I take a different view to this entire process.
If there are changes to be made, they must be made in the following order: 1) President; 2) Athletic Director; 3) Permanent Head Football Coach .
Any deviation from that makes a hiring of HC or AD one made on a foundation of sand, rather than concrete. Nobody of any quality is going to take a short term contract (under the present circumstances ) if someone higher up is going to come in and want their own imprint.
I continue to assume that Schill made his turnaround in concert with discussions with members of the BoT either informally or by gathering consensus. I’m stunned that there’s anyone who thinks it would have been tenable to keep Fitz as each new allegation dropped out. Each new allegation would have made the previous incremental punishment seem silly and that the administration was perpetually under reacting.
Schill is not Morty, and while he needs to understand the role of athletics as the front porch to a University, it’s not why he took the job. He needs to trust a strong leader to keep the stupid stuff off the President’s plate, yet ensure the President is never blindsided. ADs should have a clause in their contract that causes it to end one year after a sitting president retires or otherwise leaves service. This allows a “getting to know you” period for a new leader (and possible extension) while providing a timely exit if the relationship is not a good fit.
If the BoT intends to stick with Schill (or cut bait), it behooves the BoT to make up its collective mind sooner than later and let both parties get on with their lives, be it together or separately. If it’s the latter, the university is uniquely positioned to move forward swiftly as they know most of the likely interested parties.