That's really discounting the intelligence of the fanbase, although I can't fault you for that.
I just don't see how this is a losing (or LOWF) formula: each year, make reasonable expectations, and hope to surpass them. If the team surpasses them, then that's a success. The past year's expectations will always inform the next year's, regardless of which players are returning or leaving. A good year yields greater expectations relative to given talent. Thus, if we win 15 games with X group of players, next year we'd expect to win 17 or 18 with the same group. If we lose a substantial amount, we may have lower expectations, but they'll certainly be higher than if we hadn't met expectations the year before. Over time, if we deem the coach to be doing a 'good job' based on our expectations, then expectations will rise with success, and there will come a time when it's appropriate to expect NCAA tourney runs and ACC championships. That time is not now - or, for that matter, particularly soon - but following this method of evaluation and expectation, it surely will come later. I don't see anything LOWF about this.
Edit: I guess it should go without saying that continued "successes" by my reasoning lead to a longer coaching tenure, and successive failures lead to a firing.