.

Partially, I say this because I think it would be interesting, and also because I've LOOOOONG thought Bradley merited the head job at a major school.

Yeoman

December 29th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^

...is that there isn't a clear line between "involved" and "uninvolved". It's easy to imagine a scenario where there's not any real possibility of wrongdoing--nothing fireable anyway--but there's still something that might come up later as a taint.There might not be any evidence that anyone ever went to him with anything firm or actionable, but can they be certain he never heard anything through the grapevine? He was Sandusky's subordinate for a long time.

If they keep anyone from that era, they run the risk of being dragged through it again every time somebody roots up some innuendo about the people that stayed.

I suspect they want as clean a break as they can possibly manage. They also can't fire everyone on the spot--somebody's got to mind the store until they get new people in place. And legally it's a lot cleaner this way. They can't just fire everyone without cause--but they can let the new guys hire their own staff.

bluebyyou

December 29th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^

I think you are 100 percent on the mark.  I find it difficult to believe that with Sandusky's shenanigans, every coach on that team didn't at least hear whispers of what was going on.

All you will need is someone to even quietly whisper Bradley's name in the same sentence with Sandusky and you are back to square one. They are also starting to get late into the season as we know well from what took place with RR and Brandon last year and have already started to have mass defections.  PSU is a program with major problems and they are only just beginning.

Yeoman

December 29th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^

the mere fact that you and so many others find it difficult to believe otherwise is reason enough for PSU to go in a different direction. And to be fair even if he did hear "whispers" he may not have done anything wrong. I don't believe every outrageous, whispered rumor I hear either.

But none of that matters at this point, at least from Penn State's point of view.

funkywolve

December 29th, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^

I think the problem PSU finds themselves in is that if they clean house now, they don't have a coaching staff.  So they're stuck.  They keep these coaches around until the bowl game and possibly longer - until they have a new head coach who brings in an entirely new staff.  They last thing they probably want before signing day and the bowl game is to have a football program with either no coaches or only a few coaches who know their days are numbered.

Wolvie3758

December 29th, 2011 at 6:49 PM ^

Cars, cars for relatives, pay for work not done, Clarette, and a  HOST of other infractions going back to paying players at Youngstown St...its WAY WAY more than  just Tats..Its a systematic Corrupt Institution from the Pres, the Ad and the HC..AND the fans that look the other way as lon g as they Beat Michigan...what a CESSPOOL

lunchboxthegoat

December 29th, 2011 at 3:07 PM ^

Maybe I seriously am misunderestimating the stain that is the on the program right now but of the dozens of people linked to this job you couldn't convince any of them? You're now reaching out to Eric Mangini? I get the fact that guys like Dan Mullen weren't going to take the job but there's a giant gulph between him and Mangini, right? 

Erik_in_Dayton

December 29th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^

It seems like you can either keep someone on the current staff for maximum football success but then get hit with bad publicity of some degree.  In that case, I don't know why you wouldn't take Bradley. 

On the other hand (and this would have been my vote), you can clean house for public relations reasons (if nothing else), take a hit on the football side b/c no coach with options is going to want to go to PSU right now, and start over. 

PSU, though, gave a courtesy interview to Jay Paterno but now won't hire Bradley.   Does not compute. 

Erik_in_Dayton

December 29th, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^

...you're not washing your hands of the Sandusky situation when you're giving Jay Paterno a courtesy interview.  PSU embraced someone who's near-ish to the middle of the mess by doing that.  You don't (or shouldn't, I should say) give a courtesy interview to someone whom you think is tainted by a horrible scandal, and if Bradley is tainted in that way, how is Jay Paterno not?

 

Yeoman

December 29th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^

They gave Bradley the job on an interim basis; all they gave Jay was a courtesy interview. If anything I'd say the evidence is that they consider Bradley less tainted.

A courtesy interview isn't an embrace; it's a courtesy. In this case I suspect it was a move to defuse some of the anger of the Joe's-being-railroaded crowd. If it saves a few couches it was probably worth the minimal cost.

Needs

December 29th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

Why would they be interested in Mangini? He has proven himself to be a mediocre coach and generally an unpleasant guy in every head spot he's had. And "openness" is going to be one of the required qualities for the next coach for PSU. Anyone off the Belicheck tree seems markedly unsuited for that job.

coastal blue

December 29th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^

but a lot of times coaches like a challenge. If Saban were to win the title this year, what would he have left to prove at Alabama? Two time national champion, 4 straight ten win seasons, one SEC championship...he's pretty much done all he can there. 

What better way to add to your legacy than bringing back PSU? 

LSAClassOf2000

December 29th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

If I had not just accepted a supervisory position in my own company, I would be applying for the PSU job right now. If they didn't find someone by fall practices, I imagine that they would be near my name on the list of "totally not qualified, but still interested".

jmdblue

December 29th, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^

I can't seem to generate any joy out of this.  Certainly Paterno and the rest of the wannabe "men" who allowed a sick fuck to prey on children should rot in hell.  But the PSU fans seem a lot like us (even most of the apologists whom I expect are/were just in shock).  They take/took pride in winning and in doing it (they thought) the right way.  This as opposed to MSU and Ohio fans who seem to be almost gleeful over dirty play or Katzenmoyer's eligibility or kids only selling "their property".

That program is screwed and I don't think we will see the quick bounceback we've seen from other traditional powers (including ours) that temporarily fell on hard times. Don't get me wrong.  I'm not losing sleep over this.  Just not enjoying it either.

jmdblue

December 29th, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^

I'm pretty sure I thoroughy disrespected the "State Men" by calling them "wannabe 'men'" and by suggesting they rot in hell.  The fans didn't harbor anyone.  I can't deny that many fans reacted poorly in their defense of Paterno.  I'm guessing (as I said) that there is likely an element of shock in these reactions.  Also, students protesting in the street in support of Paterno are drunken kids (our own student spectacle related to the '89 bball championship was nothing to be overly proud of).  I'd suggest that the typical over-25 yr. old hard core PSU fan is devastated and ashamed and in no way supporting Paterno (especially with the passage of time).

FrankMurphy

December 29th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^

Agreed. Penn State seriously used to be my second-favorite team because I thought their program resembled Michigan the most out of all the others in the Big Ten. I also had a positive impression of their fans because I road-tripped there in 2000 and found them to be fairly classy and welcoming (I realize that other Michigan fans may have had the opposite experience). This scandal and the reaction to it have made me totally lose respect for Penn State. I find it mind-boggling that so many PSU fans are defending JoePa's inaction to the extent that they won't even acknowledge he made a mistake.