1. If I at any point got the impression that he didn't care for the athletes as young men and were running the team purely as a business where Wins matter more than all else and the option for an education was compromised in any way. Just to be clear, I don't see that in anything he has done so far, quite the opposite.
2. If he had the chance to fully implement his system with players he selected that hjave some experience and the losses kept coming. I am no expert, but I know enough to see that there is a starting roster full of freshamn and walk-ons for 2 years in a row, that doesn't tell me he is working with a full deck as far as the talent and skills he needs to win with his philosophy. I wouldn't put a specific time limit on it, like it has to happen in 2010 or else. It is quite possible we have a pretty bad season in 2010 as well, looking at the defensive side of the ball and the people that will be in the secondary. It is likelt that it will have some exploitable holes. Things need to start to look up pretty seriously by the end of 2011. After that it would start to seem like a bad match we would need to look at who might be on the market and when to make a move and we shake hands on the Grand Spread Experiment and part ways. This would be VERy unfortunate, becuase at that point we will have a roster full of 'spread' type athletes and hiring a coach to go back to pro style would entail a few more lean years before they had what they needed.
3. If he committed an actual infraction that brought real shame to the university, i.e. academic fraud, paying players, deliberate flouting of rules, etc. Something that provided direct evidence of a flawed character that I have yet to see, again I see quite the opposite.