Like you're defending the firing of Bowden by calling him an "average coach" yet...are we average now?
The primary argument for why Akron fields D-1 sports is the "advertising" dollars. Akron literally just played Auburn. How much press did Akron get from Tom Arth playing Auburn vs. what Akron would have had with Terry Bowden at the helm? You can't seriously make the argument that it was better.
Average or not, Terry Bowden had a "name" and in college football that objectively matters more in terms of the state goal of advertising $$$. It also is objectively true that firing a coach with years left on his contract when your college is strapped for cash is not the brightest idea. Seriously, how can you defend such a poor decision? I doubt anyone would argue that Terry should have been extended again...but fired with 2 years left? Are we any better off in those two years than if Terry was here?
I wish Terry and Arth luck, but good gravy.