Certainly that’s a question being asked in various parts this morning, but it’s relevant here. Bill Stewart “resigned” Friday and offered neither comment nor defense. Not to the media. Not to the players he met for the last time Saturday. Not to say he owed anyone anything — though on many levels, I believe he owed it to himself — but that was how this all ended.

Oliver Luck is on vacation after delaying the start of that getaway a few days late last week. Dana Holgorsen spoke to the campers Saturday at the Bob Huggins fantasy camp and them headed to Houston. FOIA requests are filed and will eventually reveal contract deals and perhaps some proof of alleged wrongdoings.

I don’t know, but the official “Let’s move forward” position presented Friday night didn’t stick with me. I understand and respect that desire, but I remain completely intrigued here. There are things that still hold my attention. Perhaps you are the same.

What I don’t know is if people want to come here to keep reading and talking about this story when we’ve nailed it down pretty solidly for a week. And if there’s nothing new anytime soon to refresh the conversation, I can see an added need to go in another direction. I welcome suggestions.

And then again, I may be all wrong. This may be big enough to keep people going — and coming here — and we did just see a head coach lose his job.

… what a story.

I’ve seen and heard where a lot of people say this happened so fast. In truth, relative to my position, it did not. Long ago, back when I was poking around about Brady Ackerman, I heard Stewart’s contract was being rearranged, as requested by both sides. Then I heard the thing was done. I would, on occasion, fire off a FOIA.

This is no offense to WVU’s current leadership, but contracts used to be a big-time problem at WVU. Our interest in Stewart’s and the changes was well founded.

And every request came back saying nothing had changed from a previous request — that being in January when we first revealed his modified employment agreement. To me, that meant it wasn’t done, not that it wasn’t being changed.

Then Holgorsen was kicked out of a casino and one person told me to be careful how it was written and, I’m paraphrasing, it wasn’t as bad as it will be made to look.

Weird. Maybe that’s true. I’m inclined to believe that now. Holgorsen was vilified and that was before the Huntington Herald-Dispatch column.

That column threw together a bunch of incidents a lot of us had heard about. I’d already looked into three of them even before the Cross Lanes crisscross and couldn’t find anyone to tell me anything. And I knew WVU had done and come away with the same. So the column was … I don’t know, odd?

The obvious reaction story from there was “What is WVU’s reaction to Holgorsen’s trouble/negative attention?” Is he benched for the summer? Suspended for a game? Fined? In treatment? No one knew. I found that to be the story — how will this be handled?

Well, it turned out the story was that the column was disputed heavily by WVU — and, again, in all fairness to WVU, but that’s unusual behavior. WVU usually turns the other cheek. This reaction was different. That became the story: WVU was combating the stories and defending Holgorsen.

Pretty substantial reaction, I thought, and then that was that. Then I said something profoundly innocent and clairvoyant in a blog post June 2:

The other part of the reaction to my story will be people who are furious the lazy media with nothing better to do continues to make this a story. Those people will never understand, but will keep themselves comfortable with theories the media is out to get them and “we,” as they refer to themselves, would be better off if the media just let it go. Now that I can understand. I just disagree and perhaps soon you will see why.

That wasn’t a tease. That was me defending my job against people who stupidly say I have nothing better to do and hoping one day they see things for as they are … but I do wonder now if those people do see why things are done as they are done.

Anyhow, people read this blog, man. In writing that “WVU disputes” story and dealing with some feedback, my interest was turned to why, all of a sudden, WVU was so upset. Some significant information came to our attention. People were quizzed and questions were asked and stories were shared. By Friday, down in Charleston for the BoG meeting, it it looked like a case of not-so-friendly fire.

Then the conversation returned to where it started: Stewart’s contract. It was finished and the terms were decided, but it didn’t have the signatures needed to make it a complete document. Why? WVU was, and had been, suspicious of what is now believed to be the attempt to undermine Holgorsen and his transition.

WVU’s part of this started in March when exaggerated tales about Holgorsen’s conduct at Wheeling Island first made their way to the sort of people who hear those things and then get concerned. It didn’t really stop, but it really picked up when the Herald-Dispatch story hit.

I really hope people grasp that: WVU didn’t act fast at the end — and that’s an allegation I won’t support; doing what they did, when the news  is in the public, inside of a week, is fast — because this wasn’t a fast process at all. This was a long and carefully drawn-out thing they’d undertaken earlier. The scope and the intensity and the number of people actively assisting, none of that was the same at the end, but WVU wasn’t caught off guard and speeding to a hasty conclusion.

And here we are now, Monday morning, wondering the same: What do we do?