So let's play the perception game with actual facts then..Perceived lack of performance doesn't qualify...
Satt in '24 as OC was 5-4
Dana in '24 as OC was 2-2
So by just the facts alone, once could argue that Satt percentage wise was better than Dana was, but most sane people could see that the offensive spark Dana provided was a change for the better.
The facts don't bear that out, but perception wise, most can agree that Satt was horrible and that the offense stepped up under the new guy.
Maybe someone else can spend the time to go deeper into offensive production statistics between the two, but in a lot of ways, perception is reality.
Edit: just took the total offensive points divided by the number of games to get an average ppg for each coordinator:
Both guys are at exactly 23.5 points per game, well Satt is actually higher at 23.555555 versus 23.50 for Dana
Last edited: