Then slider is right, if that is the definition of competetive (and I'd agree we were at least competetive), then we didn't need 4 years and full roster turnover to get there. I think that's all he was saying. "Competetive" is a low bar for even the worst programs to reach within 4 years.
This is another one of those arguments that can't be won. I felt that, given where we were as a program in December 2012, that it would take at least three, if not four years just to get to the point we are now. We are a year or two ahead of where I thought we would be. That's all my opinion, though. There's no way to be objective about it.