'Good shot' for Vanderbilt's Franklin to become Penn State's coach
College Football Videos
The Penn State coaching search is moving toward resolution, with Vanderbilt's James Franklin emerging as a top candidate.
The Washington Post quoted an unnamed source Wednesday saying Franklin had a “good shot” of being hired by Penn State.
Vanderbilt athletic director David Williams told WGFX-FM in Nashville, “There will always be people who want what you want. Successful people and programs have to understand that's what you live with.”
San Francisco 49ers offensive coordinator Greg Roman interviewed for the vacant job, according to separate reports from CBS and ESPN. Roman has 16 years of experience as an NFL assistant and was the offensive coordinator at Stanford from 2009-10.
Roman was a candidate during Penn State's coaching search two years ago. He told Comcast SportsNet then: “A job like Penn State is a lifetime job. That's a job, if I were to become the head coach there, I wouldn't leave there.”
Miami athletic director Blake James, meanwhile, told the Miami Herald, “I believe (Al Golden) will be our coach going forward.” Golden, who interviewed with Penn State on Saturday, said as recently as Monday he was “not a candidate for another position.”
But a TV station in Philadelphia and a radio station in Florida reported Golden is not out of the running.
Another coach who has been interviewed by Penn State, former Tennessee Titans coach Mike Munchak, interviewed with the Detroit Lions on Wednesday, according to multiple reports.
Chris Adamski is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at email@example.com or via Twitter @C_AdamskiTrib.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Arnold man charged after 20-mile chase
- McKeesport park to get more regional asset funds
- Steelers film session: Harrison on the field often
- Gunfire plagues New Kensington
- Car, bike show to outfit police
- Home brew returns
- Falcons to host ‘Kitty Cat Game’
- Monessen woman honored for service as church volunteer
- Daily Courier roundup: Erdely qualifies for PIAA regional
- At least $100,000 in appliances stolen from new homes around Western Pa.
- Business roundup: SEC fines Bank of America $7.65M for miscalculation; court-ordered anti-smoking ads challenged; more