1. I agree it's suspicious, but I also see the logic in it. There's a difference between what you tell the football team and what you say under oath. Also there was two different kinds of video. 1 was a surveillance footage from the dorm rooms that the university discovered (what started to investigation originally) and the second was what the involved player(s) recorded. I think Franklin was shown the surveillance footage without a doubt so he could identify or confirm the identity of the players involved. But under oath he was asked specifically about the 2nd videos
2. Schiano was vetoed because of backlash, the backlash ranged. The mainstream media made it about his ties to Penn State, because at the time that was the biggest sports story going on.
I don't think either are as involved with blame as it's been presented by so many. But to say they are similar situations to me isn't true. One was alleged to have witnessed things first hand, and the other was on vacation when everything happened. I can't find anything about Franklin telling players to delete the photos/videos though, all I could find from reputable news outlets was he admitted he lied to the players and said he had seen the evidence, but under oath said he didn't and has never seen the footage the players took that night.