I guess I see it the opposite, and I know a lot of others here do, too.
You seem to assume it is a given that a new coach would automatically mean we "have a chance to enjoy more success than we've had during Jim's tenure". But that is not a given, and as I have pointed out by example, is just as likely that we would not have more success than we have seen over the past 5 years. Recall, other than this injury-plagued season, Bradley has had 5 winning seasons in a row, averaging 20+ wins per season. So it is not like our program was totally in the dumps. And is it right to hold the coach totally accountable for a team that underperforms when injuries played such a major part?
Plus, there are many other positive factors that have been pointed out that our coach has done (fund raising, academic performance and APR, etc.) that we could be at risk if he is forced out. It is easy to overlook those, but they are important factors.
We do not need this thread to turn into the same back-and-forth arguments that so many others have, but lets just accept that both sides have their points and nobody has the exclusive rights to say they are right.