"Why do we have to accept that the program is cyclic?"Why do we have to accept that the program is cyclic? Why can’t it be a sustained run of 23+ win seasons? A 19 win season is like a .610 winning % - this is the frustration of a lot here I think. The coach has been entrenched long enough to have established a consistently great winning program but every 5 years it’s like an entirely new cycle starts from scratch as if it is year 1.
In a decaying A10 conference being mid pack or worse half the time just seems unacceptable to me.
The same reason Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky do?
"Why can’t it be a sustained run of 23+ win seasons?"
How long is sustained? I wonder how many programs and how many times has a school had 23+ regular season wins for 10 seasons in a row? or is 7 of 8 or 8 of 9 "sustained"?
I just think all programs are cyclical, the difference is that the high of good programs are higher and lows are higher.
23-8 as a high and 17-14 as a low is much better than 20-11 as a high and 12-19 as a low...
I am not arguing that where we have been is where we should be...