Sandusky: final twitches

Blue&White
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 am

There's a difference between fans / consumers / rationale human beings and social media trolls. I sincerely doubt UT's kneejerk reaction was the result of a scientific poll of alum, donors and season ticket holders.

I haven't followed it all that closely. I know the high level story but not the details. Do we know for a fact it was internet reaction? Are we sure people didn't threaten to pull donations? I find it hard to believe that social media alone got them to change their minds. I'm inclined to believe that someone threatened money and that is what made them pull the plug.

dad - Schiano is not Belichick. He's not an awful coach but he's not a Saban or Belichick. You get that kind of deference when you win.

Pretty funny that the Sandusky scandal is making it tougher for Tennessee to hire a coach than it did for PSU.

psu_dad
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:54 am

Schiano is not Belichick. He's not an awful coach but he's not a Saban or Belichick.

I wasn't trying to suggest he was. I was suggesting that if you let the fans decide on the new coach, that probably means your program isn't in great shape. Fans aren't realistic. There were Penn State fans who actually thought Kirk Ferentz was a possibility back when they hired O'Brien.

Jerry Garcia
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Jerry Garcia » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:31 pm

I'm guessing this will be the end of the line for Tom Bradley, too. He's mentioned in the same breath with Schiano and had a less than stellar run at UCLA. I hope some collective memory always remains for the great work he did with PSU.

Blue&White
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:41 pm

There is a difference between in fans clamoring for a potential hire vs. fans rejecting one. To your specific point, that is why I asked the question of whether they reacted to social media or someone with clout and money made some threats. I can't believe they pulled out of the Schiano deal simply because some knuckleheads on a message board or two were upset about it. That just doesn't make any sense. I can't imagine they did this without some reasonable belief that there was a risk of a real backlash with financial implications to it. Maybe they did, but it seems unlikely to me.

I still don't believe this had anything to do with a morality concern. Schiano was accused of being told that Sandusky was molesting kids. No one ever claimed he had any actual knowledge, just that he may have heard some rumors. Meanwhile, Lane Kiffen was partying with coeds, and may have gotten drunk with a few and wrecked a car. And, no one at Tennessee really blinked. At least not until he quit and took the USC job. Obviously being a child molester is worse than what Kiffin was accused of, but no one said Schiano did anything at all. Just that maybe he sort of knew something. It was double hearsay. I'd be shocked if it turns out to be anything other than Sandusky was, at best, an excuse to cause an uproar over a coach the big donors didn't want. I can't believe it's more than a smokescreen issue. They put it out there, they raised some internet outrage, and then someone quietly threatened to pull money if they hired Schiano. I don't know that, happened, but that's my bet.

JG - if Scrap got one job, I doubt the Sandusky thing taints him. He may not get another job but I doubt that's the reason.

psu_dad
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:59 pm

I still don't believe this had anything to do with a morality concern.

I think there's universal agreement on that here. :D

sameoldlama
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby sameoldlama » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm

If you feel you need certain donors / alums approval on hire then shouldn't you get that before making an offer?

I know every school hasn't different status tiers based on levels of giving - apparently Tennessee must have one that includes input on coaching and staffing decisions.
When BO'B was hired their was a faction of the fan base that wanted Scrap to get the job - but Joyner made a decision and whether you agree or not - he did his job without subjecting it to an approval poll. As someone mentioned - fans / donors /alums aren't always the most realistic and rationale bunch (remember how many people were ready to can Franklin after UM game last year). Tennessee chased out Phil Fulmer and have been a mess ever since. Nebraska chased out Pellini for winning a mere 9 games one year and this month couldn't keep a single team under 50 points. Texas A&M and ASU - two programs with limited historical success fired two winning coaches because they think they should be challenging for conference titles on an annual basis and pulling down an MNC now and then. You want to be critical of coaching salaries? How about boards doling out multi-million dollar payouts because a coach is only averaging 8 wins a year. UCLA just made a $25MM bet that they hired the Oregon Chip Kelly and not the guy flamed who out in Philly and cratered in San Fran.

Barring any ethical / legal issues occurring in a program and as long as a team isn't a dumpster fire on field IMO you need to allow a coach 6-8 years to gain traction, stability and direction.

sameoldlama
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby sameoldlama » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:50 pm

Take a look at the pics in attached article

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/tennessee- ... 51492.html

I'm guessing it wasn't a group of influential donors / alum that painted the rock or quickly put together a makeshift sign with sharpies and posterboard. I'm guessing it was a bunch of knuckleheads.

Blue&White
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:07 pm

You're assuming that is why they rescinded the offer.

I read a few articles while I was eating lunch. From what I saw, UT said they vetted him, they spoke to OSU who also vetted him, and they saw nothing to these accusations. They are still defending him and their vetting process. What I did see in the article were a number of alumni and former players complaining about the way he conducted business while he was at Tampa.

I wasn't in the room when this decision was made so I'm just guessing, but I find it very difficult to believe they pulled him over some BS internet controversy and a painted rock. However, I find it very easy to believe they pulled him because former players and big donor alumni said they didn't think he was a good fit for UT. When I was looking before, I saw more comments about his time in Tampa and his controlling style than I did about PSU.

Who knows what really happened. If enough paying customers make noise about nonsense, I guess you have to stand up and take notice. It's not like they were getting Pop Warner here. They may have just decided he wasn't worth the headaches, reasonable or otherwise.

As for you question as to why wouldn't they vet him with their big donors - I can't answer that. It sure seems like they didn't, though.

LioninVa
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby LioninVa » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:27 pm

Schiano is claiming that this was not just an offer, but that an agreement was signed. He is looking for some form of compensation for this deal going south. The timeline does not support MM’s claim (or hearsay primer) that he was aware of anything regarding Sandusky, as far as I could discern anyway. Like the rest of you, I don’t know who knew what and when. I do think MM is far from credible as his initial date was a year off from the one used in the GJ and Freeh report, and that date has come under scrutiny as there were plenty of events on campus that night that make is seem like less than a quiet Friday evening in State College.

Blue&White
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:06 pm

McQuery's story was he told Bradley about what he saw and Bradley told him Schiano had said he saw something. Both Bradley and Schiano said it never happened.

Who knows at this point.