[washingtonismoney]

Lavin made the Elite 8 or Sweet 16 in 5 of his first 6 years.  They lost in the first round in year 3 in a game where I think Baron Davis tore his ACL.  I don't think they could have fired him after making the Sweet 16.  Has that even happened?  Anyway, the first year he missed the Sweet 16 he was gone.  Imagine if Stanford held Monty to that standard?  We would have fired him 5 or 6 times with all those second round failures. 

Howland made 3 Final 4s.  Has there ever been a coach fired who made 3 Final 4s?  Maybe there has (I can't think of any), but I doubt it happened in a year they won their league regular season. 

Lavin did OK in the tournament, but only once finished above 3rd in the Pac-10. That's bad.

Howland made 3 Final 4s, but this is like saying Tedford guided kal to four top-25 finishes. Impressive, but irrelevant to the future. This also ignores the thuggish culture Howland allowed to flourish in the team (and the probable violations involved in recruiting the most recent freshman class). Again, read the George Dohrmann expose on UCLA and Howland and try to justify his retention: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/ma...index.html

Like I said, UCLA has high standards and expectations for its coaches, but so does Kentucky basketball, Alabama football, N.D. football, Texas football, etc. These are all highly desired jobs because while the expectations are high, the pay and the resources are raised accordingly. UCLA is similar. Payment will not necessarily be quite as high, but you get to recruit in one of the richest regions in the country; and oh yeah, you can compete for just about anyone you like nationally too. If you're an ambitious coach, and you aren't currently at one of the ultra-desirable jobs, I think it's pretty odd to be turning down UCLA.

Then again, Rich Rodriguez turned down the 'bama job, so I suppose it's not an insanity peculiar to UCLA.

[washingtonismoney]

Lavin made the Elite 8 or Sweet 16 in 5 of his first 6 years.  They lost in the first round in year 3 in a game where I think Baron Davis tore his ACL.  I don't think they could have fired him after making the Sweet 16.  Has that even happened?  Anyway, the first year he missed the Sweet 16 he was gone.  Imagine if Stanford held Monty to that standard?  We would have fired him 5 or 6 times with all those second round failures. 

Howland made 3 Final 4s.  Has there ever been a coach fired who made 3 Final 4s?  Maybe there has (I can't think of any), but I doubt it happened in a year they won their league regular season. 

Lavin did OK in the tournament, but only once finished above 3rd in the Pac-10. That's bad.

Howland made 3 Final 4s, but this is like saying Tedford guided kal to four top-25 finishes. Impressive, but irrelevant to the future. This also ignores the thuggish culture Howland allowed to flourish in the team (and the probable violations involved in recruiting the most recent freshman class). Again, read the George Dohrmann expose on UCLA and Howland and try to justify his retention: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/ma...index.html

Like I said, UCLA has high standards and expectations for its coaches, but so does Kentucky basketball, Alabama football, N.D. football, Texas football, etc. These are all highly desired jobs because while the expectations are high, the pay and the resources are raised accordingly. UCLA is similar. Payment will not necessarily be quite as high, but you get to recruit in one of the richest regions in the country; and oh yeah, you can compete for just about anyone you like nationally too. If you're an ambitious coach, and you aren't currently at one of the ultra-desirable jobs, I think it's pretty odd to be turning down UCLA.

Then again, Rich Rodriguez turned down the 'bama job, so I suppose it's not an insanity peculiar to UCLA.