Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="cuse309, post: 2401880, member: 5119"] Since you are insisting that you get my point, and since you insist on proving you actually don't, I'll break it down. I compiled a list...follow along now...a list of [B][I]Coaches who successfully took over programs that were as bad as Syracuse for as long as Syracuse,[/I][/B] and posted their win loss records through 4 years to show that the [B][U][I]coaches who were successful[/I][/U][/B] in the situations similar to Syracuse, usually don't start winning 6+ until years 3 and sometimes years 4. You "counter for debate" was that I "conveniently left out the coaches who were not successful"...Well no sh_t Sherlock!! Why would I include coaches who were not successful, on a list of coaches [I][B]who were successful.[/B][/I] Then you say that you aren't willing to wear blinders, or just have blind faith. You also say that there are reasons to worry, and there are reasons to be hopeful. All I did was list a reason to be hopeful, and explain that 2 4-8 records are not a reason to worry, because the coaches who were successful at turning around a program as bad as Syracuse, for as long as Syracuse, never started winning 6+ in year 1 or 2. Prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you. Using the qualifiers I outlined, find me a coach who took over for a major program as bad as Syracuse, for as long as Syracuse, and won 6+ in year 1 or year 2 of the rebuild. There have been a couple I've found, like Leach, but even he went backwards in year 3. The point, again, is that the vast vast vast majority, of coaches in the criteria I outlined, took 3-5 years to begin winning 6+. The point, again is that if there is a reason to worry...it sure as hell ain't the back to back 4-8 records. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?