I think the detractors are basically saying "I'm not seeing any improvement game-to-game, and therefore I've seen enough." It kind of reminds me of the McWilliams years right before 1990. I honestly don't think the team is getting worse every week. Even in the Tech game, arguably our best of the season, there were plenty of signs that the emperor had no clothes, particularly on defense and mental mistakes. If this was poker, I think Sark was dealt a 3 and a 6 and felt that he had to go all-in on the first hand. And it failed miserably. So people can ask about it all they want, but they're never going to get a satisfactory answer. I think plenty of people here have covered that last part to your post. You witnessed the waning years of Mack, the "deer in headlights" of Strong, and the arrogance and inabilities of Herman. Heck, take it back further to guys like Mackovic and the aforementioned McWilliams and the maligned Akers. I think people who are sunshine pumpers (and I don't really know where I belong yet) see that Sark actually wants to change the ground-up culture of the program, and knows that it's going to take more than some X's and O's switcheroos at halftime. And I think giving him that opportunity, even if he's not the eventual guy who finishes the project, is important for the "right now." Dabo had a trial by fire when Bowden got run out of Clemson. In his 3rd season, people wanted him fired after getting pummeled by South Carolina and finishing 6-6 (they'd lose the bowl game too). He still wasn't quite "there," and promised that they would turn it around if he got time. And that was 15 losses into his tenure. Then, when people thought he had turned it around the following year, he took his squad to the Orange Bowl, and as a heavy favorite, gave up 70 points to WVU. I think some of those with foresight think "man if we can get over those hurdles like Dabo did, imagine how far we can go."