Howland is not at the top of my list, but he does serve as a consolation prize of sorts. A lot of the names people are bringing up, are coaches who haven't ever made the sweet 16 and in some cases, guys with a grand total of 0 NCAA tournament wins. How does anyone at all know that they know what they're doing really? To get back to Bruce Pearl, he made it to the Sweet 16 before going to Tennessee, they didn't have to hope he could do it, they knew he could do it.
The advantage with Howland is in the very least he knows what a top level program is supposed to look like, he knows what it takes to get to the final four. No Alabama coach, at Alabama or anywhere else has ever been a head coach in a final four game. Just think about that. So, the advantage to Howland is may be he could come in and make things more like UCLA if nothing else. If he got things on track, his replacement (he is old anyway) could have more to work with. I'd prefer some other options, but Howland is a better option than (insert coach here who hasn't ever really done anything).