I won't disagree. It just seems some celebrate the "so close" aspect (and even specifically referencing the offense), yet we are starting over on that side of the ball. So it seems the 9 losses meant much more than the "so close" when making decisions regarding the staff.
To be fair, "celebrate" wouldn't be the first descriptor I'd use. I haven't encountered anyone whom was satisfied with this year. If I understand you, your consternation lays with the disparity between "starting over" and being "so close". This invites defining both ideas.
The concept of "close" applies most crucially in the argument of retaining Frost or not. Those holding for "close" posit a better chance of getting where we want to go, and most agree on where, by keeping Frost. The single biggest rationale I can offer is lack of blow outs. Regardless of number of wins by previous coaches, every year was met with that game.
You know that game. It was the one where a season of thinking we had something ran headfirst into the reality that...we're not even close. Every blow out hammered the point home. We're not close to the big boys.
If someone has a coach in mind, proven at the P-5 level, who is willing to come here, ok. But that is not who we are going to get. So we are left with rolling the dice. It is not unreasonable to see those dice as likely to turn up sunshine with Frost as it is that they'd do so with a new hire.
As to starting over on O, a true do over means changing the type of personnel used. Don't know about that, doesnt seem so. And has the goal of hybridizing traditional power with spread gone away? Dont know that either. Its really hard to imagine any successful program making no adjustments between seasons, and we will be no different, but we likely don't start from scratch as did Frost when he arrived. We would be if he left.