mean that Rose is even in the same conversation as Few and Self and Williams and Krzyzewski then how is that statistic "significant"? The very point of Mark and Greg's discussion was how Rose was in "elite" company since they all were in this 20 win club. When the BYU Athletic department called and invited me to purchase season tickets the first thing out of their mouth was "20 wins" as if that meant that BYU Basketball was successful.

I thought I did understand nuanced arguments, but this isn't nuanced. Rose's performance by any objective standard over any length of time is not anywhere near elite or even exceptional (particularly given the step down in competition he has had in the WCC), but he/BYU use the 20 win mark to imply/suggest/support that very assertion when that number does not support the proposition.

Rose may be a great guy and may be the best coach BYU could have had over the past 10 or 15 years or could ever have but the 20 win statistic is not used to make that limited argument and hence my response.

If Greg and Mark had said that Rose was a good enough coach for BYU because he has won 20+ games per year and that BYU fans should be happy with the status quo and left Gonzaga, UNC, Duke and Kansas out of the conversation you would have a point, but that was not how this 20 win statistic was used.