Because apparently, I have a better grasp of Scott's coaching prowess than you. I'm also much less connected, which likely contributes to this. We all have our biases.
Leipold's record speaks for itself. Scott's does as well. One has succeeded at both of his stops and built each program in a successful way. One has succeeded at one (without truly building the program, but obviously deserves credit for the incredibly quick turnaround and undefeated season) and driven the other further into the ditch. I hope like hell to be proven wrong in the long run, but I can only go off the present.
Edit: the other thing that makes me think this is a given is because there is little to no evidence that Scott is willing to learn from his mistakes. If anything, he's shown a propensity to double-down on the aspects of the program that have held us back for so long. Given the relative talent and outcomes to this point, a purely statistical analysis suggests Scott is likely to be out coached by the guy on the other sideline. Leipold isn't just a run-of-the-mill guy on the other sideline.