I think the problem for the pessimist POV is that they have to define explicitly what it means for "the transition to be over" and for "accountability".
If its relatively minor stuff, like say switching out Davis and Cav, probably most of the optimist camp would go along with those changes no problem.
The real problem is, Riley is not likely to be fired before Year 4 is over, for a variety of reasons, and folks who before the start of Year 3, appear to want to wield "no more excuses" as a reason to potentially axe the guy before then because we aren't our traditional Blue Blood power yet.
That's the *appearance* of what is being said. If the implication is something different, the pessimist camp will have to be specific as to what they mean by accountability and not maintaining some Blue Blood win standard at the start of Year 3. (Edit: The point being, the difference between when Riley might be fired, and yelling about accountability now, comes off as "fit throwing" for not getting one's way circumstances be damned).
The second problem, is one of "improvement slope". Some folks think if we "get our guy" the wins will come fast and furious regardless of roster conditions, schedule, etc. Some folks are willing to take a longer view of building the program as long as intermediate steps are shown. That's not likely to be a debate settled by any sort of facts, if you believe in the former, the implication then is NU fires any coach who isn't setting the world on fire in Year 3, and goes on to the next guy.
If you believe in the longer term approach, its important to define the steps appropriately so you don't have Bo P here 8 years kind of deal. (Although, a rather significant point is that if Bo had the personality of Riley, he probably wouldn't have been fired for at least a little while more, recruiting problems, and getting over the hump problems, and all. Which means if Riley becomes a 9/10 win coach here, he'll probably retire after 6-10 years).
