I would say that outside of the Daily NU and the twitter outrage police - this story has an outrage level or 2 or 3 out of 10. Yes, it is being reported but there is no ground swell movement to oust Fitz and as I originally suspected, not too many people have time to care about a flailing NU football program in July.
Sadly, from a totally cynical perspective, and with the full on knowledge that some stuff was going and a pretty good guess that Fitz was allowing it to go on, the biggest gaff to date is the statement by NU president. Had he held his position and came out and said we conducted an investigation and these individuals were interviewed and we came to the conclusion that this was the best course of action, that likely would have but the matter to rest outside of the Daily reporters and their supporters online.
Does that mean I agree with the 2 week vacation - honestly, how can I because I have not seen the evidence. But I do know, as someone who spends their life trying to figure out the truth or more importantly, prove things in court, the outcomes of disputes are not always correct or fair or equitable. Sometimes they are wrong. And I also know that no matter the punishment, the true believers would never be satisfied. If NU had suspended Fitz for 4 games (I actually think this is a pretty fair based on what I have seen to date given his performance, the fact this happened at some level and the questionable motives of the whistle blower) there still would have been people who wanted him fired. As the saying goes, some people will never be happy and choose to be angry about everything.
I also know this, NU football as a whole is in trouble. Many of the problems start and end with Fitz. Its the job the AD and the President and the Trustees to evaluate this situation and act accordingly. Unfortunately for them, they have to deal with a bad situation probably made 100 times worse by the President's actions this weekend. Whatever your opinion of him his, he gave into the twitter outrage police and made this worse for the university as a whole. He basically created any mess that NU finds itself in going forward. This is the case regardless of what happened or how you personally feel about.
There are typically 3 outcomes in cases like this: (1) the case is so egregious, there is an immediate dismissal; (2) the university investigates and determines based on a cost benefit analysis or the inability to firmly establish the events warrant dismissal that it will not fire the coach, at which point it becomes just a part of the program (Mike Leach as Washington State and Randy Walker at NU are examples of coaches whose methods were scrutinized when allegations were made against them); finally there is number (3) the university initially holds firm in not firing the coach but the coach has real problems and eventually further conduct results in dismissal - Huggins at WVU and Bobby Knight are examples.
My bet is this will fit within category 2 but the presidents acts could still push us to No. 1 but because the outrage meter is not trending up, I will still hold true with No. 2.
And then what do I personally take away from this: Fitz is a ultimately just a football guy, an somewhat arrogant one at that. He does what football guys do. He has earned at least the benefit of the doubt given his exemplary history of graduating players and being loyal to kids when other teams would have pushed them off the roster. Does this mean that if more proof comes out, I won't change my mind - I will but I have not seen it and the Daily NU platforming the accuser will not change that given the suggested vendetta against Fitz. Do I think hazing is right - no. NU should and has taken acts to deal with this situation. Was the punishment enough - I have no clue unless I see the report. But I do know that ultimately, if Fitz is a bad guy who is abusing players or allowing them to be abused, he won't change and he will be shown the door in short time as I fully expect that his seat, which was seeing the temperature rise, is now probably getting a few degrees warmer.
Sadly, from a totally cynical perspective, and with the full on knowledge that some stuff was going and a pretty good guess that Fitz was allowing it to go on, the biggest gaff to date is the statement by NU president. Had he held his position and came out and said we conducted an investigation and these individuals were interviewed and we came to the conclusion that this was the best course of action, that likely would have but the matter to rest outside of the Daily reporters and their supporters online.
Does that mean I agree with the 2 week vacation - honestly, how can I because I have not seen the evidence. But I do know, as someone who spends their life trying to figure out the truth or more importantly, prove things in court, the outcomes of disputes are not always correct or fair or equitable. Sometimes they are wrong. And I also know that no matter the punishment, the true believers would never be satisfied. If NU had suspended Fitz for 4 games (I actually think this is a pretty fair based on what I have seen to date given his performance, the fact this happened at some level and the questionable motives of the whistle blower) there still would have been people who wanted him fired. As the saying goes, some people will never be happy and choose to be angry about everything.
I also know this, NU football as a whole is in trouble. Many of the problems start and end with Fitz. Its the job the AD and the President and the Trustees to evaluate this situation and act accordingly. Unfortunately for them, they have to deal with a bad situation probably made 100 times worse by the President's actions this weekend. Whatever your opinion of him his, he gave into the twitter outrage police and made this worse for the university as a whole. He basically created any mess that NU finds itself in going forward. This is the case regardless of what happened or how you personally feel about.
There are typically 3 outcomes in cases like this: (1) the case is so egregious, there is an immediate dismissal; (2) the university investigates and determines based on a cost benefit analysis or the inability to firmly establish the events warrant dismissal that it will not fire the coach, at which point it becomes just a part of the program (Mike Leach as Washington State and Randy Walker at NU are examples of coaches whose methods were scrutinized when allegations were made against them); finally there is number (3) the university initially holds firm in not firing the coach but the coach has real problems and eventually further conduct results in dismissal - Huggins at WVU and Bobby Knight are examples.
My bet is this will fit within category 2 but the presidents acts could still push us to No. 1 but because the outrage meter is not trending up, I will still hold true with No. 2.
And then what do I personally take away from this: Fitz is a ultimately just a football guy, an somewhat arrogant one at that. He does what football guys do. He has earned at least the benefit of the doubt given his exemplary history of graduating players and being loyal to kids when other teams would have pushed them off the roster. Does this mean that if more proof comes out, I won't change my mind - I will but I have not seen it and the Daily NU platforming the accuser will not change that given the suggested vendetta against Fitz. Do I think hazing is right - no. NU should and has taken acts to deal with this situation. Was the punishment enough - I have no clue unless I see the report. But I do know that ultimately, if Fitz is a bad guy who is abusing players or allowing them to be abused, he won't change and he will be shown the door in short time as I fully expect that his seat, which was seeing the temperature rise, is now probably getting a few degrees warmer.
