It is ironic that Steve Lavin is facing dismissal after his seventh season as UCLA's head coach and his 12th season associated with the UCLA program. At age 38, with seven years of head coaching experience under his belt, Lavin is far more qualified to be UCLA's head coach today, than when he was permanently hired in 1997.

It is ironic, but predictable, especially once he was hired as UCLA's full-time coach. Why? Lavin has been good at UCLA, just not great.

	Would Steve Lavin have been better off accepting his first head coaching job at somewhere other than UCLA?

Until this season, Lavin had done a good job at UCLA. He had won almost 70 percent of his games and advanced to the Sweet 16 in five of the past six seasons, something only Duke's Mike Krzyzewski matched during the same six years. Lavin had won at least 21 games each season and brought in highly rated recruiting classes annually. All in all, he has grown and matured into a pretty good coach.

The problem is, UCLA requires more than a good coach doing a good job.

Westwood demands a great coach, doing a great job.

No coach can expect to survive longer than Lavin has without at least the promise of advancing beyond the Sweet 16, periodically. It was only a matter of time before a team of Lavin's stumbled, and with it, the opportunity opened to fire him. UCLA's fans, and some inside the administration, have been waiting for this fall.

And falls happen at the best of programs. Duke stumbled to a 13-18 record under Krzyzewski in 1995, then went 18-13 and lost in the first round to Eastern Michigan in 1996. Purdue and Iowa both have excellent coaches, yet stumbled last year in missing the NCAA Tournament. Virginia suffered through some down years in the late 1990's, and North Carolina struggled last season to an 8-20 finish. It happens, and this year it is happening at UCLA. However, Steve Lavin will not survive this fall at UCLA, but will survive in the coaching profession. Having a bad year does not make Lavin a bad coach, and he should be hired somewhere else.

Lavin's critics can attack him any number of ways for his performance at UCLA. If NCAA Tournament success is their measure, he has been a successful coach, just not by UCLA standards. His critics say Lavin should advance further than the Sweet 16, at least periodically, or he should not have to pull "upsets" to get there.

	Bilas' Bytes
	How important is team chemistry? Jay Bilas examines that, along with a peek at "role" players like Maryland's Drew Nicholas, the highly underrated Marquis Daniels and the longstanding riddle of whether it's a guards' game, or a big man's game. Bilas' Bytes

If regular season consistency is the measure, Lavin has not put teams on the floor that play consistently to a high level, and inconsistent performances have been the trend. Almost every year, UCLA loses to little guys like Ball State, Pepperdine, Cal State Northridge, Colorado State and Detroit. In addition, UCLA has been inconsistent on the court and had numerous other close calls against teams the Bruins should have pounded. Add to these results the occasional blowouts UCLA has suffered at the hands of conference rivals and other traditional powers, and the fact UCLA has had to go on late-season runs to make the NCAA field, and Lavin is perpetually wearing a bulls-eye for his critics.

While any coach who has been on the job for over six seasons bears responsibility for the health of the program in year seven, I believe the blame for the current crisis in Westwood rests in one place ... at the feet of former athletic director Peter Dalis. It was Dalis who hired Lavin after he guided UCLA to the Elite Eight as UCLA's interim head coach in 1996-1997. Hiring Lavin at that time was a clear mistake, and Dalis made that mistake with his eyes wide open to the consequences, and with a clear understanding of the demands of the UCLA job. In hiring Lavin in 1997, Dalis was foolish and reckless with the UCLA program.

Don't misunderstand me, Lavin did an excellent job in 1997 after Jim Harrick was fired in October, 1996. In guiding Harrick's program, Lavin proved that he had the potential to be a fine coach, with time and experience. Lavin's career may have been on an upward arc, but he did not deserve the UCLA job because of that one season. Lavin showed that he deserved an opportunity from a smaller program with more realistic expectations, a job in which he could learn and mature as a coach. But the job Lavin did in 1997 did not mean that he was the right choice as the full-time head coach in the pressure cooker that is UCLA.

An "interim coach" is just what the name suggests, that the job is temporary or short-term. The interim coach is the coach for the time being, while the right guy for the long term is found and put in place. Doing a good job does not automatically "earn" the interim coach the job, or mean that the interim guy "deserves" or has "a right to" the job. That is ridiculous, yet it is a stance that many people take when an interim coach does well. We heard it when Brad Soderberg filled in for Dick Bennett at Wisconsin; when Brian Ellerbe took over for Steve Fisher at Michigan; and when Mike Davis took over for Bob Knight at Indiana.

Just because a guy steers the ship into the harbor doesn't mean that he should captain the ship on the next long voyage. If the full-time job were awarded based solely upon doing a good job in the interim period, it would be called the "Contingent Head Coach."

Of course, the interim coach may indeed be the right guy, and prove to be the best possible coach on a long-term basis, but it is usually not the case. Similarly, the interim coach may have a lackluster record in the interim year and still be the right guy for the job. The full-time job cannot just be based upon how the coach fares in that one interim year. It is just not that simple.

The charge of an athletic director is to find the right guy for the job, not to hand out the job as a reward for ably filling the position in a crisis. If Dalis wanted to reward Lavin in 1997 for his good work during that one year, he should have given him a nice bonus, a position on the next coach's staff, or a glowing recommendation letter. Giving him the job is another matter.

Taken to the extreme, can you imagine letting a medical intern perform surgery on you just because he did a "good job" taking care of you while the experienced and trained doctor was out of the office? Of course not, such a decision would be foolish. Similarly, Dalis should never have hired a young and inexperienced coach to take over at UCLA. Dalis knew the demands of the UCLA job, not to mention the expectations. He understood how his alumni and supporters would react to struggles, and that the UCLA job was different from the UC Irvine or University of San Francisco jobs. In essence, Dalis set up Lavin for an inevitable fall, and a rocky tenure throughout.

So, attention all of you athletic directors out there: you do not have to award the head coaching position to an interim coach who does a good job in the interim period. Nor are you precluded from hiring the interim coach if he has a less than perfect record in his interim year. The paramount charge you have is to find and hire the best possible candidate for the job. Don't listen to your local sportswriters or alumni who say that the interim guy "deserves" the job, or has "earned" it. That is folly, and you will pay a long-term price for such a short-term view.

Lavin was not wrong to take the UCLA job when it was offered to him in 1997. What would you expect him to do, say no? Lavin gained valuable experience, and will make someone else a good coach when he leaves UCLA. It was Dalis who was wrong in hiring Lavin at such a young age, and with so little experience.

If UCLA fans want to blame someone, don't blame Lavin, blame Dalis. It was Dalis who showed irresponsibility and poor judgment, not Lavin.

Q & A with Jay Bilas

Send in college basketball questions to ESPN's Jay Bilas, who will answer a few each week as the season continues.

Jay Bilas is a college basketball analyst at ESPN and is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.