Posted by gillispie1 on 9/10/2013 10:29:00 AM (view original):
i think girt's suggestion of increased stakes suggested tbird had an opportunity to win. that makes it very much more gambling, IMO, than the dac proposal -- where he simply is paying for an experiment, or not paying if dac fails.

however, this seems irrelevant to me. you guys know how many mid major programs there are who have already done this, right? why not just look at a couple? this is clearly able to be achieved... not sure what the point is. there was some merit to the "journal your progress" part but thats about it.

I believe that Tbird does think there are teams so bad that it might be impossible to do it. I disagree with him on that, though, as I've seen really terribad teams get turned around in that time frame. I agree that the "journal your progress" part would be interesting to read.

there might be a handful of teams SO BAD it might be a struggle. i didnt think that was the challenge though - wasnt the challenge to take a regular crappy mid major and try to make them successful? the debate was about taking mid majors over the hump of regular NT appearances, right? so i guess i dont know why an extremely ****** program would be a requirement. sure, if you take a team full of terrible players in hawaii on a d-, this could be a tough target for even the best coach. but i dont think that is really relevant to the discussion..

I guess I misunderstood what Tbird was challenging Dac to do, then.