Quick analogy for the Howland contingency:

Lavin-7yrs win pct .688
Howland-7yrs win pct .697

Lavin-6 tourney appearances: 4 sweet 16, 1 elite 8
Howland-5 tourney appearances: 3 final 4's,1 runner up

Lavin-8 players in NBA
Howland-8 players in NBA

Lavin-lost B.Davis,J.McCoy,J.Moiso,J.Rush early
Howland-lost Love,Farmar,Westbrook,Holliday early

Lavin-Lost Top 03' recruit E. Burns(five Star) grades.
Howland-Lost 08 recruit D. Gordon(4 star) transfer.

Lavin-Recruited underachieving PG (C. Bozeman)
Howland-Recruited underachieving PG (J. Anderson)

Just the facts folks, do with it what you may.

I would argue that the Pac 10 was much stronger during Lavin's tenure and although neither coach won a championship, Howland's run of 3 consecutive final 4's was remarkable to say the least. I would also argue that the losses of Love and Holliday as Frosh were much more damaging to Howland, but not as surprising as Davis, Moiso and McCoy leaving as Soph. Everyone new Love was 1 and done, and should have known that Holliday was 50/50 at best.

I just don't get the fascination with Howland! Real success is measured by what you accomplish with what you have. So, I don't consider the 3 final 4's a success. When you consider what the core players on those teams have been able to "quickly" accomplish in the NBA the Bruins should have won at least 1 National Championship, maybe 2!