Listen, I partly agree. A good coach is a good coach. But its a lot more complicated than that.
Does that coach have a history of success? Does that coach have success with his own players, and not the ones left over from the previous coach? Is he a proven recruiter? Does he have a plan on how to recruit D1 players vs. D2 players (b/c its very different)? Would you rather have an assistant at a high profile program or a lower level head coach?
Its not an easy choice on paper, let alone when you factor in the personalities involved.
Stu came into Marshall with (a) major college assistant experience, (b) a proven recruiting track record (Bernard King/Ernie Grunfeld), (c) head coaching experience with the Canadian Olympic team, and (d) he came in with a specific, written plan that blew away Marshall's administration. Anyone that really wants this job will have put themselves in position to be considered by doing most if not all of the above.