Recruiting unaffected? Eight players requested out of their LOI in 2016, including the #1 OG in the country and the #3 WR. Their class was ranked 17th and dropped to 40th in the 247 composite and 58th at rivals. Those were guys they couldnt replace because recruiting for that season was over. The 2017 class lost 5 commitments, including phenom Kellen Mond. In 2017 they should have had Jarrett Stidham and Kellen Mond competing at QB. Two top 100 QBs who are now on NFL rosters. Instead they did what they could with Charlie Brewer. I wouldnt call that "almost entirely unaffected".
In the context of the conversation, yeah, they were relatively unaffected. Here were their class rankings on 247 leading up to and then including the coaching change.
2012 - 26th
2013 - 27th
2014 - 25th
2015 - 36th
2016 - 40th
2017 - 40th
2018 - 29th
2019 - 39th
Sure, they saw a drop, and you could argue that without the scandal they would have capitalized on recent success, but that is a far cry from near death penalty like it was portrayed especially since there was no actual scholarship reductions of post season bans. What few penalties they did get hit with was more related to recruiting infractions than the abuse scandal. Hell, you could argue the recruiting hit was more because they fired their coach in may and hired an interim coach than the actual scandal. Had they fired Briles at the end of the 2015 season and made a normal hire they likely don't see that recruiting hit, or not as much. But they wanted to fire for cause and so waited until the end of the investigation.
But they were a program that had averaged going 10-3 the five years prior to the coaching change happening, and the actual fallout that the new coach was going to have to deal with was relatively minimal compared. They were much more attractive a position when they hired Rhule than we were hiring Collins, and not because they took it slow. They were just a better program with more recent success, better recruiting, better fit, and the biggest problem listed, QB issue, was no worse than what we experienced at the QB spot on top of the other issues.
Please consider my point - rather than something u don't agree with.
Point: We went fast and they went slow.
Now we are going slow.
They went slow because of the timing of it. Not some grand plan to "make the right hire". Had they fired Briles in November instead of the following May, they'd have made a normal hire the previous december.
We didn't do the same thing, because Johnson retired in late november allowing us to have a normal search and make a normal timed hire.
So what is your suggestion? We hire an interim coach with an entire interim staff to coach for one year while we take a year to make a hire for a job that will still largely be unattractive to most of the higher thought of offensive minds? I mean, we all know the actual suggestion and it has nothing to do with making a fast or slow hire.