One year after the James Franklin split, Penn State and the coach’s new chapter still look unfinished

On Oct. 12, 2025, Penn State made a decisive move in its football program, firing James Franklin as the program’s leadership sought an immediate change in direction. The decision, according to the way the split has been framed publicly, was not presented as a slow rebuild. It was described as a response to underperformance that had reached a point where the athletic department wanted to send a message and alter the trajectory.

At the time of the dismissal, the documented context was stark: Penn State had dropped three consecutive games against Big Ten opponents, a stretch that left the team short of expectations and, more importantly, short of momentum in the conference. When a program reaches that kind of moment, the personnel decision becomes more than evaluation. It becomes a referendum on the staff’s ability to turn talent and preparation into results against familiar, high-quality opposition.

For the coaching side of the breakup, Franklin’s departure also carried the promise that a fresh start would eventually reveal something different, either through new fit, new circumstances, or a chance to correct what the departure suggested was missing. But a year later, the narrative around the split has not shifted into a clean story of vindication for either party. The framing is that both sides arrived with hope and optimism, then landed in comparable disappointment within a similar time window.

Penn State’s problem, as described in the follow-up assessment, was that the anticipated progress did not arrive quickly enough to stabilize expectations. Even with the leadership intent to steer the program toward a new football identity, the results did not produce the clear separation from the prior era that a move like this usually tries to create. The “message” that comes with a midstream firing can be loud, but it does not automatically translate into better Saturdays.

The deeper issue is that college football coaching transitions rarely fix the hardest parts of the sport in a single offseason. Recruiting, roster development, schematic continuity, and in-season decision-making all have long tails. When performance dips, departures can be justified by the immediate evidence. But one year later, it can still be too early to determine whether the new direction has created a durable advantage or whether the program simply moved from one phase of adjustment into another.

For Penn State, the immediate watch item is whether the program’s offseason planning and in-season execution start to reflect the change in direction that the athletic department indicated when it acted. For Franklin, the question is whether the broader circumstances around his new chapter lead to the kind of sustained success that would rewrite the breakup’s meaning. Right now, the public conclusion is that there are “no winners” in the most literal sense, but that does not remove the possibility that the outcomes could diverge over time.

As Penn State continues through the second year of its post-Franklin era, the program’s credibility will depend on more than intention. Fans and administrators will want evidence that the team can consistently compete within the Big Ten, win the games that define conference seasons, and build a roster that fits the new standard. Until that shows up, the split will remain what this one-year assessment suggests it has become: a decisive action that still has not produced a clear payoff.