I love the disucssion, on both sides, of the Shaver issue. I'm a CAA guy (Drexel) and have my ear to the ground pretty well in the Association. I think that there can be an argument for moving on from Tony Shaver, if there is a truck load of money and a new philosophy behind it. However, I don't think there is a sound argument for the timing.
Shaver's success this year had automatically triggered a contract extension, which is why that buyout was so high. Nathan Knight is the likely preseason Player of the Year next year and the Tribe would have been picked second (likely with some first place votes) in the preseason poll. Now, they'll almost certainly lose Chase Audige, who would have been special, Justin Pierce and Matt Milon, and any incoming recruits Shaver had lined up. Those three, plus Rowley, who graduates, made up the entire surrounding team for Knight. Pending the coaching hire (and no up and comer will want a thankless, winless job, so it will be a veteran retread) this team likely will now be picked 6th or 7th. They are losing their very viable chance to dance this year, and a respected head coach and they are spending 1.7MM to do it. That's insane at this level of college athletics.
The most likely reason that I've heard for doing that is simply that Shaver wasn't loved by Huge or the President, and Huge was worried about exactly what both of you have said - if he wins next year, he's coach for life. They don't want to be stuck to that, since, amongst other things, the AD will want to eventually put her mark on that program. She is an up and comer - or was prior to this very visible mistake.
If he didn't win next year, and you want to spend 1.5 to buy him out, I think that makes fine sense. But throwing away one of your best teams on paper teams in the history of the school - there better be one hell of an announcement to follow, and from everyone I've talked to around the league, there's no rumblings at all of that happening.