So I do part-time custodial work at a restaurant in Gettysburg. When I got done today, I went downstairs to the bar area and saw that ESPN was reporting that members of the Board of Trustees were complaining that Erickson did not consult with them before signing the consent decree. Also, they believed that the university should have fought the penalties.

Now, I'm not seeing anything much on BSD about any of this, so I'm just a bit confused.

1) Weren't these people reported last night as having decided to, in effect, accept Erickson's actions?

2) Is the reason for this seeming contradiction - as pointed out by question #1 - the fact that they consulted lawyers and decided they couldn't do anything against the NCAA (but could blame the president; 'cause blaming others is how they roll)?

My temptation is to assume they're trying to play a PR game.

Also, apologies for posting yet another fanpost about this crap.