Not sure, eh?
-Father promotes family member (oldest son) to a senior position for which he has no experience.
-Son seriously underperforms in his elevated position by almost all objective measures.
-Son has employment contract amended by father’s boss to specifically to add a precise performance standard which needed to be reached in order to keep the job he was promoted to by his father.
-Son fails to meet the minimum performance goal imposed by contract.
-Son is terminated - not by father but by father’s boss.
Classic example of nepotism (predictably ending in failure).
How does no experience equal nepotism? Are you suggesting BF was not qualified for the position? If so, that's thoroughly laughable.
Are wins an objective measure? Considering the job of an OC is to help the team win, wins sure seem like an objective measure to me. Measure this: KF's winningest stretch at Iowa was with BF, as OC.
The foremost expert, and most informed person about the situation was KF. And given that he didn't fire BF, I'm guessing he didn't believe that BF was seriously underperforming, in every way. So, reality is always a nice option.
And anyone who understands the dynamic that led to the broken offense in '22/'23, understands that it's silly to put much weight into those seasons, when characterizing BF as an OC.
The 25 point stipulation was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in sports