You are entitled to any opinion you want (although even you acknowledge that the one you are now setting forth is not the one you wrote and I responded to). It's not the latter, but it was the former. My opinion didn't change by clarifying what the numbers mean. In my mind, the season is the season, and the postseason is the postseason. Obviously others look at it differently. My opinion is that he was a good coach who accomplished much but wasn't irreplaceable.
Having said that, "very good" remains the minimally positive adjective that anyone outside the UConn football program would use to describe the accomplishment, and most would pick the more praising adjectives you proffered. I'm not talking about what he built from 2000-2007 (nobody can reasonably argue that it wasn't remarkable), I'm talking about what he did with the talent he had the last four years. If we're talking about how people felt in the middle of 2010, we had a team that was underachieving greatly. The 2008 team, in my mind, underachieved (with 4 first day draft picks, the best RB in the country and a very good defense). I don't think it was unreasonable to say at that point "he's a good coach, but I'm not going to lose my shit if he leaves". That sums up how I felt.
That doesn't make all neutral observers right and those UConn fans who reluctantly give Edsall credit wrong. But it does show which way the smart money would be bet. You seem to be drawing the conclusion that because the next guy didn't do better that we couldn't do better.
