Literally, it has to be a joke. No one would write that crap and mean it, would they ?
1. He calls Chow 'a branch' from whittingham's 'tree' ? Are you kidding me ? Like kryle taught Chow anything about coaching football and the 2011 utah season added ANYTHING of relevance to Chow's resume. He also calls Anderson one of whitt's 'branches'. Like Anderson was this newbie coach that whittingham nurtured and developed. Please ... it has to be a joke.
2. He compared urban meyer to Crowton ? Like their situations have anything in common other than they were head coaches in Utah at the same time.
3. Vai wrote 'Whittingham has had the faith to subordinate what's best for his program short term, in order to strengthen it long term and along the way has prepared Sitake to take the next step in his career.' Is it really ever best to subordinate what's best for the program to develop a coach to leave for another job ? Oh, and by the way, how is whittingham doing with the nurturing and development of Roderick's career ?
4. Vai also fails to take into account the fact that coaches at BYU typically stay at BYU longer because they like their jobs. It was that way under LaVell too. Is Vai criticizing LaVell too ? Has Reynolds, who is obviously qualified to be a head coach, ever seriously looked at leaving ? Would Vai call Reynolds one of Bronco's 'branches' if he did leave ?
5. IMO, Vai doesn't even draw good conclusions as to why bishops are serving for shorter terms in today's wards than they did in his youth. Frankly, I just don't see how a bishop could stay in that position for any longer than they do currently. There are just many more demands on a bishop's time today, at church, work, and home.