Not an accurate take, with all due respect. You must not remember much about the Lavin tenure at UCLA. It was not a snap decision to fire him. Save for those Tourney runs (Sweet 16 is not impressive at UCLA, let's be real...they don't hang banners for that) his teams underachieved greatly during the regular season. He'd pull in top ranked recruiting classes, but the players did not develop, the teams lacked cohesion and did not play hard on a consistent basis. He was in over his head, frankly. He got the job at age 32, because fellow assistants Lorenzo Romar (left for the Pepperdine job) and Greg White (left for Marshall job) took head coaching jobs at other schools before Jim Harrick was fired for lying about a recruiting dinner. He basically went from being the 3rd assistant to the head coach in 1 year.
Howland had it rolling before the culture of his program started unraveling due to some bad recruiting decisions.
Howland had it rolling before the culture of his program started unraveling due to some bad recruiting decisions.
BearSD said:Which is why ucla was dumb to get rid of him. They haven't done better since. Lavin was doing what Sean Miller has done at Arizona -- recruiting first, second, and third; coaching 'em up farther down the list. Difference is that Arizona's boosters and administration don't run off a head coach who consistently makes the sweet 16 just because he doesn't win any national titles.calumnus said:
Lavin was getting them to Sweet 16s based on recruiting alone,
