I was not raised in the midwest, which I am guessing is a safe assumption about some 99% of the posters on this board. Not sure how that's relevant or why you are guessing that, but you have piqued my curiosity.
Yesterday, a buddy related a study that indicated people from the midwest struggle with irony and are more or less likely to take things at face value. People from the northeast love word play, double meanings, irony and so forth.
While the notion that JC intentionally did Manuel a favor was tongue-in-cheek, my conclusion that Manuel potentially stands to benefit from the timing of JC's retirement is not. If JC had retired in, say, April, I do not believe Manuel would have given much, if any, consideration to naming Kevin head coach, even on an interim basis. No matter how much he may have wanted to believe in Kevin, I don't think Manuel would risk the most important decision he is likely to make in his new job by naming someone who had no head coaching experience, and very limited coaching experience generally. That's a high risk move that would be either (or both) very ballsy or very foolish (there's a thin line often), and Manuel strikes me as neither ballsy nor foolish. But since JC's timing left Manuel with little practical choice but to give Kevin a shot, he now has cover for that decision in the event that it does not work out, and he can then say that he gave him a chance but decided to go in a different direction based on what he observed during that trial period.
True but if KO does not succeed he still will be judged on the next hire. So at best JC gave him one year of job security minus heat. And even that isn't necessarily definitive because a lot of people will still look to blame Manuel as well as JC if KO struggles, because many of us aren't reasonable when we're angry.
But much of this assumes that the choice will be clear within this trial period. While I am hopeful that Kevin will knock it out of the park, I am concerned about the pressure of the seven-month contract and how much can actually be accomplished during that time under the circumstances. In other words, I'm not sure that the choice is going to be much clearer within the time that Manuel has given himself to decide, which is why I think a two year contract would have made more sense. At a minimum, it would have prevented the April 2013 deadline from being worked into most of the stories that will be written about the team this season and the corresponding perception of instability and uncertainty within the program.
This would be one of the least fair years to evaluate any coach or any hire given the situation of the transfers and the lack of any proven bigs. But that's too logical for most of us.