OK, you need a bit of something here...and I'll bite.

<They have yet to win a title under "no offense Ben" and while getting to back-to-back final fours is nice the clowns from across town who like to tout all those old banners in Pauley won't have anything to cheer about until BH brings one home.>

There's a lot wrong with this, and only one thing right: we have YET to win a title under Howland. However, we have lots to cheer about at Pauley even though Howland hasn't brought home no. 12. While we don't hang banners for FF appearances, we do cheer-and wildly-for winning basketball teams that have a good shot at the NCAA championship. Any serious college basketball fan knows that winning the basketball title requires a great team, great coaching, and a fair amount of luck-there is almost always at least one game that is a down-to-the-wire battle in which either team can win it. So the fact that UCLA has not won in Howland's tenure has not raised one eyebrow, considering that he took over after the first losing season in 50+ years, had a losing season his first year, and played without any kind of post scorer until this year. Howland has properly received a lot of credit for taking UCLA as far as we went with anemic interior scoring, and we lost twice to perhaps the only team that had the coaching and the matchups to beat us.

As for "no offense", we'll never be mistaken for Carolina or Memphis, but Howland coached Northern Arizona some time ago which led the nation in 3-pt percentage and was considered an offensive power. The guy didn't forget to coach offense, but with the talent he's had at UCLA, especially the void inside and the consistent youth at PG, he's kept a fairly tight rein on the offense and he values FG efficiency more than scoring. UCLA could run more-Collison, Westbrook, Mbah a Moute and Shipp can all run-but Howland prefers that the team take good shots rather than risk turnovers for the sake of pressing the pace. And the stats this year reflect UCLA's improved offense with a legit post option. Currently, UCLA ranks 5th in offense according to Pomeroy.
http://kenpom.com/rate.php

Additionally, here's UCLA's stats this year:
Pts Diff: +18.9
FG%: 49/40
3FG%: 35/32
Ass/TO Ratio: +1.2
Rebounds Diff: +10.1
FT%: 74

We don't put up 80 per game and and won't be among the top 20 teams in scoring, but with stats like these, anyone who wants to try to make the case that Howland can't coach offense is either lazy or wilfully ignorant. And ultimately, the point is to win, and regardless of whether UCLA is as much fun to wtach as North Carolina or some other run-and-gun teams, I'll take winning any day.

Although there are unreasonable fans of UCLA (as there are of any program) I always felt that the MSM always made far more out of the "unreasonable expectations" of UCLA fans than actually exists. I am well aware of the story after UCLA won in '75 that a fan told Wooden that he had to win to make up for the loss in '74, and that qualifies as a statement of expectations. But nowadays, after the years of relative underachievement relieved by only one title in '95, I know of NO (and I am not exaggerating) UCLA fans who believe that UCLA is "entitled" to banners in Pauley. Hearing Dukie V and Steve-16 Lavin always knocking UCLA fans for their unrealistic expectations in that regard always pissed me off, because it was ignorant and defensive, especially coming from Lavin. UCLA fans don't "expect" titles-but we do expect UCLA to produce teams that play for titles and don't get beat in exhibition games at Pauley. There is no reason why UCLA was not at the same level as Duke and Carolina through the 90's, except we were coached in the latter half of the decade and the first part of this one by a guy who could not coach.

The NCAA tournament is a crapshoot. Anyone can win any game, except a 16 seed (so far.) Even if UCLA fails to win the NCAA title this year, I think most UCLA fans would be disappointed but accepting, depending on who we lose to and how. If its a loss on a half-court buzzer beater by a team that gets unconscious shooting, well, it happens. If we lose a close one in the finals to Kansas, well, it happens. If its a 20 point beatdown by East Tennessee or some other directional school, that is another story. Point is, all you can ask for as a fan is that your team be regularly in a position to win a title, and that is what Howland has done for UCLA. Which is why even if he doesn't bring home a banner for a few more years, as long as UCLA is in the hunt Bruins will be cheering for him and UCLA.

Lavin got the job because he was in the right place at the right time after Harrick got axed. IIRC Mark Gottfried had already left when the Harrick issue arose (probably Harrick's best and most experienced assistant) and Lavin was the only assistant who stepped up to take the interim label. After a shaky start, I think his first game we suffered the "Maples Massacre", a 49-point blowout to Stanford, we did very well and went to the Elite 8. I guess the adminstration thought he would grow into the job since he was a good self-promoter and seemed to know what he was doing.

Not a good hire, but regardless of his limited coaching skills, he also had PR problems because he never could deal with the UCLA tradition. That inability caused him to lash out at UCLA fans and make those lame comments about how UCLA fans wouldn't be happy without banners and they were unrealistic. Compare Lavin's approach to Howland's-he always acknowledges the legacy of Wooden and how UCLA is about banners, but he embraces that legacy and the challenge of winning titles. He has never complained or whined about that challenge, which is a big part of the reason Lavin still is despised at UCLA even though he usually is very complimentary toward UCLA while broadcasting.

Dukie V...well, your take is spot-on.