I know I will probably be killed for this post as it is not calling for Lavin's head. But I am hopeful there are others who feel the same way. Lavin's tenure here has been disappointing, no doubt about it. He himself said this was the year we'd make noise. He has proven himself full of hot air many times in his time here. He has also made many questionable coaching decisions. I understand 0-5 after two losing seasons will make some call for him being fired.
Lavin's roster construction can also be called into question. No team leader, too many athletic players who can't shoot or dribble.
With all of that said, here is my argument for why I am going to support him for at least one more season:
1.) Lavin was asked to replace 9 seniors his first year here. He was not given the luxury of picking and choosing players for his system (What his system is exactly has yet to be seen). He just knew he needed players. So, he probably and understandably took risks on some players (Garrett, Sampson, Pelle being the main ones.) He, as well as many here thought Dom would develop more at this point and would be a better player than what he has become. He probably thought he'd have Harkless for at least 2-3 seasons. This 2011 class, while talented, had no players with high Bball IQ's. Now you can say this is on Lavin, and that is fair, but he also needed to replace 9 players and gambled a bit. Now that we have a more balanced roster construction, meaning we don't have 9 players graduating at once, I am willing to give Lavin another chance at another big recruiting class, this time being 2015.
2.) His success at UCLA cannot be ignored. You can say he sucks as a game coach. You can say he's full of hot air. Say whatever you want about him. The guy won consistently at UCLA. So I can't understand why posters are saying he can never win here. He's done it already in year one with even lower tier talent (Norm's players). And he did it consistently at UCLA. I do think he needs a tactician like Dunlap, but that is not impossible to get. No one was questioning Lavin's coaching when we made the tourney. Questioning coaching decisions is a result of losing. Any coach who loses is going to have his every decision placed under a microscope. I don't agree with many decisions Lavin has made. But I understand that every coach who has back to back poor seasons is going to have his every move criticized just as badly as Lavin's are now.
3.) When Lavin was hired here, how many top 100 recruits would you have guessed he would've had at this point? My guess would have been somewhere in the 2-4 range. Maybe one per class if we're lucky, which would've been much better than Norm, and in the shape the program was in would have been an achievement. I don't think there was any other coach outside of a big name that could have done the job recruiting that Lavin has done. Now, obviously he didn't do a good job picking the right players, but being able to recruit high ranked recruits and get them to commit is an irreplaceable asset that Lavin gives us. I fear that if we lose Lavin, we will not be able to recruit even close to the level we are now. We will probably recruit a little better than we did under Norm. Which means, maybe a top 100 every other year or so. I don't want that.
4.) I don't think starting over again is the answer. Switching coaches every 5 years is just not smart. You have to give a coach time to build a program, and that sometimes takes longer than 5 years. With Norm, it was different as he was about to have 9 seniors graduate with no sign of sniffing the tournament. That and no sign of recruiting any better.
So, I guess the simplified reason I am going to give Lavin more time is that I am willing to call his first batch of players a failed experiment, and am going to let him recruit a new batch in 2015 and see how next season goes. Obviously, if we have a complete bomb of a season next year as well, my mind may change. I admit the confidence I once had in Lavin is gone, but I am still hopeful he can be successful here. I think we are better off sticking with Lavin, than hiring an up and comer. If we hire an up and comer in a BE that is not close to what it used to be, we may be signing up as a mid-major.