Crean is in year 17 of his coaching career and has been an NCAA team 8 times and has lost 10 or more games in a season 12 times. This gives you a steady sample size for his coaching career. A young coach that is showing he can coach with the big boys doesnt have the sample size yet. So yes it is a risk but the upside is higher because we have seen what Crean is capable of in his 16 years vs Millers 4 years(just an example). Also would you gamble on a young coach when at worst he does what Crean has done here and win 60% of his games?Can you quantify "materially more upside" and assign names and availability?
I also guess I find it disheartening that my fellow alumni, a.k.a. our "leadership," can't appropriately weigh the options, if it is in fact true, that we can upgrade the head coaching position without taking undue risk.
Also, I am not sure I am familiar with what the phrase "finding a way to go long a call" means in your second to last partial sentence so I might be mischaracterizing your sentiments and, if so, I apologize.
My issue on Crean is I don't see him establishing a consistently good program. We will be really good then awful, then decent...and now are we primed to be really good again? I think we could but only if we learn to play defense. I stem a lot of his issues to his roster management....which is down right awful to be honest.