This is obviously a tough situation for all involved, most notably the student-athlete. I feel terribly for him. That part has been thoroughly discussed here.
And there has been plenty of animosity towards the coaching staff, some of it fair and some of it not. No need to pile on here.
What has not been touched on enough is how deep-rooted this issue is. It goes beyond the coaching staff. A few years ago, the administration at PSU made a decision to go with an all-distance model for track and field. They are obviously not unique in that decision. Right, wrong, or indifferent, many track and field programs go this route. What makes PSU unique is that it was an administrative decision, not a coaching one. Surely, the genesis of this move was budget related (fewer coaches, less equipment, etc.).
Whatever your opinion about this philosophy, there's no question that it makes it more difficult to sponsor the sport of track and field. You're taking a 21-event sport and reducing it to 5. Getting 14 athletes to compete in 8 different meets becomes more challenging.
All I'm saying is this: Let's put our rocks down for a moment and understand that this problem goes deeper than simply saying "FIRE THE COACHES!" Much of this is above their paygrade. Should the coaches have done better? Sure. And they would say the same thing. But there are systemic issues at play here and the solution is far more complex than what has been offered on these boards.