....it comes down to your own personal naivete and who do you trust in this situation? Someone who's very livelihood in their profession depends on their integrity and their integrity hangs on the reliability of their sources (see what happened to Dan Rather's career when he forgot his professional ethics and let his personal bias get in the way of his due diligence in getting his sources in line before running with a story) or a group who by trade are very closed off, very secretive and have exponentially more "skin" at stake?

There's a reason the old saying, "Follow the money" is an old saying, it's true. Seeing who has more to lose in this scenario helps you to see who has more reason to cover up. The whole need to do the Clinton dance "depends on what the definition of "is" is" by the BYU athletic dept and go to great lengths to try and cloud what it means to "aggressively seek employment elsewhere" just helps build the case against them. Firing his assistant coaches isn't going to cost Bronco his job, if anything, it buys him more time to turn things around because to the public it makes the failure look the fault of the individuals he's fired and not his own.

As for your attempt to discredit the professionalism and integrity of Dick Harmon and his "unnamed sources", he's an old-school journalist with well placed sources, the fact that they don't publicly "out" their sources (throw them under the bus and get them fired along with the assistant coaches that had been fired) means they're smart and adds to their integrity. Valued sources wouldn't give him info and validate info for him if they didn't trust him.

That's the way this sport works, respected journalists vet and verify their sources and get more than one to corroborate a story before they go to print, coaches or AD officials backpedal, attempt to deflect and minimize the impact when their actions are exposed to the public. It's like I said before, in the business world there are times people get out-right fired and there are times employees are fired but given a graceful exit (resign), the difference is the media doesn't care when I extend that offer to one of my employees and they don't publish it when I do it so I don't come under any public scrutiny as a result like Bronco and others do.

I don't have a problem with his letting staff members go gracefully, it just seems disingenuous to go to such great lengths to try and blur things or split hairs over what it means to tell someone they're fired vs telling them to "aggressively seek employment elsewhere". Bottom line is it gets the same result and has the same meaning. I (and many others) just aren't that naive to think it doesn't mean what it means.

I'm also fine if you or others disagree with me, it doesn't upset my well-ordered world if you or others disagree with me. We can look at the same thing from differing vantage points and it doesn't make me angry or get emotional if you or others disagree. It's okay, really.