Blasphemy, I know but let me speak it
 

In athletic performance, I disagree with prevailing sentiment, rivals should judge each other how you stack up against your rival.

Auburn and Alabama judge their coaches against their performances against each other; Michigan and Ohio State, the same judgment is made.

So I disagree that BYU should ignore how it fares against Utah.

And I'll utter an final blasphemy, if BYU does not make it to a BCS game by 2010, and wins, then, assuming an acceptable replacement can be found, I move that Bronco be replaced. My reasoning is that BYU should have comparable abilities to succeed as Utah, and the only limiting factor here is the coaching staff.

Bronco must start winning money games, i.e., BCS out of conference games, Bowl games against good BCS teams, games out of town and games against Utah. If he doesn't have his team improve, he should be shown the door.

Recently, he has failed on quite a few high profile LDS players, and not done well with non-LDS.

The BOT, if it wishes to spend so much money on athletics, should seek higher performance. And one's rival is often a measuring stick of comparable resources and recruiting pools, comparable, not identical. In terms of national profile and money games, Bronco's teams have fallen short, in comparison to Utah.

Which is a more limiting factor - the coaching staff or the Honor Code?

Excellent question.

The BYU is setting itself up as a service academy type program. There is a ceiling to how good you can be in today's climate with that model.

Firing a highly successful coach for not making it to a BCS bowl sounds like an excellent way to have no replacement options.