The Nittany Turkey

Primarily about Penn State football, this is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Search This Site

Enter keyword(s) below to search for relevant articles.

Home Archives for Rod Erickson

He Ain’t Gonna Sell Out the Akron Game!

Posted on Written by

James Franklin hit the ground in State College with both wheels running, promising to sell out Beaver Stadium for every home game and stating that he would even blow up balloons at kids’ birthday parties. While these promises seem a bit hyperbolic, Franklin’s debut media meetup was nonetheless singularly impressive. Exuding self-assurance bordering on cockiness, he took command of the room and did not falter on a single question. He answered most directly and with confidence, and those he chose not to answer, he waltzed around like a career politician.

It was his penchant for the latter that inspired “my friend” Davy Jones of the Patriot-News to write the following:

“To be specific, it’s pretty clear James Franklin is full of crap. But a lot of that is in a good way.”

Jones went on to describe a 441 word Franklin arabesque around a delicate subject that he didn’t want to address in front of a room full of hungry media hounds. Later, Jones wrote:

“Remember how O’Brien just wanted to be a football coach and had very little use for the rest of the happy horse crap? I actually liked that about him. He was genuine to the core.

“Well, it’s possible to like the 180-degree opposite, too. And maybe that’s what Penn State needs at this juncture.

“Franklin likes to talk. He likes to play the game outside the lines as much as the one between them. But from all the guys around the country I know who’ve dealt with him, I haven’t heard one say he’s not genuine. He really loves all of it. He just needs a 36-hour day and 10-day weeks.

“He is perfectly willing to take on every job description of Penn State football coach that anyone wants to lay on him. That seems to include peacemaker.”

Yeah, like the ever cynical Jones, I like this guy. Straight talk mixed with bullshit — a man after my own heart.

Remember what I told you about large universities being hotbeds of political intrigue (from personal experience) and that the head coaching position sits right on top of that powder keg, requiring someone who knows how to deal with the petty exercise of power that frequently tears universities apart? Unlike O’Brien, this guy appears to be equipped to handle it. He’s going to take everybody out to lunch to get to know them (another inflated promise, but indicative of a uniting spirit). Describing himself as “a college guy through and through”, he will make time for the politics.

One of my favorite barbs directed at academia: “In acadème, the fights are so vicious because the stakes are so small.”

Anyone who occupies as highly visible a position as head football coach in a university that remains in denial about its dominant culture of football is going to have to surmount this petty bullshit. He can be aloof to it like O’Brien and let it grind him into the ground, or he can acknowledge it and relish taking on the role of uniter, as Franklin appears to want to do. While this crap almost never comes up in casual fan debate about coaching candidates and in football blogs like this (except when I feel like it), it must be a major consideration.

With O’Brien, the times were different. First of all, Penn State football was on the verge of extinction, with no one knowing quite what form its NCAA punishment would take. Who would take a job under those circumstances? The BoT was at war, the “Paterno People” were screaming bloody murder about the statue and the firing, and everything else was up in the air. The University found a guy with brass balls willing to brave the fetid miasma who could manhandle the football program; however, never having been a head coach, O’Brien faltered on the finer points of university politics, which can be as raw and bloody as the Saturday battles in the trenches.

This is why hiring anyone who hasn’t been the point man in that sort of situation is a major crap shoot. You don’t want an “earn while you learn” guy getting his feet wet in a top-tier program and quickly realizing that he’s in over his head. He needs to get his baptismal of fire elsewhere, where he can establish a proven, politically propitious track record beforehand. This is why Larry Johnson, “Scrap” Bradley, and yes, even Bill O’Brien were unsuitable candidates. Assistant coaches are shielded from most of the political crapola.

I think Franklin knows how to play this game, and I think he even relishes the pressure it will bring to bear upon him. This is crucial to his success and that of the football program at Penn State.

Nobody is going to make the “Paterno People” happy until they get their statue back and their wins reinstated. Probably not even then. They still seem to want their pound of flesh. However, Franklin, who showed due deference to the Legend of St. Joe throughout his press conference, will try to heal some of the wounds. He won’t shy away from it. By facing the undercurrent squarely, I hope that he can put this divisiveness behind us. It is certainly time. Once removed coachwise from the seaminess, it is unfair to put the new guy in the middle of this passé and sometimes puerile debate. We need to look forward, not back.

Someone asked Franklin about hiring Vanderlinden and Johnson. He waffled, as indeed he should have. Hell, he ain’t going to hire Ron Vanderlinden, you idiot! He worked for the guy at UMd! When does that ever work out? It’s one thing to be elevated to boss from being one of the boys, but for the boss to wind up working for one of the boys is almost unheard of. As for LJ, he’s a good guy caught in an unfortunate squeeze. Franklin must assemble his own team and make the program his own. He broke off talks with the University of Texas when it became clear that the “good old boys” there wanted him to keep four of Mack Brown’s assistants on the staff. I still have the feeling that LJ and Vanderlinden were compromises forced upon O’Brien in a similar manner, in Penn State’s case to assuage fears that the program would deviate from Paternoland completely and lose many fans in the process. Again, the time for that kind of concession has passed. Sentimental reasons be damned — Franklin gets to hire the guys he must manage. We need new ideas, not ties to the past. Sorry, nostalgia buffs, but I’m hoping that a new broom sweeps clean. Let’s hope that the administration gives this guy free rein and attaches no strings.

I think they will and they have. Joyner seems to have learned from his mistakes with O’Brien and he seems to have grown a pair. He and Erickson are also probably lame ducks, so they have more freedom to make ballsy decisions. This was a good one, bought at an unprecedented price for Penn State: $4.5 million per year for six years, plus or minus, with additional bonuses.

Perhaps, Franklin has the vision, the political presence, and the can-do spirit that it takes to convince LJ to take on a recruiting position if he replaces him as defensive line coach — not as an appeasement or a make work position, but because he believes that a net benefit will accrue to him and to the program if he keeps Larry around. It’s his decision. It better be.

There is even an Irish connection for those who lament that the Croke Classic next year won’t be O’Leary vs. O’Brien. Franklin’s military dad married his mom while in England and had a honeymoon in Ireland. Thus, Franklin might well have been conceived on Irish soil.

I have good, optimistic feelings about Franklin and where this whole program is heading. Time to heal. Time to “get over it”.

But unless he decides to commit a healthy chunk of that big, fat salary to purchasing 10,000 tickets, he ain’t gonna sell out the Akron game!

Big Deal Press Conference at PSU Saturday

Posted on Written by

With all the trash being posted on twitter, it’s a wonder I was able to pick the following one out of the muck and mire. This, my friends, is the only one that counts.

 

We probably will be able to say goodbye to the Twittiots and get the straight scoop from Old Main.

As I’m to understand it, to comply with university hiring rules and associated governmental bullshit, two things have to take place: the job has to be advertised in the officially prescribed manner, and for megabucks salaries, the BoT’s compensation subcommittee has to approve the contractually committed salary. Rumor has it that we’re dealing with $4.5 million annually here, and that requires BoT approval. I believe that 24 hours advance notice must be given of such a meeting in order to comply with sunshine laws. Thus, if a conceptual agreement with Coach X existed on, say, Thursday night, then Saturday morning would be about the earliest a meeting could be held.

Now, then, who will it be? Well, most of the Twittiots seem to think that it will be James Franklin. They’re still spewing all kinds of bullshit about that as I write this. Why? We’ll probably know for sure tomorrow at 4:15 PM ET, when the major announcement is to take place. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure it will introduce a new head coach, or at least announce that a bilateral contract commitment has been made. I still won’t speculate on who it will be. (But I think it probably won’t be Al Golden, Mike Munchak, Greg Roman, Larry Johnson, or Greg Schiano.)

I can wait until tomorrow. It’ll be anticlimactic, unless we get a big, sweeping curve ball out of Old Main. Once we know, the Twittiots will begin their gloating process about who was the first to call it, etc. (Of course, half of them called it four different ways, three of which they think we all forgot.)

Ahhh, but once we get a head coach we enter some interesting times, as he’ll have to quickly assemble a team, especially if rumors of Larry Johnson’s intention to leave the program are true. There’ll be a helluva lot of work to do to ramp up for recruiting, which starts in earnest next week after the winter hiatus and continues with great intensity for a few weeks hence. Larry was a premier recruiter, so Coach X will have to replace him tout suite. (Unless he agrees to stick around to help with the transition.)

Interesting times, as reader Joe has said, just when we thought we’d be entering dull, winter non-football doldrums.

Laser Focus: Ch-ch-changes!

Posted on Written by

As an alumnus, I was bemused by an email this morning from Penn State president Rod Erickson. Here’s what he said:

Dear Penn State Community:

Recently, a number of groups across the Commonwealth have called for changes in the University’s governance structure. For more than 157 years, shared governance among the Board of Trustees, the administration, and the faculty has allowed our University to thrive and become one of the top research universities in the world. As you know, this has been a year of tremendous change at Penn State. Its governing body, the thirty-two-member Board of Trustees, also is changing.

Driven by the desire to do what’s in the best interests of the University, the Trustees on May 3 adopted a number of changes to Penn State’s charter, bylaws, and governance structure. These changes will help ensure the highest standards of excellence and a process of openness that will provide a clearer path forward in fulfilling our important mission of teaching, research, and public service.

Notably, these are living documents that were crafted to include a process for change; indeed, the Board has revised those documents more than twenty times in the past twelve years.

Another significant document connected with change is “A Vision for Penn State: A Report of the Blue and White Vision Council,” which explores the challenges, opportunities, and strategies for the University in the years ahead. The Vision Council, made up of members of the Board of Trustees and the University community, is integral to the future of the University.

I’d like to share with you these significant changes that promise to play a critical role in our future as a University and in the future of generations to come. As always, I hope these communications from me provide you with timely and important information about Penn State. Thank you for being a part of our University.

RODNEY ERICKSON

It appears that what Erickson is attempting to do is portray the Board of Trustees as a dynamic, forward thinking governing body that is responsive to the needs of the community. The BoT’s recent changes that seemingly serve to concentrate power inspired Erickson to put out this piece of colorful prose, no doubt, and his opening sentence suggests that he knows that the changes will piss off “a number of groups across the Commonwealth.” This seems to be pointed at PS4RS, from this naive turkey’s point of view.

So, what are the BoT changes? Funny you should ask. For a quick synopsis, if you read Big Al’s comment on my previous post, you’ll get an inkling — expressed in Al’s own gloves off, balls-to-the-wall style. For more detail, a Penn State press release will clue you in to the whole pile of changes. However, if you’re too busy to click on any of those links, here is a list of changes:

  • The governor and University president will now serve as non-voting ex-officio members. (They used to vote)
  • The president is no longer automatically secretary of the board. That position will be elected.
  • Three-year term limits for all trustees, not just elected ones. [The wording is confusing in the press release, but I think this means terms, not term limits. See the next sentence. —TNT] Term limits for trustees other than ex-officio trustees will be 12 consecutive years.
  • The number of voting trustees is reduced to 30: nine elected by alumni, six appointed by the governor, six elected by agricultural societies across the state, six represent business and industry and are selected by the BoT, and three are ex-officio members (Secretary of Education, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of Conservation and Natural Resources).
  • Provision for term limits now applies to the vice chair (but not the chair!).
  • Former University employees need to wait five years before serving on the BoT, up from three.
  • Former Commonwealth “row officers” must wait five years before becoming trustees. (A row officer is a county official. This is kind of unique to Pennsylvania.)
  • There is now a section describing the process for removal of a trustee. (This is a major controversial point, which seemed to be aimed at suppressing dissent on the board. It is half of the “Lubrano Rule” — nicknamed for an outspoken trustee — with the other half being that directors will not make publicly negative statements about board decisions. This section gives that gag rule teeth. I wrote about this back in March. Following is an excerpt from that post.)

    It is interesting that with the election forthcoming, the BoT is considering proposals to reduce the size of the board, to put gags on members, and be empowered to kick people off the board who speak out. Here is the exact wording of the proposal that would restrict the free speech of board members:

    “It is expected that each Trustee will… Speak openly, freely and candidly within the Board and publicly support decisions reached by the Board; it being recognized and understood that once the Board of Trustees, as the governing body of the University, makes a decision, it can be counterproductive and potentially damaging to the University for individual Trustees to publicly criticize or attempt to subvert such decision…”

    Hellllllllooooooooo! If Washington ran that way, it would be Pyongyang! Communist stifling of free speech! Toe the party line… or else! WTF? Is this America?

  • Quorum requirement modified from 13 to a majority of the voting members. (That would be 16, at present.)
  • The Executive Committee is now selected by chairs of six newly formed standing committees, the chair and vice chair of the board, the chair of the board of directors at the medical school, the immediate past chair of the BoT (oy, vay!), and three at-large members (yay!) nominated by the Governance and Long-Range Planning committee (boo!) and elected by the Board of Trustees. (This serves to guarantee that power will be concentrated in and held by what Big Al refers to as the ass clowns, and it incidentally empowers Karen Peetz to continue to be influential over the board by virtue of her past board chairmanship and her position as chair of the long-range planning committee. I’m just whining about the “laser focus on the future” babe here.)
  • The board also strengthened its comprehensive conflict of interest policy. (I’ll have to read this one thoroughly to find the fly in the ointment.)

So, that’s what Erickson means when he says that the documents are “living documents” that have been modified twenty times in the past twelve years. I think that the lady doth protest too much! Surely, he (or more probably, the University Relations “ass clown” who wrote the letter) were being rather transparent in attempting to defuse what he anticipated to be a sea of protests, especially concerning Executive Committee and the “Lubrano gag rule” buried deeply and couched tersely in the fetid bowels of the synopsis.

As a further smokescreen, Erickson presents “A Vision for Penn State: A Report of the Blue and White Vision Council.” You may recall that Karen Peetz chairs the Blue and White Vision Council, where she maintains her signature laser focus on the future of the university. In her foreword, she quotes historian Norman Davies, to wit:

“Historical change is like an avalanche. The starting point is a snow-covered mountainside that looks solid. All changes take place under the surface and are rather invisible. But something is coming. What is impossible is to say when.”

The document is a glowing self-promotion, just about what you would expect from a 19-page document from this group. But sandwiched innocuously between the copious promotional boilerplate and the “implications for the next University president” lip service is a section on ethics. The following paragraphs on Page 17 caught my eye:

The Board of Trustees commissioned an independent review – known as the Freeh Report — which recommended that Penn State’s culture be re-examined in part to “establish values and ethics-based decision-making and adherence to the Penn State principles as the standard for all University faculty, staff and students.” Building a strong and healthy campus culture has been a point of Penn State pride over many years. For example, the Penn State Principles, aspirational statements for students, were issued more than 10 years ago, in July 2001. The Principles include four key statements:

“I will respect the dignity of all individuals within the Penn State community; I will practice academic integrity; I will demonstrate social and personal responsibility; and I will be responsible for my own academic progress and agree to comply with all University policies.”

Given the sole focus of these principles on student responsibilities, however, Penn State concluded that a new and broader set of Principles was needed. They will be grounded in Penn State’s core values and will be relevant for all students, faculty and staff. Several steps are now under way to develop the revised Principles. Prominent faculty ethicists have offered advice and expertise on substantive and process issues related to identifying new Principles. A Task Force of faculty, students and staff has been charged to lead the project and to establish a process and timeline for completion. Likewise, an audit of college, campus and administrative unit core values has been undertaken, and benchmarking of core values from other universities has also been completed. Finally, discussions have begun with the Ethics Resource Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to independent research that advances high ethical standards and practices in public and private institutions, for the development of an ethical culture survey to be administered to the University at periodic intervals. Sustaining these initiatives going forward is of particular importance.

I don’t know whether I’m seeing black helicopters here, but this raised a red flag. We start with the Freeh report being emphasized as an independent review — which this turkey has frequently opined it was anything but. I have no issues with an ethics policy being extended beyond students to the faculty and staff of the institution, just as long as the First Amendment is not stepped on. I have no qualms at all about tight policies regarding academic integrity. Social and personal responsibility, too, is a given in any halfway decent ethics policy, pun intended. My big question here is whether this new-found sensitivity to ethical practice by faculty and administrative staff not a vehicle for eventual suppression? Under the guise of preventing Sandusky scandals in the future, could the University be contemplating abrogating or limiting the right of free speech? The future of this proposed ethical renaissance is unclear, mired in a pig wallow of committees, task forces, and outside (quasi-independent) organizations (Ethics Resource Center).

I’ve written enough for now. Take a look at these documents and form your own opinions as to whether we’re really maintaining that laser focus on the future of the University.