I don't want to turn this into a Bo vs. Turner, but just the decision process--doesn't that seem a bit short-sighted? I mean, you're looking at hiring a young guy, probably hoping to keep him in the job for 20 years, right? Do you really do that based on an immediate weakness in the program?
I suppose if it was dead even, that's a reasonable tie-breaker.
Seems logical to me. It's nearly impossible to fix everything at once, and the defense was probably the easier and/or most needed immediate fix.