Well I think the point is that in '94-'97 when Henning was there BC's recruiting level went down some and they had a major scandal. That was the time when we landed a bunch of the kids who fueled our '95-'01 teams, so having Henning stumbling around Chestnut Hill for 3 years didn't hurt us, that's for sure.
Should have read this before I responded. This is the well said and, as far as I'm concerned, inarguable. Whether Henning was a decent coach and a good guy (he reported the scandal himself, which is admirable) or whether seasons of 4 or 5 wins are "not that bad" is really irrelevant when considering the damage the gambling scandal did and the benefits we saw as a result.