Well, I wish Kent luck. The crop of MAC coaches hired back in 2004-2008 was pretty good, including guys like Kelly, Solich, Cubit, Gill, Hoke, Kill and Golden, but the last crop so far has under-impressed. Buffalo, CMU, Akron, Ball State, Bowling Green, and EMU are no better than under their prior coaches, and in some cases significantly worse; only Miami and Toledo seems to be on the rise. Perhaps some of those will show more improvement in their third year than the first one or two, though.
You mention this in passing, but its something I've been meaning to bring up for a while and this seems like as good a time as any. Mike Haywood really has pulled off a heck of a turnaround in Oxford.
I wouldn't go that far. I use Sagarin numbers to see sequential progress (not because they are perfect, but because they are readily available). Under Montgomery the last three teams rated 59.32, 56.17, and 50.56. Under Haywood the teams have been 50.94 and this year 56.07. You have to temper that increase, though, with the fact that Miami had 19 returning starters, ten on offense, and nine on defense. With that many coming back, you definitely ought to have a significant improvement. In fact, the improvement from 50.94 to 56.07 can mostly be explained by the returning starters.
So, with only that modest rise in the team rating, why was the improvement in wins/losses so dramatic? The improvement in record can largely be explained by two factors. The first is that this is a very down year for the MAC, the worst since I have been following it. The second is that by the luck of the draw, the only two team from the West that Miami faced were Eastern and Central Michigan, tied for last.
Haywood may turn out to be a great coach, or he may just OK. Time will tell on that, and we'll know in a few years just how far he can take the program. At this point there are enough other things that can explain the turnaround that I'm not willing to go further than my original statement, that Miami seems to be on the rise.