Again, what Evina said is not what is widely and erroneously attributed to her:
She stated that she did not know if Holly would be back (this after the first round loss to UCLA) and that changes needed to be made in terms of court stuff and changes in the staff. That is a far cry from calling for anyone to be fired.
But, let's go further. Evina was not asked this question the year before. And why? Because, the season before (even though a disappointing one), there was not serious administrative movement to sack Holly. Last season was quite different. All the reporters knew that Holly was on the proverbial hot seat and that a first round tourney loss was likely the final straw. That is why reporters ask Evina if she thought Holly would be back to which she said "I don't know".
I don't think that was an inappropriate answer at all but was a crap question to ask a student athlete. Ask Fulmer that but not a player right after a tournament loss. But, Evina' s statement had NOTHING to do with Holly being fired. That decision was already imminent and it baffles me that anyone would think that Evina played some kind of role in Holly quite justified dismisal.
Here would be Fulmer's reasoning -- okay, the LVs have been a four uear slide; every notable media pundit is commenting on how poorly coached the team is; fans and alumni are demanding a change. Eh, screw all that,. I am sticking with Holly. Wait, wWhat did you say, Evina Westbrook said that changes need to be made in the staff! OMG, that changes everything! Start the search for a new head coach. What Evina wishes is my command!"