I respectfully disagree about the difference between Golden and Hoke. Golden came from a blue-blood program (Penn St.), coached at multiple BCS programs (BC, Penn St., Virginia), was a defensive coordinator at Virginia, and was a hot name for every coaching job that came open. He was young at the time of hire (41), had extensive experience on both sides of the ball (offense as a player, defense as a coach), took a moribund program and turned them into a MAC power in only 5 seasons, and his ascension to a BCS job at some point was inevitable. Miami only hastened the rise by sniping him away before Penn St. had the opportunity to do so. He could have definitely had an equal or better job by waiting if he had chosen that course.
Hoke, on the other hand, played for a MAC school, has never been a coordinator at any level above HS, and was a career DL/LB coach for 20 seasons before his alma mater gave him the call. He left his alma mater as quickly as he had an opportunity for what could be deemed (at best) a lateral move. He has zero experience at any level on the offensive side of the ball. His only qualifications for the Michigan job were that he coached there in the past and wanted the position. Aside from the fact that Michigan is his dream job, he is relatively old for a first-time BCS head coach (52), and he had to take this opportunity because he would be too old if/when it came around again. I don't recall ever hearing his name for any BCS candidacy before this previous hiring cycle.
Frankly, their pedigrees and coaching profiles could hardly be any more different.
Minnesota → hired at or slightly above its perceived prestige
Miami → hired at or slightly below its perceived prestige
Michigan → hired way, way, way below its perceived prestige
I do agree with your overall point, though. Given the vast disparity in current perceived prestige between Minnesota and Miami, Minnesota seems to have made the best hire of the three.