hoosierbgh

Why would you need a worried emoji over this? Of course the choice is up to Brad... just like it has always been. That he seems to be strongly considering the decision is extremely positive. He will make the decision when he is good and ready and it will be announced when everyone else is good and ready.

I can be patient for the announcement whenever it occurs but posts like this are not making it the slightest bit easier!

Disregarding everything else that's been said and speculated on, the fact remains that there was a compelling/attractive enough reason to cause one wealthy donor to pay up to an extra $7 million to buy out Miller a year early and another donor to agree to a "nearly unlimited funds" for the transition costs of a new hire. As good/great as the other options for a new coach are, I just can't see any of them moving the needle to that level. It doesn't mean that it will ultimately work out but it is, IMO, a pretty good indicator that there is a real possibility that it will.

Probably so but it is much, much easier to hide things at Baylor than it would be at IU. If Drew were a better coach and there were strong indications that A) the HP situation was the only shady thing occurring and that B) the shady occurrences were in the past, then it might be worth the risk. As it currently stands Drew has the lowest upside and the highest risk at IU.

If Beard can recruit players to Lubbock F'ing Texas (which puts the a** in the a** end of nowhere) where do people seriously get the idea he couldn't recruit better players to Bloomington? That makes even less sense than loving the Butler offense under Stevens but complaining about Beard's offense. What you saw at Butler and Texas Tech will not be what you would see with either one of them at IU with better players to run their systems. No matter how great any coach's offensive scheme is, the BIG tends to favor teams capable of playing physical, grind it out styles when necessary (such as every game vs. WI, MSU, PU, RU, etc). Of all the coaches mentioned frequently here, Drew is the one who's recruiting and style of play are least likely to translate well to IU.

Oats vs Musselman I haven't followed either one of them closely enough to make an informed call but my gut says Oats would be the better fit/hire but Musselman would be more likely. Beard vs. Drew Beard easily, I think his style of play fits IU and the BIG better and he's accomplished more with less. Drew has had more recruiting success but Waco is a much easier sell than Lubbock and I doubt he would be able to recruit the same way at IU as he does at Baylor... especially if many of the same people are still in the compliance department that were here during the Sampson tenure. I see Drew as Sampson 2.0 and he ranks about as high as Alford on the list of guys I don't want to see coaching at IU. Matta vs. Beilein Beilein's age is the only thing making this much of a decision. IMO, Matta needed more talent to win than Beilein did and while he can probably get that talent easily at IU, I don't like being quite so dependent on getting top tier talent all of the time. I think Beilein is the better coach but Matta, if healthy and committed, would be the better fit.

I probably shouldn't leak this but... you're really close on the plan for the 3rd time. The difference is that instead of the dog being held hostage, someone is going to kidnap him directly and shortly after Brad's mysterious disappearance from Boston, IU is going to announce the completely unknown Brian Smith as the new head coach. Brian will look a lot like Brad but with more facial hair, a large nose and glasses.

I see Drew as a probable Sampson 2.0 situation. I think if Beilein ended up being the hire, there would be contingencies in place to deal with recruiting and other aspects of coaching that might be affected by his age. If Beilein ends up being the best coach willing to come to IU then I certainly hope IU does not make the Majerus mistake again.

I'm guessing that his comments are probably not so much about throwing a parade for making the tournament as they are about throwing tantrums after losses, complaining about coaches not winning big instantly at IU, and constantly clamoring for coaching changes. A possible example is that Holtmann reportedly had absolutely no interest in considering the IU position the last time around. Of course, he could be thinking of entirely different things. There's likely some truth to what he said, this fan base certainly has it's share of entitled people who lack perspective but Bilas is not the best source for those comments nor is his suggestion to hire an IU guy helpful. Expectations are currently low, however, they will almost certainly rebound to irrational levels in short order if an even reasonably decent hire is made.

Lol, recruiting momentum and sustaining strength are not terms that have ever been associated with Texas Tech, that anyone would even consider doing so now even in an effort at dismissal, is a testament to what Coach Beard has accomplished there in a short time. He's basically taken a bottom third or bottom quarter Big 12 program and made it consistently top half of the conference and done so without top tier recruits. A coach that can get 4 and 5 stars to even look at Lubbock should have no problem at all selling Bloomington.

I think the real down side to Musselman is that success at IU could possibly have him looking at a jump back to the NBA. That's a pretty minor concern though and I'd still much rather have him them Drew. It is nice to have much better options this time around and apparently donors willing to provide the funds to make a serious run at the top candidate(s).

With Goodman, his source is likely not any higher up than the backup assistant barista.

I'm not sure you could tell the difference if he were in attendance.

Just to get Morris. When it comes to terrible announcers, I'm pretty sure that is like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

If it is anger that motivates them, then I'm sure there are at least a couple posters that could provide a pre-game critique guaranteed to leave the team PO'ed.

I don't know, I'm old enough to recall another, much worse win over PSU. One where IU was ranked #1 in the polls and had to have the benefit of an absolutely terrible call to even make it to overtime before escaping with the win. Although, I'm not old enough to remember a lot of that long period of excellence I do remember enough of it to know it wasn't uniformly excellent. Time plays funny tricks on us all, it tends to make us think the past was better than what it actually was and that the present is worse than what it is. Personally, I've seen enough IU teams of several eras lose games that they had no business losing to lose my mind over a closer than expected win.

Hog hunting is probably a good way to dip your toe into hunting. In fact, lack of other big game hunting experience is probably a benefit to hog hunting in some ways. Hunting with dogs is probably not the best way to start for a beginner but can be a lot of fun. IMO, spot and stalk is the most enjoyable method but hunting out of a stand or blind with or without a feeder is probably a better way to start. A good setup should give you plenty of opportunities, a solid rest, and time to wait for a good shot. You don't want to wound a hog, not because of potential danger(it's real but over blown, IMO), because they can be very difficult to track and recover with poor hits.

The discussion is of need vs. talent, even necessity vs. luxury, not of the relative talents of both players. Considering such debates are long running and in nearly every sport, it's fairly obvious that it is a valid discussion. Less obvious is how one manages to see that as a talent comparison or why one would go out of the way to do so.

Figments of the imagination in those that enjoy nothing so much as anticipatory b****ing and moaning?

It's Purdue. Football players, basketball players they all share the same livestock.

I'd take Bardo over Walton any day. Bardo may suck but at least he actually talks about basketball, granted it's frequently Illinois basketball instead of whoever is actually playing.

I'd like to know why ESPN hates his partner so much. He put in a Herculean effort trying to keep Walton's train(s) of thought on track all to no avail. I really feel for the guy since there was never any real hope of him succeeding. Sadly, the 10/8 second discussion was one of the more coherent comments from Walton all day. He was merely awful 20 years ago now, he is an embarrassment and someone should have enough sense to not put him out their in his current condition. .

No one's legacy is going to survive that association unless their name is Sanger.

The part in bold is exactly the point I was largely trying to make, I just didn't do it as succinctly as you. Words should matter I agree but so does context and experience with the source. Unless you are speaking of a subset of people approaching one, "all" is rarely going to be the accurate way to describe them yet often people do so, ether for emphasis or because they tend to hyperbole. No, I don't think it's trivial at all, that is exactly the danger when someone communicates in hyperbole mo'st (I had to catch myself here as I was tempted to use "all" instead of most) of the time. In any case you're also correct in that the conversation has ran it's course.

Let's not be too pedantic, you're fixating on his hyperbolic use of "all" to discredit his entire point, which is a valid one. We'll never know exactly what the percentage of sincere people to those with ulterior motives is but it's not even relevant. It is no fairer to judge the motives of those that choose not to speak publicly than it is to judge the motives of those that do. It is important that Archie, and by extension anyone else, has the right but not the requirement to comment publicly or not as they see fit. It is even more important that those like Tom Allen continue to live it regardless of commenting publicly. IMO, too many people are focused on who is or isn't saying what, that the real message is getting lost.