ephul

Was thinking the same thing.

Hahahaha this is comical watching the freaking out of some people here.

Agreed. Vegas will know before anyone.

I'm not "intoxicated with Beilein". I'm simply pointing out that he's got a better record of success than these young guys. He's a more "sure thing". You could replace the name Beilein without about half dozen guys. We just hired a young guy with a VERY good record in his short period of coaching. How'd that turn out?

Agree 100%. Beilein isn't my top pick by any means, but when we look at the state of the program, he's more likely to get us back quicker than anyone. Beard has less of a track record. I get he's younger, but there's more risk there than a guy like Beilein. Stevens or Bennett (haven't heard his name, and probably because the probability is not good) have to be the top picks. It's that second tier where the split happens. Some want the young guys with some recent success... If we take one, I want to know how they differ from Archie and why they'll be successful over a guy like Archie. My second tier is a proven guy like a Pitino or Beilein... Or even a guy like Lon Kruger. Someone that can get the program at least winning again. Have a successor on the bench like Fife, Cheaney, etc. Like you said, at the end of the day, hopefully we don't get to that second tier.

You're right. Dumpster fire wasn't the right word and I was thinking of his West Virginia time. WVU went 8-20 before he got there. However, if we use the logic for Beilein taking over for Amaker not being that impressive, shouldn't we do the same for Beard taking over for Tubby? Tubby didn't leave TT empty handed. They had a solid team. My point in all of this is, I don't understand some's thinking that Beilein is more of a risk than Beard. I view it the opposite. If Beilein didn't have the WVU gig and we were just looking at the Michigan success, I'd be a little more worried. But he's just flat out won everywhere he's gone.

Tubby's last season, they finished 19-13. And they were young. Chris Beard inherited a good team. So look at Tubby's last year (19-13) and look at Chris Beard's wins and losses at Texas Tech. Is it a WHOLE lot better? I'm not saying Chris would be or is a bad coach. Winning at Texas Tech isn't a cakewalk. But to say Beard got Texas Tech "running" is a bit of a stretch. He's kept them going, and that is certainly something to tip your cap to. Chris Beard should definitely be looked at. No doubt. But Beilein has shown he can turn dumpster fires around. Michigan was terrible when he took over. Chris took over a pretty good TT squad.

We have no idea how long Beilein wants to coach. He may have 10 years left for all we know. So having one foot out the door is a little unfair. And being that most schools let kids out of LOIs if a coach leaves, there's really not much "risk" to committing to an older coach. Especially with the oversign. It's not stopping guys like Coach K, Williams, Boeheim, etc from getting their guys. Beilein at Indiana could definitely recruit a winning program. What "young" coach would you trust more with the program that could win quicker than Beilein. I'd argue the opposite. There's more proof that Beilein can win quicker than a guy like Beard. We hired the "young up and comer" and it bit us in the a$$. Beilein isn't my first choice, but he's near the top. You can trust him that he's going to make good decisions and keep the program towards the top. I'm not sure why you think Beilein is "riskier" than any other "young" coach. It's more than likely it'll pay off; he's proven he wins. It could be a disaster? How moreso than any other hire? We hired a 40'ish year old "up and comer" and I'd say that was a disaster. So why would Beilein be any more of a risk?

They went to the tournament in his 2nd year at Michigan. Expecting any coach, Brad Stevens included, to come in and do what Beilein did at Michigan is pretty lofty expectations.

Very LONG kid. Despite being 6'8"ish, his long arms will help tremendously. Fits in really well in our system

I think Geronimo is going to follow the path of Arman. Get some minutes here and there, play good D, etc. I'm liking the young kids we are bringing in. I believe we will start seeing a nice, steady flow of 4 year kids that get better over time. Not to diss Crean, but we either had freshmen that had to step in and play big minutes, or they didnt stick around long enough to develop. Franklin and kids like Geronimo are ones that may sit the bench a good amount their freshmen year, but you can see the potential and at the very least, are capable of stepping in if needed and not tanking the flow or becoming a liability. Kids like these are critical to a good program.

Not saying I agree with it. But that's what I read. Arizona is going to shell out money that Houston wouldn't. So you could be right.... He may have been threatening to sit out, and Houston decided to just send him away before it could be seen as Houston HAVING to deal him.

Hopkins wants crazy money in his next deal (understandably so). More than the Texans wanted to give. Trading now gave Houston a little more leverage.

Whatever you say

He's yet to be drafted. How can he say he's going pro when no one has drafted him (yet)? Was Scott Rolen a liar when he committed to Georgia to play basketball and ended up going pro in baseball? I'm done with this conversation. If Colson plays at IU, terrific. Good for everyone. Great for IUBB. I dont see it happening, assuming he doesn't have a dip in production.

We will see

Agree to disagree

Guys I know that have been around awhile say first 3 rounds. I agree though, if he ends up being projected 5-10, may as well go to college.

That'll be interesting. Actually just had that discussion with someone. Could cause him to fall a bit if teams are uncertain whether he will for sure sign. He will have a big decision to make, but it's tough passing up that much guaranteed money

The chances of him ever playing baseball at IU is low. Not zero by any means, but below 50%

An umpire/ref that has been doing it for decades and does his games told me 1st round wouldn't surprise him. Said he has the smoothest swing he's ever seen. Still a long way to go though

He will be a top pick in the MLB draft. Won't be playing basketball. Very much like Scott Rolen

Because he likes to play basketball. And if you talk to any MLB scout, they'll tell you they LOVE when prospects play multiple sports. They prefer it actually. He'll have a really tough decision. But like Bob Saccamanno said, it''ll be much like Scott Rolen. People don't realize how good Scott Rolen actually was at basketball.

It's pretty likely at this point that he plays baseball. He has much more of a chance to having a professional career in baseball as opposed to basketball. He's a really good athlete though. Wouldn't surprise me if he went the other way around, but at this point, it's baseball.

I don't know if you can really blame it on the MLB though. MLB will always have an issue bringing on new fans. I don't think you can really expect the general public to know the name of an MLB star when a game lasts 3+ hours. Taking that into account, a game lasts 3+ hours. Taking Trout for example, he comes up to bat, what, every 30-45 minutes? Then you take into account that a successful hitter gets on base 30-40% of the time. Of that 30-40% only a small percentage is an eye popping home run. You literally have to watch an entire game to maybe see that player make a fun, eye popping play. I don't think the MLB can really "entice" the general public to watch 3.5 hours for maybe a few good plays. Someone who appreciates baseball will. Your average fan? Not a chance. The NFL and NBA simply has more action. More big plays, more often.