I would not say the decade, as a whole, "sucked" - and neither would most observers. Like your view that a successful life has only one measuring stick - one's bank account balance - I feel certain you have one measuring stick for "not sucking" - and that is winning championships.
I agree that winning championships is our goal and we should not be satisfied until we get there - ACC and NCAA championships. The problem is that I disagree with your apparent view that if we don't get there we suck.
For the 5 seasons 2000-2005 we had a cumulative overall record of 113- 46, an ACC record of 52-28, were ranked in the top 20 each year and finished the year ranked in all but 1 of those years. We made the NCAA tourney each year, never seeded lower than a 7. We proceeded to under-achieve in the post-season, as has been well-documented and discussed here ad nauseum. The rest of the decade was not as successful and I would say we did pretty much suck the next 3 years - but we did get back to the tourney in '09 and '10, with a 4 seed and a 9 seed.
If you want to say that decade of basketball "completely sucked" and was "horrifying" then there aren't many programs in the country that don't suck in your eyes.
Again, understand the problem is with your extreme positions. No one is satisfied with our results - especially with our postseason results - least of all our players and coaches. But, we have had historical success and our program has not always "sucked".
Can you identify a period in our history where we didn't suck - according to your view?
