To further explain, you and RJ are setting up the hypothesis in the opposite direction of me. The premise is that Manning is an exceptional big man coach. To me it looks like you guys are taking that as the starting premise of the discussion and suggesting that it is up to me, or any contrarian, to disprove it. I am coming from the other direction, that Manning is an average big man coach and looking for evidence to disprove that. As statistical ecologist, I think you are a setting up the experiment backwards and that the proper null in this case should be there is no special effect of Manning as a big man coach, i.e., he is no different that other coaches. Sufficient evidence to the contrary would disprove that.
I suppose the other explanation of this difference of opinion is that you and RJ have different standards for rejecting the null than I do. Y'all are convinced that the data strongly support the hypothesis, and I am not. But if you are calling my starting premise that "Manning is not an exceptional coach" illogical I don't think this explains the difference of opinion.