Neither got it right in the latest debacle. They couldn’t simply announce Athletic Director Norwood Teague’s resignation and the facts related to the known incidents. Instead, they could not resist couching Teague’s offensive behavior in the context of alcohol abuse at the time, presumably because it

lessens culpability and builds sympathy for him and, indirectly, the University. 

That may have been Teague’s story, but it should not have been part of the University’s response. How could they not have anticipated a pattern of abuse, with more disclosures of his behavior likely, irrespective of circumstances?

And, in their world of golden parachutes — seemingly not applicable to this sorry affair — they still could not resist their “old boy” mentality. Rather than make a clean break, they laid the groundwork for a continued relationship with Teague as an indispensable consultant who would be paid $285 an hour for his advice. 

This is especially demeaning to the University staff who have to clean up the latest mess but apparently lack the wherewithal to do so without Teague’s assistance. It’s just another example of the University’s financial largesse and a long history of undeserved rewards extended to high-level administrative and athletic personnel.