INGLEWOOD, Calif. -- When you walk through the J.D. Morgan Center on the UCLA campus, you are immediately drawn to the Bruins' Athletic Hall of Fame. There, you will find the trophies and memorabilia of some of the finest athletes in sports history, such as Jackie Robinson, Rafer Johnson, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Florence Griffith-Joyner, Karch Kiraly and Arthur Ashe. The most prominent section of the Hall of Fame belongs to UCLA basketball, and the list of hardwood luminaries is staggering. Among the names of UCLA basketball greats are John Wooden, Kareem Abdul-Jabaar, Bill Walton, Gail Goodrich, Denny Crum, Marques Johnson, Willie Naulls, Larry Brown and Jamaal Wilkes.

	Jay Bilas doesn't believe everything he hears about Steve Lavin.

In the section devoted to UCLA basketball coaches, there are displays for each of the coaches from John Wooden to the present coach, Steve Lavin. Wooden's display chronicles arguably the greatest coach in the history of college basketball, the winner of more than 80 percent of his games and 10 national championships in 12 years from 1964-75. After Wooden, the display notes that Gene Bartow and Gary Cunningham won more than 85 percent of their games, but each left UCLA after just two years. Larry Brown averaged 21 wins and more than eight losses in his two years in Westwood, and Larry Famer and Walt Hazzard went to only two NCAA Tournaments during their tenure, never getting past the second round. Jim Harrick was UCLA's fourth or fifth choice in 1988, and went on to win more than 75 percent of his games before being fired in 1996.

Prominently displayed among UCLA's coaches is Lavin, along with his record and accomplishments. While Lavin did not come to UCLA with an established basketball pedigree, as did Wooden, Bartow, Brown and Harrick, his numbers match up favorably with every coach on the list except for Wooden, who has few peers on any list.

However, there is not a more criticized coach in America than Steve Lavin. Lavin always seems to be fighting a negative perception about his record and his coaching ability, and often it is difficult to separate facts about Lavin from rumor and opinion. For every vocal supporter he has, Lavin seems to have a more vocal detractor.

Well, here are the facts about Steve Lavin. He is young (37) and had no head coaching experience prior to being named interim head coach at UCLA in 1996. In 1997, Lavin was chosen by the UCLA administration to be the Bruins' permanent head coach. UCLA was not fooled into thinking Lavin was older than he was, or more experienced, and UCLA was not short of time or worthy candidates to choose from in the decision-making process. UCLA hired Steve Lavin with its eyes open.

In his five years, he has averaged 23 wins per season, and has won 71 percent of his games. Lavin has engineered five straight 20-plus win seasons, five straight NCAA berths, and is 9-1 against rival USC. Lavin has landed stellar recruiting classes, hauling in six McDonald's All-Americans, and has consistently had his classes ranked among the top classes in the nation. Remarkably, Lavin has taken UCLA to four out of the last five NCAA Sweet 16s, a feat accomplished by only three other coaches in the game, Duke's Mike Krzyzewski, Michigan State's Tom Izzo, and Kentucky's Tubby Smith.

Think about that last fact for a moment. In an era when success in the NCAA Tournament often defines a coach, Lavin has guided his team through the first two rounds of the NCAA Tournament more consistently than all but three coaches in the college game. That means that Lavin has seen the Sweet 16 more consistently over the last five years than Florida's Billy Donovan, Arizona's Lute Olson, UConn's Jim Calhoun, Kansas' Roy Williams, Temple's John Chaney, Oklahoma's Kelvin Sampson and St. John's Mike Jarvis. That is fact.

		(Lavin) knows that not just anyone can lead UCLA to the Final Four. It's not that easy to do. One thing is for near certain, only one man can lead UCLA to the Final Four this year, and that's Steve Lavin.

Count as fact that the solid job Lavin has done at UCLA has been publicly endorsed by the likes of Purdue's Gene Keady, Hall of Famer Pete Newell, Wooden and Krzyzewski. All have stated that Lavin is a fine young coach that has done a very good job, and will continue to grow.

Now that you have the facts, digest a few of the varied opinions about Lavin in letters to the editor, on internet chat sites or whispered throughout the rumor mill. Lavin is opined to be a middling tactician and game coach. Lavin's record is disparaged by detractors, who believe that anyone can win at UCLA with its tradition and resources. He is rumored to have disorganized practices, and that his players do not get better over their time at UCLA. He is perceived to skirt the rules in recruiting. Some vocal, but anonymous, observers feel Lavin is not the man for the UCLA job, one of the best jobs in the nation.

Now, here are some facts about the aforementioned opinions. Those opinions have been stated off the record, without attribution, and the credibility of those opinions cannot be judged fairly and accurately. For example, it would be nice to know if these opinions are held by knowledgeable basketball people, like coaches or former coaches. It would be nice to be able to judge the trustworthiness of the unnamed sources that are quoted in negative stories about Lavin to determine if the opinions expressed have any objective reliability, or if there is an agenda attached to them. Are the opinions held by respected coaches, or by those jealous of Lavin's status? Are the opinions from competitors with an axe to grind, or by objective observers that have good credentials? Instead, we are left with just the allegations, nothing but smoke, and we have to wonder if there is fire.

Lavin's current employer has been of little help to him or the UCLA basketball program. Athletic Director Pete Dalis was proven to be pursuing Rick Pitino last season, and intentionally misrepresented his actions to the press and to Lavin himself. There are regular leaks from within the university regarding possible secondary infractions of NCAA rules (i.e., minor violations that occur routinely at other institutions, are often self-reported, would not result in sanctions, and are rarely acted upon by the NCAA or reported upon in the media when being investigated). Taken to the logical conclusion, these leaks suggest an attempt to undermine Lavin as UCLA's coach.

As long as opinions are being stated, here is my opinion of Steve Lavin, on the record and fully attributable to me. Lavin is a very good coach who is getting better each year. I believe that Lavin has a very bright future, and will be among the better coaches in college basketball before he is through. While I agree that he was not the most qualified man for the job at the time he took it, neither would have been Billy Donovan, Tommy Amaker, Mark Gottfried or Steve Alford in 1996. The truth is, Lavin did a remarkable job under tough circumstances with his first team. Since that first season, Lavin has done everything you could ask of a coach. He has recruited very well, he has graduated players, he has sent players into the NBA, he has won a lot of games, and has had great success in the NCAA Tournament. The only thing he has not done has been to win the national championship, and the line of coaches that have not done that is a long one. He runs good practices, and he does a good job of developing players, and his offensive and defensive schemes are well conceived.

Here is what everything boils down to. In my opinion, Steve Lavin is severely undervalued as a coach simply because of the way he was awarded the UCLA job. Lavin was in the right place at the right time, and has taken advantage of his fortunate circumstances by doing well. Because of the manner in which he was awarded the UCLA job, Lavin is resented and criticized because he found his way into one of the most coveted jobs in America, and he got there without taking the conventional route. His success without taking the long, hard road to coaching success has a lot of noses bent out of shape.

Based upon the way Lavin is treated inside and outside of UCLA, he would not be unwise to field other offers and leave UCLA in his rearview mirror for more money and more stability. However, that is not his nature. Expect Lavin to stay and fight, for his program's success and for the kids he has recruited. He has a solid group of veterans and newcomers as the 2001-02 season gets underway, and he has his best chance to get to the Final Four since being named UCLA's head coach. But even if he gets there, there will always be those who say that anyone can do that at UCLA. Lavin cares what is said about him, but he does his job anyway. And he knows that not just anyone can lead UCLA to the Final Four. It's not that easy to do. One thing is for near certain, only one man can lead UCLA to the Final Four this year, and that's Steve Lavin.