O now you claim to have known (along with "everyone") that he wasn't getting it done in year three (or four years ago), not year four (or three years ago). Which is it?
As I already illustated, he showed nothing but significant improvement in year three, so I don't see why any rational person would want him gone at that point.
Your comment "he showed progress in his third year" illustrates absolutely nothing. I'm sorry, but 17-15, losses to AUM, Pitt, OK State, A&M and Southern Miss, and a 7-9 SEC record that included a 3-6 record over the last nine games and a 20+ point loss to Kentucky simply isn't "improvement" coming in the third year of a coaching tenure. If that had been his first year, yeah, you'd have an argument. Not three years in. I said that then (and you know it).
I knew he wasn't getting the job done after two years. I knew it after three. I knew it after four, five and six. I'm on record with that and I haven't wavered. Some, like you, tried to argue against what I knew. Fail on your part.
I'm sorry it took you (and Jay) so long to figure out what was readily apparent.
By all means, though, let's give Jay a big "HUZZAH!!" for his decisive nature. It's okay to ignore the fact that he allowed the basketball program to sink to what is probably it's lowest level ever, one that will require two more years of rebuilding, in the process. Pfffftttt. That article is a load of hogwash. You can wallow in it if you want. I won't.
You can also claim it makes me negative to think so. I think the opposite. I don't want to see AU programs hamstrung by a clueless AD who waits far too long to make a decision -- and hasn't proven he's got the capability of making a quality decision in any realm. What's negative is to continue to support that. So go make a funny picture of yourself, Sancho.