I'm grading on the curve with respect to what has been accomplished at UD in the last 35 years.
Donoher had a great run of 5 years winning over 60 percent of his games (1980-1984)
Purnell had 4 really good years of over 60 percent winning percentage (1999-2002) in his 9 year career at UD.
Gregory now has his > 60% 4-year and counting run (2006-2009)
And during Gregory's 4 year run, I think he has recruited well enough to sustain that run for at least a few more years, with no end in sight, IMO.
I am not grading against a hypothetical perfect performance. If you did that where would you draw the line on the ceiling of the program? Heck, forget X, I think we can get to where Butler was last year with enough program building and some good fortune. I am grading on how I would look at performance as an athletic director who hired Gregory. What performance can I reasonably expect from a head coach hire at UD given the CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROGRAM when they were hired? I think if I were to give Purnell a "B" on his 9 years at UD, I would feel compelled to give Gregory at least a "B" as well. I think Gregory's performance given the circumstances of the program have been equal, if not slightly better than Purnell's. And that is not a slam on Purnell, in my eyes.
Purnell had farther to go in his rebuild than Gregory did when he had to replenish the talent below the Waleskowski class. But because Gregory's rebuild/replenishment job has not been as big, he has gotten us back to NIT/NCAA berths faster and gone a little farther. And he does get some extra points for winning more once he gets to those tournaments. Purnell did better in league play by the end of his 9 years, but I think league play is overweighted in Rollo's system of analysis. NCAA/NIT success ought to outweigh league success.