I cannot disagree with this more. The cream would have risen. She had a late start due to the foot injury.
"I cannot disagree with this more" in reference to a golden opportunity is such an emphatic/dogmatic statement I wonder if we are projecting two different things. I agree that the cream would have risen and before the year was over Muhl's ability would have been evident. But would she have cracked the starting line-up without a golden opportunity? That necessarily means that her fate was within her control alone.
Muhl was never going to take ONO's, Bueckers or Westbrook's spot in the starting line-up. Those are givens. If Makurat performed like she did towards the end of last year Muhl would not be usurping that spot. The offense still ran well with Makurat in there, besides the fact that we now know that, like Muhl, Makurat was dealing with an injury, only Makurat's is worse. An uninjured Makurat performing like the end of last year was not going to lose her starting spot to a freshman. The fact that she did not perform as well and had an injury was an opportunity to fast track Muhl as a starter.
If Williams plays up to her potential there is no way she loses her starting spot. Even though she is erratic that spot still appears safe even now. If it's not safe, that's still an opportunity that is not within Muhl's control. So we are talking about only one starting spot really available.
We then have to factor in Edwards and Griffin, who received opportunities to start before Muhl. Had Griffin not been injured after Bueckers came back would that fifth spot been open to Muhl? That injury was not within Muhl's control.
Maybe I am wrong but I interpret a statement like "I could not disagree more" to mean that what happens to others is irrelevant, Muhl was going to crack the starting line-up even without injuries and/or erratic play from four other players. You can say that about Bueckers. I think such a claim about Muhl requires a little more humility.