And the other shoe drops...

[Chief Rum]

STEVE LAVIN IS FIRED!!!

What a strange day. Both sad and overjoyed. I hope we get a good one to replace him.

Lavin Is Gone

UCLA fans rejoice!

Chief Rum

[HornedFrog Purple]

It makes you wonder if they had not had a meltdown in the Oregon game and somehow beat Cal in the final if he would have stuck around for another year.

Good luck to whomever takes that job, its a losing proposition based on the pressure.

[bbor]

And Rollie Massamino steps down in Cleveland...hmmm.....Could we see Rollie take over for Lavin

[Chief Rum]

HFP: Even if he won the Pac-10 tournament, and then pulled off one of his amazing runs to the Sweet Sixteen (before getting blown out again by a team he should beat), Lavin still would get fired. There was talk that nothing short of a visit to the NCAA tourney title game could save his job. You just had to watch the lifelessness with which this team approached its games through most of this season to know why.

Yeah, the pressure to succeed is great and makes this hard job to take, but Lavin wasn't even meetings standards of excellence for most other above average programs (and I am including even slightly above average). UCLA just has higher standards than that.

bbor: Heh heh, I don't think Rollie's going to get a call. Seton Hall besides, he really doesn't much of note, especially recently. I think UCLA is mostly targeting current coaches of high-level programs.

Chief Rum

[Neuqua]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
bbor: Heh heh, I don't think Rollie's going to get a call. Seton Hall besides, he really doesn't much of note, especially recently. I think UCLA is mostly targeting current coaches of high-level programs.

Chief Rum

PLEASE leave Bill Self alone. Stay away!

Neuqua

[Marmel]

UCLA will never find a coach they won't run out of town. Lavin will get another job and do great things there. Hell, he took UCLA to the Sweet 16, 5 of the last 7 years. Most programs would kill for that. The simple fact is, it took over 15 years for Wooden to establish UCLA as a power program, and in this day and age of college basketball, it is impossible for any team to ever do what UCLA did back then. Was Lavin running a clean program? What Lavin graduating players on par with the rest of the big programs in the country (OK, that is not saying much)? Did he have 1 bad year? Nobody is going to meet UCLA's expectations. Hell, Harrick won a NC and he was still never truly respected by UCLA fans (and that was before the scandal).

[bbor]

Just trying to scare ya CR

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
UCLA just has higher standards than that.

Well, get over it.

UCLA, nor any other program, will ever return to the dominance they had 30 YEARS AGO. With there being more available good talent than ever before, and great talent largely skipping the NCAA altogether, parity in college ball is here, and it is here to stay.

Sweet 16 5 out of 6 years is something every program should be happy with. Hell, making the tournament 5 out of 6 years should guarantee a coach his job. It is an accomplishment. "The standards at UCLA ar higher" is such an arrogant statement, and with nothing to back it up other than ancient history (and tainted at that) it borders on ridiculous.

Feeling that a final four bid is a birthright, and anything less is a failure is basically condemning that any coach you hire to guaranteed failure.

Duke, clearly the best program of the last 15 years, has been to 2 of the past 5 final fours, despite being a #1 seed all five years. Clearly his team is underachieving and he should be fired.

[Chief Rum]

Wow, such hate, Samdari!

I wish I wasn't about to go to work, otherwise I would respond at length about the problems Lavin has brought on UCLA.

Yes, our standards are ridiculously high. I acknowledge that. But there was a LOT to dislike about Steve Lavin-coached teams. That's something few people outside of actual UCLA observers will ever understand.

All outsiders do is throw out the five Sweet Sixteens in six seasons and think that's the end of it. Here's a recommendation: LOOK DEEPER. And lose the righteous anger at my "arrogance".

Hopefully, MrBug, ABC, rexallsc, or heybrad will come along in a second to give you more details, and if they don't, then I will when I return from work tonight.

Chief Rum

[GrantDawg]

I think Jim Harrick is available or will be soon...

[Marmel]

Chief, I am genuinely (sp?) interested in hearing what you think about Lavin.

but while you are at it, please explain to me what was wrong with the other coaches since Wooden. Why is it that Lavin was the the second longest tenured coach at 7 seasons?

It is amazing that a team like UCLA's coaching ranks since Wooden looks like this:

Harrick: 9 years
Lavin: 7 years
Hazzard: 4 years
Farmer: 3 years
Brown: 2 years
Cunningham: 2 years
Bartow: 2 years

Only Hazzard had less than a .700 winning percentage. And in his last year, he tied for second place in the PAC-10.

The national rep is that UCLA will never like any coach not named Wooden. Please explain why this is not true.

[MylesKnight]

Any word out there in LA-LA Land about Rick Pitino?

Now that would be the #1 target on my list..

[Marmel]

I think Howland, out of Pitt, is their number 1 prospect. Howland said he is not leaving Pitt. He just signed a huge new contract and truly loves coaching in Pitt. The lure of coaching in his hometown is there, of course, but he is young and can just wait it out for the next UCLA opportunity, I think. He has a son going to school in the suburbs, and a daughter going to school at U of Pitt, so he is rooted in Pitt right now. Tough to get up and move when your kids are at that age.


Edited to add: Pitt also has brand new basketball, football, and training facilities that are out of this world, and compared to creaky old Pauley Pavilion, well, you get the picture........

[heybrad]

Here some facts to mull over.

UCLA teams under Lavin are...

10-24 against top 10 teams.
They've had twelve losses by 24 points or more including a 48 point defeat at Stanford.
The list of losses to some of the crappier teams:
Cal State Northridge, Pepperdine, Ball State, Detroit-Mercy, Northern Arizon, and the list goes on.

It is fairly well known that Steve Lavin is not much of an X's and O's coach. That wouldnt be a problem if he surrounded himself with other coaches to shore up his weaknesses. Over the past six years the Bruins have played a free form motion offense, the double high post, they've tried pressing and trapping, and finally reverted back to the motion offense. The one constant in this is that most of the changes have occured in the middle of the season. The guy doesnt have a clue about what he wants to do.

The word is that Lavin is a great recruiter, but a horrible evaluator and even worse at developing the talent that does come in. Lavin thought highly enough of Cedric Bozeman as a PG, even though that was not his position in high school, that the only other player he signed for that position was Ryan Walcott, who had no other offers and was not even seen in person by the coaches. Bozeman has struggled and there have been no other options.

Next years roster is filled with players who had scholarship offers from lower level schools or none at all such as Walcott, Josiah Johnson, Jon Crispin, Matt McKinney, Brian Morrison and Ryan Hollins.

The Pac 10 title that Lavin won, was done the first year after Harrick left with 3 returning starters from the National Championship team. The five years since are the longest that UCLA has ever gone without winning the Pac 10.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Myles I doubt Pitino would take the job. One he would ask for a ton of money, two he is apparently happy where he is and Louisville though not on the same level as UCLA in history is pretty good in its own right and three he already tried a coaching graveyard when he went to Boston. I doubt he will do that again.

I did see UCLA play a couple of times and it amazes me with the athletes they have they stunk so badly this season.

I just think with so much parody in college hoops nowadays it is unreasonable to demand a Woodenesque dynasty from its alumni and fan base because it simply will not happen.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Marmel
UCLA will never find a coach they won't run out of town. Lavin will get another job and do great things there. Hell, he took UCLA to the Sweet 16, 5 of the last 7 years. Most programs would kill for that. The simple fact is, it took over 15 years for Wooden to establish UCLA as a power program, and in this day and age of college basketball, it is impossible for any team to ever do what UCLA did back then. Was Lavin running a clean program? What Lavin graduating players on par with the rest of the big programs in the country (OK, that is not saying much)? Did he have 1 bad year? Nobody is going to meet UCLA's expectations. Hell, Harrick won a NC and he was still never truly respected by UCLA fans (and that was before the scandal).

This is a huge myth. Everyone says Ucla runs coaches out of town...everyone being those who aren't around the program. Ucla has had 2 coaches in the last 15 years. One was fired due to NCAA violations (w/o firing Harrick we would've had major NCAA sanctions...according to the NCAA), one was fired for having the worst season @ the school since 1948.

5 Sweet 16's in 6 years. Big whoop. He had two recruiting classes ranked #1. Tom Izzo went to four Sweet 16's in 6 years, including 3 Final Fours, and a title...is that worse than Steve's record? No. Much better.

Lavin has the second worst winning percentage of all coaches since Wooden. He holds the record for worst loss in school history (48 points to Stanford), worst loss @ Pauley Pavilion (35 points to Arizona), worst finish in Pac-10 history for Ucla (6th last year, and 8th this year)....it hasn't mattered whether he's had Seniors or Freshman...his teams are equally inconsistent.

For example, when Jim Harrick won 47 games by 20 or more points, and lost only 5 by 20 or more points (in 8 years). Harrick inherited a program that didn't make the NCAA tourney, and immediately won 20 games with them. Lavin inherited a program one year removed from a National Championship, and won 27 games by 20 or more, and lost 12 by 20 or more.

Ucla was routinely blown out teams with less talent, and has recently lost to Cal State Northridge and San Diego @ home.

Lavin has graduated 5 of his 18 players who have departed the program.

[astralhaze]

Agreed. Lavin has sucked from the get go.

[rexalllsc]

Here is how Steve Lavin stacks up vs. the programs that are Ucla's rivals:



Note that Steve Lavin's career best was in his first year. .750.

Note that including this year, Lute has surpassed that 5 times. Roy 5 times. Monty 4 times. Tubby 3 times...

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Marmel
Chief, I am genuinely (sp?) interested in hearing what you think about Lavin.

but while you are at it, please explain to me what was wrong with the other coaches since Wooden. Why is it that Lavin was the the second longest tenured coach at 7 seasons?

It is amazing that a team like UCLA's coaching ranks since Wooden looks like this:

Harrick: 9 years
Lavin: 7 years
Hazzard: 4 years
Farmer: 3 years
Brown: 2 years
Cunningham: 2 years
Bartow: 2 years

Only Hazzard had less than a .700 winning percentage. And in his last year, he tied for second place in the PAC-10.

The national rep is that UCLA will never like any coach not named Wooden. Please explain why this is not true.

When Wooden first left, this was true. Bartow couldn't handle the pressure, and resigned. Cunningham didn't like coaching very much, so he left to spend time with his family. He is now the AD @ UCSB.

Farmer was a bad coach. Hazzard was worse. Harrick would probably still be @ Ucla if not for the NCAA violations...he was building something. He had back-to-back Pac-10 titles before he was fired, and Ucla went on to win one the next year (Lavin's first and LAST) in 1997. 3 straight Pac-10 titles...then never higher than third.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Samdari
Well, get over it.

UCLA, nor any other program, will ever return to the dominance they had 30 YEARS AGO. With there being more available good talent than ever before, and great talent largely skipping the NCAA altogether, parity in college ball is here, and it is here to stay.

Sweet 16 5 out of 6 years is something every program should be happy with. Hell, making the tournament 5 out of 6 years should guarantee a coach his job. It is an accomplishment. "The standards at UCLA ar higher" is such an arrogant statement, and with nothing to back it up other than ancient history (and tainted at that) it borders on ridiculous.

Feeling that a final four bid is a birthright, and anything less is a failure is basically condemning that any coach you hire to guaranteed failure.

Duke, clearly the best program of the last 15 years, has been to 2 of the past 5 final fours, despite being a #1 seed all five years. Clearly his team is underachieving and he should be fired.

I'll just chalk this up to you not having been involved w/ the program.

Ucla hasn't finished higher than third in the past 6 years. Ucla has had their two lowest finishes, in any conference, in the past two years (6th and 8th). Last year, Ucla returned four starters (Gadzuric, Barnes, Knight, and Kapono), and the new player was McDonalds All-American Cedric Bozeman. Arizona and Stanford both lost 4 starters. Ucla was the unanimous pre-season Pac-10 Champ pick by the coaches. They finished 6th, and got an 8th seed in the tourney. They go on to beat the #1 seed Cincinnati in the second round, showing the skill on the team. They're then handled by Mizzou in the next game.

Classic Lavin. Beat a top-notch team, and then lose to a middle of the road team.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple


I just think with so much parody in college hoops nowadays it is unreasonable to demand a Woodenesque dynasty from its alumni and fan base because it simply will not happen.

No one wants that. No one expects that. People just want to see consistent ball...everything else will fall into place.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Marmel
Chief, I am genuinely (sp?) interested in hearing what you think about Lavin.

but while you are at it, please explain to me what was wrong with the other coaches since Wooden. Why is it that Lavin was the the second longest tenured coach at 7 seasons?

It is amazing that a team like UCLA's coaching ranks since Wooden looks like this:

Harrick: 9 years
Lavin: 7 years
Hazzard: 4 years
Farmer: 3 years
Brown: 2 years
Cunningham: 2 years
Bartow: 2 years

Only Hazzard had less than a .700 winning percentage. And in his last year, he tied for second place in the PAC-10.

The national rep is that UCLA will never like any coach not named Wooden. Please explain why this is not true.

I forgot to say...you said "Only Hazzard had less than a .700 winning percentage. And in his last year, he tied for second place in the PAC-10."...actually, Lavin's career winning percentage is .663...

[rexalllsc]

Let's compile this all into one post:

Lavin holds the record for:

-Worst Loss in school history
-Worst Loss in Pauley Pavilion history
-Most losses @ Pauley Pavilion (28, compared to 16 by Harrick)
-Most consecutive losses to a team @ Pauley (Stanford, 6)
-Lowest finish in Pac-10 (6th in 02, 8th in 03)
-Second-worst winning percentage, post-Wooden (despite inheriting a program one year removed from a National Champ.)
-Longest stretch w/o a Pac-10 title (6 years)
-Six consecutive years finishing behind both Arizona and Stanford (you gonna tell me they had more talent EVERY year?)

Those of you who continue to trumpet the "Five Sweet 16" stat...that should tell you something. Why did these teams, which obviously have talent, never do anything? They showed up when they wanted to. End of story.

[MrBug708]

Wow


If only people could experience the wonders of Steve Lavin



If he had 2 Final 4 appearances, one when he first took over and say, last year, and had this record, he'd probably would be staying


People call hima great recruiter? Wonderful. He can recruit talent to UCLA. Nevermind it was once the premier BB school in the nation and won an NC less then 10 years ago and sits in one of the hottest BB area's. Ya, he's so great, he doesnt recruit a PG from Baron Davis on.

People mention how if he woulda made a run to win the PAC-10 he should be retained. HOLY CRAP! This team finished 9-19, Why should he be retained? Its like crashing your car and saying excellent job. You managed to save the car to the point where it runs. Never mind the fact its so messed up. Not as much talent? 3 Mickey D AA's on this team, Dijon THompson, and two 7 footers in a big manless conference. Not all talent pans out? Ray Young was Lute Olsen's top recruit back when he was a Senior. Cedric Bozeman and Dijon Thompson were pursued by Kansas and Arizona alike. Kapono went from first round pick to maybe being drafted. No PG? Look at the Ray Young experiment at PG. He's lit it up the past 3 weeks. 4 and a half years of nothing and he explodes. Great job there Lavin. Why havent we had a PG? We've had great guards in the past 20 years. Murray played some guard here, Reggie also, ask Mizzo fans their opinion of Edney. Toby Bailey, Baron Davis. Earl Watson. Cameron Dollar. Nada . No PG. Ryan Walcot who didnt have any other scholarship offers from a major program. Lavin never even saw him play once! And who recruited these current players? Steve Lavin.

His assistant coaches do not really have great coaching abilities. Lavin is a good defensive coach. So, you would think he would hire a guy who works well with the offense and either guards or big men. Another guy to work with the players in that coaches weakness. And the last guy is usually the go-getter. Like Lavin was under Harrick.

Lavin ran a clean program. UCLA fans applaude that. We had our worries with the Kevin Malone calling a recruit. Lavin didn't handle his departure with too much class. People said he had more confidence the whole year. Well, its not like his future was uncertain. Everyone knew he was gone, he knew he was gone. He posed with the 6th man at Maples. Signed autographs with the Oregon fans. He blasted the UCLA fans saying they were unreasonable. They might be, but they are what makes UCLA still have a BB program. They bring the revenue. He always talked about not living up to Wooden. Ya, when you dont beat the other team with fundementals, you are not Wooden

All in all, I am not sorry to see him go. I hope we can have a shot at Pitino, but we might have missed our window. Howland, Few, or Majerus seem like a good choice

Lon Kruger also wouldn't be a bad fit, but I'd like to see Crean here or even Mike Brey

[Chief Rum]

Marmel, there's really little else I could add to what rexallsc has put out there, except perhaps subjective judgements. Good job, rexallsc.

First off all, I want to address how us UCLA fans are always demanding national titles and such. That's just nonsense. There a few, of course, but you'll get that with any program that has been one of the more consistent powers in college basketball. On the UCLA boards, in fact I was the same as many of you just a couple years ago, when I was still being dazzled by the possibilities of the talent Lavin was bringing in, and I couldn't understand why some Bruins fans didn't like him back then. I said the same thing, that those guys were living ont he past and had unreal expectations.

But now, after listening to their opinions for two years and seeing exactly what they predict continually being reproduced on the court anymore, there can really no longer be any doubt that expectations were not nearly as much of the problem as they appeared to be.

Some point I'll note from above and my own:

1) Pac-10 titles: As rexallsc has said, UCLA hasn't won a conference title since 1997, Lavin's first season in control. UCLA has never gone so long without a conference title in its history. Some other teams who haven't won a title in as long: ASU, Oregon State, Cal, USC, Washington and WSU. All six have fired coaches in that period, and some more than one. And this despite the fact that none of these teams have anything near the tradition or expectations UCLA does. Even they, without the pressure, felt that that wasn't enough. Why should UCLA find this to be acceptable?

2) Lavin's record. As has been noted, second worst record since Wooden. And coming off the worst season in UCLA basketball in more than 50 years, breaking a 20-wins and NCAA streak of 14 years, and a phenomenal streak of 50 straight winning seasons.

3) The losses. Many have already been mentioned. The 48-point defeat by Stanford. Being manhandled at least once every year by Arizona. The embarrassing loss to Oregon two weeks ago. The fact we can't even seem to beat Cal at home. We got swept by our rival, USC, in our sport--football is theirs, generally. The NCAA first round loss to Detroit Mercy a few years ago. The horrible performances of past years against UC San Diego, Pepperdine, Ball State, Northern Arizona, Cal State Northridge, etc.

4) The Sweet Sixteens and the #1 victories. You would think this would be a good thing and that is why we here this a lot in defense of Lavin. But what people don't see is the pattern. The fact that we struggle in our first round games just to get the second round. The fact that after repeatedly great second rounds, we always get blown out by our next opponent, whether it's Duke ('01) or Kentucky ('99) or Missouri ('02) or Iowa State ('00)--it never mattered what quality of opponent we faced. Or the fact that the only UCLA team to get past the Sweet 16 under Lavin was the team that still had the young wunderkinds from the national title team and had added talents like Baron Davis, Earl Watson and Jelani McCoy to the roster. Or the fact that each of those amazing #1 victories were set up by horrible stretches that forced us to need to win those games. One of the Stanford #1 victories was after a horrible loss against Cal. The other was in the midst of an end-of-season charge in '00 that otherwise, we wouldnt have even made it into the tourney. Last week's Arizona victory is well-known to be one of desperation. Last year's victory over #1 Kansas was after a horrible stretch of non-conference games and a bad start to the conference season. You just get sick of the rollercoaster. The highs were so high, and yet the lows were so low--and the lows lasted a lot longer.

5) Lavin's gametime decisions. The man is talented at giving the game away. I have never seen one coach blow so many last minute opportunities, or make so many odd mid-game decisions. The only one I ever saw work was that mad-rush press he put in at midseason a couple years ago. As was said, the offense seemed to change every year. So did the substitution logic. Lavin was never consistent with his subbing, and would leave guys in who were absolutely killing us for maddeningly long times. And, timeouts? Oh Lord...

6) The team's inconsistent play. I suppose it didn't matter that Lavin kept changing his offense or his starters or his subs, because to a man they all seem confused on the floor in much the same manner. Consistency not only was lacking, it was nonexistent. But they always seemed willing to make the same, stupid boneheaded decisions again and again. Last year, backup point guard Moose Bailey would repeatedly drive into the line when he lacked the handles to do it. Two years ago, Ray Young insisted on repeatedly throwing up treys when he was so bad at it that he wouldn't even catch the rim half the time. Watson, God bless him most of the time, had an inane love for setting up the alley-oop--that only worked once every three times and always otherwise ended up an easy transition basket for the other team. You could pick out repeat tendencies of these for just about every major player UCLA has had in the Lavin years. And Lavin never once seemed to do anything about it (take the player out or talk to him or try in any manner to limit his actions). And it was clear he wasn't weeding out in practice either, since the only thing consistent from game-to-game was that the players would do the same dumb shit.

7) Graduation rates. As was noted, Lavin's success at getting these degrees is even less worthy of note than most D1 programs.

8) No one improves. Only a handful of players can be said to have really improved in their play under Lavin. Kapono never did. Moiso didn't. Gadzuric didn't. Ray Young didn't. Baron Davis didn't (although, thank God for him, he didn't have anything he really needed to learn). Toby Bailey didn't. JR Henderson didn't. Jelani McCoy didn't. You could make arguments that Earl Watson, Matt Barnes, Billy Knight and maybe Kris Johnson did improve under Lavin, but technically Knight was always fundamentally sound and Johnson got better mostly because he dropped a ton of weight after his sophomore year with his two-a-day workout mother. So I'll give you Watson and Barnes. That's just two major players in seven years of coaching, and this is with talent never considered small and twice being tabbed for the #1 class in that time. Right now, only Baron Davis has had any real success in the NBA since leaving UCLA since the national title team.

9) Fundamentals, people! It wasn't just that the players would make stupid decisions. Lavin's teams were also a basketball purist's living nightmare. They couldn't pass right. They couldn't hit midrange shots. They couldn't hit free throws. They repeatedly turned the ball over. They didn't screen out, letting the opponents in close for easy putbacks. They made stupid fouls, like reaching ones on the perimeter or being careless with fouls when they are already in foul trouble. They would miss layups all the time. And they could be counted on to never do anything to stop something that was working for the other time. Like the guy on UC-San Diego this year who averaged 10 ppg for them, but who did the same drop step power layup move to rack up 30 points on them last November.

10) The controversies. For all the public controversies of the football team, the basketball team often rivaled it. Look at JaRon Rush's alcohol problem and subsequent dropout. Or McCoy's suspension before he decided to go pro. Or Rico Hines attacking another player with a practice chair a couple Novembers ago. The team was constantly under a shadow of controversy from off-court actions or from the team's subpar and inconsistent on-court play or from lavin and his travails himself, such as the whole embarrassment over former AD Pete Dalis (a true moron himself) contacting Pitino in January, 2002, and later lying about it, or Lavin's mentioning the names of current D1 coaches who were looking to replace him at the end of the year.

11) Attendance. Attendance at Pauley Pavillion has been sinking like a rock for several years, and the sanctity of the home court just isn't the same anymore. We're talking about what was once the Cameron Indoor of college basketball, people. The Madison Square Garden of college arenas. And now we are barely heard over the shouts of the visiting fans. A win over the Bruins at Pauley used to be very rare and something special for opponents to accomplish. Under Lavin it happens at least 5-6 times a year, and there is no longer any mystique to it.

12) Not living up to the talent. This team has always had a lot of talent, as for one thing Lavin was good at was talking highly-regarded kids into coming to the school. They repeatedly got more McDonald's All-Americans than just about anyone else in D1, and as has been said, had two #1 recruiting classes. And, yet, very rarely did these guys actually seem to reach their talent. Only a handful of players have exceeded original expectations (Watson, Dollar, Knight), while most others turned from Top 25 talents in HS and potential NBA lottery picks into low-end 2nd-rounders and even out of basketball entirely (Gadzuric, Rush and Young are prime examples, but there are many). This team's press clippings at the beginning of each season were always better than how they ended up. And these aren't clippings from UCLA fans--these are guys who cover college bball for a living and know what kind fo talent UCLA would have. We were all fooled--every year.

13) Recruiting problems. Wait a sec, right? Didn't I say Lavin is a great recruiter? Well, yeah, he is very slick, very good at selling the program. The problem wasn't with Lavin's salesmanhip, but with everything else. Who he targeted, his backup plans, his scouting. Everything else was seriously subpar. The Bozeman situation with the point guards that has been mentioned is a prime example. At the other end of the lineup was a total lack of actual post players (we had a bunch of thin guys like Cummings and Hollins masquerading as big men instead, and Gadzuric never seemed to have a legit big man backup in his entire stay at UCLA. This failure to recruit to need was key. And his backup plans? What backup plans? If Lavin struck out with the big names, he never set himself up good with second or third-tier recruits like Lute Olson and Mike Montgomery do. He would alwys be forced to use that scholie on a much-less highly-regarded player. And he would consistently fail to check into his recruiting targets' backgrounds--especially academic--to spot potential problems. It was thus that he missed Rush's problems with AAU coach and current tenant of the Florida State Penitentiary Tank Black, and Schea Cotton's academic problems that got him disqualified in '97, and Evan Burns' academic problems that disqualified him--another McD's--just this last fall, and Mike Fey's academic problems that set him back for a year. Thes problems combined so that we would end up with two or three top tier players and a whole wealth of seemingly fringe D1 players, the names of a few having already been mentioned. And then there was his scouting, and the way he went about it. When other coaches were known to be going out there and hitting the recruiting trail, he always seemed to be at his home in Malibu. His assistant coaches would miss entire summer tournaments, and only catch a handful of games at others, or they would be in Europe or Africa recruiting some little-known talents that were longshots to get qualified. And he would ignore good, solid local recruits who originally expressed much interest in UCLA, until it was too late. Like the Craven twins now at USC, whom he refused to offer scholies to; seemingly half of Arizona's roster are "rejected Bruin recruits", including Luke Walton, son of UCLA great Bill Walton; Travon Bryant and a few others who played for Mizzu; fine point guard Marlon Palmer for New Mexico; Joe Shipp on Cal; the list goes on and on forever about these guys who went on to other schools after UCLA was their longtime favorites, because Lavin failed to bother to even contact them or consider them because they weren't McD's--just good, solid players.

14) Lavin's refusal to hire experience. The guy just wouldn't do it. He refused to ever hire anyone who was a longtime veteran coach. He had certain huge holes in his coaching ability, and he never bothered to find anyone with the experience to do those things. Things like X's and O's and game management. Or a disciplinarian to offset Lavin's player's coach image and laid back demeanor. Or someone schooled in basic basketball fundamentals. Lavin's entire assistant coaching hiring process seemed predicated on only going after the low-end cheap assistant coaches who would never be anything but yes-men to him, who didn't offer up strengths to shore up his weaknesses, who would, let's face it, never be considered as replacements for him (as he essentially did in taking over the UCLA job after Harrick was let go). Lavin always made sure he was the best on the staff, so the pussy-footing administration and that wimp Dalis wouldn't have any reason to see how Lavin could be improved upon, at least personally. And since Lavin's talents in most coaching areas are pretty damn poor, you know he really had to look in the trash heap to come up with some of these guys.

15) UCLA's place in college basketball history. Yeah, yeah, okay, this does have to do with our expectations, but let's face it, it's not like we're nobodies here in this sport. Expectations, unreal or not, are a part of the game, and UCLA's college basketball team stands for a lot more than just a college basketball team. This is a program with a tradition and a rich history. Lavin's standards aren't even good enough for a standard Division I major conference school. Why would his act then be acceptable at a school that has set standards as high as UCLA's?

So is that enough? Can we finally let this guy go--after seven years now and the worst year in UCLA's modern basketball history and the lowest point the program has fallen since WWII--without someone here bitching at us about the ridiculously high expectations of UCLA fans? I sure as hell hope so.

Chief Rum

[HornedFrog Purple]

Interesting dilemma. So if the next coach comes in and does not at least reach the sweet-16 5 out of his first 7 years would he be considered a failure?

I don't think Lavin has left an empty cupboard. There is a lot of talent there, maybe a new attitude and philosophy turns them around quickly.

As far as a good replacement, Majerus would be a good fit for them. He already has experience recruiting in California, his 3 freshman recruits were from there and he can coach. Personally I like Mike Jarvis, but the odds of that happening are probably nil.

I think UCLA has to pay bucks this time to bring somebody they want instead of relying on the fact they are UCLA.

[MrBug708]

Interesting thoughts in this thread....thought I'd bring it back up to life. I especially love the Mike Jarvis comment.

[Ragone]

Personal foul.. making me think i was in some sort causility loop.. in which time was based on a loop around Steve Lavin being fired.. thats a 15 post penalty.. and loss of down