I really don't follow the women's team at all, other than what I pick up peripherally from following Gamecocks sports in general. That said, I know enough to know we were not terribly good before Dawn (though we weren't totally abysmal with 3 NITs in the three prior seasons, but it looks like we were getting worse, per Wiki) and now we're elite.
Some on here have consistently drawn a comparison between Dawn's start and Paris' start as justification to support Paris. If Dawn is the comparison, then she has to be the standard.
Looking at her Wiki page, it looks like it took her 4 seasons to turn the program COMPLETELY around. She had us in the top 25 in Season 4 with a Sweet 16 appearance, and has taken us to the Sweet 16 or better for 12 straight seasons, with the exception of '12-'13 when we were knocked in the second round. She showed steady and significant progress from Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3 and then in Year 4 when the turnaround was complete. Progress was concretely shown in both win total and conference ranking. None of this vague "it doesn't show in the W/L column but we're playing more cohesive" or whatever gobledygook. Our win total under Dawn went from 10 to 14 to 18 to 25 (conference was 2, 7, 8, 10), and she has maintained us at that level or higher. Again, concrete metrics showing progress.
For me, that sets the bar for the men's team. You must show steady and significant progress each year and have us in the NCAAT in Year 4. Period. Progress has to be concretely demonstrated with steadily improving W/L records and conference rankings. Paris is starting out at roughly the same point as Dawn in terms of W/L and conference ranking. Dawn went from a .357 win percentage in Year 1 while Paris put up a slightly lower .344. In Year 2, Dawn jumped to .482, so I'd expect a comparable improvement from Paris next season.
If you can't hit the concrete metrics established by Dawn, you're not the guy. Cut bait and move on.
Some will object that it's unreasonable to expect a coach to live up to Dawn's exceptional standard. But isn't that what we're shooting for?