redstorm212, I think what you're saying is very fair. This is year 4 and is the only year in which you can truly say he's "underachieved" with the group and circumstances. In that sense it should be assumed that he should be allowed back for another year and I certainly understand and agree at least somewhat to those who say he should be back.
I think the disturbing things, for me at least, have been his lack of energy on the recruiting trail, the fact that he's lost this team (in which most players will return next year barring transfer/declarations) and lack of individual skill development.
If there's a culture problem here this year, why would it automatically change next year with pretty much the entire team back?
I think the one thing that ABSOLUTELY must happen is there has to be a serious discussion between the school and Lavin about whether or not he's invested in this thing for the foreseeable future, and that he and his staff needs to show the work ethic to reflect that. No short cuts. If he is wobbly about being in this thing, then it's time to part ways.
Here's why you would rather part ways now as opposed to next year: if you get a new coach in here now, he can establish a new coach with this group and win with them. You also have a full year to recruit for the "big class" you replace next year and 2 years for the other big class of players you'll have to replace.
A coach based on discipline like a Hurley or Masiello who may lack in national name recognition would be served well to inherit a group that they can win with right away in order to establish momentum for the program. Think about what Frank Martin inherited when he took over Kansas State when Bob Huggins left. Martin was not a huge national name but established momentum for that program because he inherited a great group when he came in with Beasley, Clemente, Bill Walker and Jacob Pullen. Winning his first year was central to him having recruiting success moving forward with that school.