DALLAS — Penn State's coaching search will extend into the upcoming week, with at least two candidates receiving second interviews, sources told the Tribune-Review on Saturday.
Interim coach Tom Bradley and Green Bay packers quarterbacks coach Tom Clements will receive another interview, and each has been vetted by Penn State officials, the sources said.
Penn State officials also hope to speak with at least one top assistant from a team playing in a BCS bowl game, though the assistant's identity and team was not known by the sources.
The vetting of Bradley and Clements is significant. Penn State officials want to be sure the top coaching candidates carry no personal baggage given the negative publicity surrounding the university and its football program because of a child sexual abuse scandal alleged to involve former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, the sources said.
The interviews, which will be conducted by acting athletic director David Joyner, could be held as early as Tuesday afternoon, the sources said.
The Nittany Lions play Houston in the TicketCity Bowl at the Cotton Bowl on Monday. The team is scheduled to return home Tuesday morning.
Joyner, who is in Dallas with the football team, declined to comment. He is part of a six-person committee formed Nov. 28 to find a replacement for Joe Paterno, who was fired Nov. 9 during his 46th season as head coach.
Joyner told the Tribune-Review on Thursday that he is "not close" to naming a successor for Paterno. Penn State president Rodney Erickson had initially said he hoped a new football coach would be hired by the team's bowl game.
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.