First of all...I dont know the coach at all, so I won't make a judgement call on his personality or speculate about if he was the God-send for the Track program.
What I do want to comment on is the "The administration won't let him cut a scholarship athlete" issue. That one raises a BIG red flag to me. First of all....the NCAA, not UL, does not let a coach cut a scholarship athlete in the middle of a school academic year unless that athlete has rendered him/herself ineligible to compete (failed drug test, arrested, kicked out of school). The NCAA states that you can NOT take away a scholarship for any athletic reason whatsoever (doesn't compete well, doesn't place, etc) or even because of broken team rules (caught drinking, skipping study hall, etc). So, IF (I said IF) Silvey wanted to cut a kid's scholarship right now, mid-semester...the administration did the right thing. In fact, they did the ONLY thing they could have...their choices were tell the coach no or commit an NCAA violation (and we all know we SSSOOOO don't need any more of those!)
Now, a coach can cut a kid from an athletic scholarship in the summer by not renewing his scholarship for the next academic school year. But...I've never heard of a coach making that decision until well into the summer (in fact, most coaches have to be almost forced to turn in their final roster and scholarship decisions because they still aren't sure by the deadline), much less make that decision before the season is even over. In fact, again...you CAN'T make that decision before the summer. The NCAA is really strict about NOT telling a kid that you are going to cut their scholarship while the semester is going.
For instance, once a coach wanted to tell a kid that he was cutting him in the middle of the semester. The coach's reasoning was that he really liked the kid and wanted him to be able to try to find another team that would take him. The coach thought if he waited until the summer, all rosters would be full and the kid wouldn't have a place to go. It sounded reasonable to me, so I contacted the NCAA to "clear" it. The NCAA person I talked to seemed empathetic and said it sounded reasonable to him, but he wanted to run it by the "board" that made official interpretations. When we got the official NCAA response, it was a big, fat no. Their reasoning was that it might start a slippery slope of coaches who would use future scholarships as punishment or bribery. They sited TRACK and baseball coaches as being the worst "offenders" of this because they can bribe kids by increasing or punish by decreasing in any scholarship amount (while football, basketball, and others are all-or-nothing scholarship teams). Can you imagine being 18 and knowing that you family is struggling financially to put you through college and having a coach that "promises" if you hit 300 home runs or run the 40 under 3 seconds that he will increase your scholarship from $200 to a full ride for the next four years ($80,000 -- well over $100,000)? Can you imagine the pressure on that kid? One of the biggest issues the NCAA is combatting right now is the SKYROCKETING cases of severe depression caused by stress in college athletes. No wonder they want to squash this kind of coaching using scholarships as rewards / punishments.
So...I don't know the details of the situation...but the fact that this issue was brought up in the middle of the semester / season as a reason the "administration wasn't backing the coach" just seems crazy to me. HUGE, HUGE, HUGE red flags going up in my mind.