But I keep coming back to something that the authors cite in the article: changing coaches on mediocre teams (like the one we have) usually results in simply making the team worse. I think this explains why mediocre teams usually remain mediocre: they fall into the cycle of "hire coach, let coach 'rebuild', then fire coach when results are mediocre after 4 years".

Rather than canning Bronco, I would rather see other changes, such as finding a Defensive Coordinator who, once and for all, can do Bronco's job there better than Bronco himself. Why, for example, could we not simply offer Kalani Sitake (or another "desirable" DC) more money than he can refuse to come coach at BYU? Why do we have to hire him as the Head Coach? Sure he'd be leaving a "P5" job for a lateral move to BYU, but if he's the BYU guy people say he is and we were offering him more money than he could refuse why wouldn't it be possible?

Bronco has demonstrated three glaring flaws (amid many, many redeeming qualities) in his time as HC:
1) Losing to Utah a lot.
2) The Riley Nelson/Jake Heaps fiasco
3) Perpetually unable to turn the defense over to someone else (usually a "groomed" assistant... aka "BYU guy") without it imploding.

To me, it makes most sense to go out and find an absolute rock star DC, pay him accordingly, and let Bronco once and for all move on from having to do the job himself. All of this, of course, requires a broader financial commitment from the University itself. But without that commitment it really doesn't matter who we hire because not much will improve.