Is Maryland an NCAA tourney team? [Archive]

Mackus

12-10-2007, 12:13 AM

They have not played well enough so far to be considered even a bubble team, IMO. However, I do expect them to improve enough to be given strong consideration, but not sure they will have the non-conference wins to overcome the slow start and get in. I'm still optimistic, and Gary's teams almost always peak at the right time of year, so I think its very possible that we get to 9-7 in conference and (assuming we beat Charlotte and don't lose any bad OOC games) we should be good enough to get into the tourney if thats the case.

BustaJ2632

12-10-2007, 12:16 AM

I haven't gotten to see as much as I'd like either, but I'll just say that there was a point early in the season last year when people didn't give the Terps much chance to make the tournament, then they went on their great ACC run. Granted, they had a bunch of seniors.

This year's team looks to be an extraordinarily young team that has fought hard in just about every game. Hopefully that will translate into wins once the ACC season really starts. If not, I still am confident that this is a group that will be a serious contender in the conference and nationally speaking in the next couple of years.

Sports Guy

12-10-2007, 12:22 AM

BTW, if I remember correctly, their last 10 games are pretty favorable so that could help out a lot.

Pedro Cerrano

12-10-2007, 01:25 AM

I think they stink, and that saddens me.

Flosman

12-10-2007, 01:44 AM

If selection Sunday was this week no way. I think they might make a run at it. But they are really painting themselves into a corner. You really don't want to have to beat Duke and NC on their court to get in not to mention just holding serve at home against everyone.

glenn__davis

12-10-2007, 08:43 AM

Right now, no.

But I'm very optimistic that they will be at the end of the year. Seems like every game we come out with absolutely no rhythm on offense, but by the second half things look much better. This team is still gelling, still trying to figure out what role each player will have.

Last night's loss stunk in a lot of respects, but I think we'll be very pleased with this team once the real ACC season begins.

Jagwar

12-10-2007, 10:06 AM

I think they stink, and that saddens me.

This statement is a little harsh. While I can't argue that the Terps are not a very good team, I think you have to factor in just how young they are. They are going to get better as the season progresses. Will it be enough to make the tourney? I doubt it, but you never know.

I think Gary Williams has to take a good chunk of the blame for the makeup of the roster. To have Gist as the lone senior, with no contributing juniors on the roster, is absolutely a result of poor recruiting.

Sports Guy

12-10-2007, 10:09 AM

This statement is a little harsh. While I can't argue that the Terps are not a very good team, I think you have to factor in just how young they are. They are going to get better as the season progresses. Will it be enough to make the tourney? I doubt it, but you never know.

I think Gary Williams has to take a good chunk of the blame for the makeup of the roster. To have Gist as the lone senior, with no contributing juniors on the roster, is absolutely a result of poor recruiting.

No its not...It happens to a lot of teams...Look at Duke last year...Recruiting wasn't an issue.

glenn__davis

12-10-2007, 10:31 AM

I think Gary Williams has to take a good chunk of the blame for the makeup of the roster. To have Gist as the lone senior, with no contributing juniors on the roster, is absolutely a result of poor recruiting.

Like SG said, there are plenty of teams that this could describe.

Plus, while not really a Williams recruit, Osby is a senior as well.

Dracula

12-10-2007, 10:53 AM

Right now, no this team would not make the tourney. Like you guys said, they're young, seem to be improving. Most of their games have been really sloppy, lots of turnovers, dumb shots.

But this team has the talent to improve down the stretch and make the tourney, they have shown some flashes of greatness here and there but they need to put it together on consistent basis.

AgentOrange

12-10-2007, 11:07 AM

I think the Terps are still searching for indenity from their players as far as what roles they will have with the team. There are a lot of players that can come in and out of the lineup so depth is not an issue with this team.

I feel like we need more defined roles before we can really see the types of pieces we really have. Gary is still shuffling minutes with a lot of different players right now and hopefully once he gets a feel of what each player will offer, he can use that wisely. This I feel is something that Gary can do, coach these players once he sees what he has.

It was very interesting to see the team totally fall apart once GV fouled out of the game. I don't know if it is a product of the way it happened or just GV not being in the lineup that hurt.

I was hoping Hayes would have used that time to really run the PG position and show that he should be the man with the rock in his hands more often.

And I was flipping back from the Ravens game, did Bowie even play? I didn't see him and I was thinking that would have been a good idea to put him on Gray since I think he is one of our better on the ball defenders.

Jagwar

12-10-2007, 12:21 PM

No its not...It happens to a lot of teams...Look at Duke last year...Recruiting wasn't an issue.

Have to disagree. The back to back years of 04-05 left a big hole in the roster.

2004: Gist, Ledbetter (Juco transfer)
2005: Neal, Brown (Juco transfer), Shane Clark (decommitted)

I understand that all teams develop recruiting issues. But the Terps had two years in a row where the classes were decidedly thin or contained short term fixes. The only contributor from those classes is Gist.

BaltimoreTerp

12-10-2007, 01:08 PM

Have to disagree. The back to back years of 04-05 left a big hole in the roster.

2004: Gist, Ledbetter (Juco transfer)
2005: Neal, Brown (Juco transfer), Shane Clark (decommitted)

I understand that all teams develop recruiting issues. But the Terps had two years in a row where the classes were decidedly thin or contained short term fixes. The only contributor from those classes is Gist.

But remember, the 2002 and 2003 classes each had four-or-five recruits.

You can only give out so many scholarships. And sometimes you have to fill needs when needs arise.

glenn__davis

12-10-2007, 01:14 PM

Have to disagree. The back to back years of 04-05 left a big hole in the roster.

2004: Gist, Ledbetter (Juco transfer)
2005: Neal, Brown (Juco transfer), Shane Clark (decommitted)

I understand that all teams develop recruiting issues. But the Terps had two years in a row where the classes were decidedly thin or contained short term fixes. The only contributor from those classes is Gist.

But in Gary's defense, Shane Clark was coming here until some apparently "interesting" tactics led to him not qualifying.

The JUCO guards were brought in to bring some depth at a position we were then at. At the time it seemed like a solid idea. In hindsight, looking at how little those two contributed, it probably wasn't worth it.

Jagwar

12-10-2007, 01:59 PM

But in Gary's defense, Shane Clark was coming here until some apparently "interesting" tactics led to him not qualifying.

The JUCO guards were brought in to bring some depth at a position we were then at. At the time it seemed like a solid idea. In hindsight, looking at how little those two contributed, it probably wasn't worth it.

What was the timeframe on Shane Clark's switch? Was there enough time to pursue other recruits?

Todd-O

12-10-2007, 02:43 PM

But remember, the 2002 and 2003 classes each had four-or-five recruits.

You can only give out so many scholarships. And sometimes you have to fill needs when needs arise.

I think you can trace a lot of Maryland's problems all the way to back to the Gilchrist class of 2002 and the 2003 class of Ibekewe.

Gilchrist gave us about a 1 1/2 service before he cracked. His sophmore year was cut short by attitude and injury. His departure looked bad but also forced the team to use DJ Strawberry as the primary point for an entire season the following year. He did a sub-par job at running the point.

McCray was mediocre and then got kicked off at a crucial time of his senior year -- they probably would have made the NCAA's with him.

And then there was the key loss (not to mention lack of development of Hassan Fofana) and the disaster of Will Bowers. The Fofana flop left us basically centerless and Bowers just wasn't coordinated enough to become a good starting center.

I think those holes have been hard to recover from.

As for this year's squad. At this moment they are NOT an NCAA Tourney team... but, for me, that doesn't mean that they are a disaster. Just watching them in person is enough to realize that these guys aren't comfortable with eachother yet. They aren't used to each others tendencies/skills and there is really very little flow to the offense.

I do believe, however, that the switch could be turned on at any moment.

The Terps easily could have won that game last night if the offense was clicking. There was more than one occasion for them to go on runs in the first half that never developed because of turnovers/missed lay-ups off turnovers. And I think their defense looks fairly good. Once again we don't have a dominant center force to eat up the middle --- all of Gary's successful teams have had big men that can bang and get fouls.

glenn__davis

12-10-2007, 03:14 PM

What was the timeframe on Shane Clark's switch? Was there enough time to pursue other recruits?

I honestly don't know. It seems to me like it was really late in the game, but I could be wrong about that. Can anyone who follows the recruiting a little closer help out with this one?

tsand72, one minor correction on your post -- Gilchrist's year of attitude and injury was his junior year, not sophomore. So we really got 2 1/2 years out of him.

Todd-O

12-10-2007, 03:19 PM

You're right... those disaster years all seem to blend together... the intent of my point remains the same though. We've had a lot of holes to fill simply because of troubles with our own players not panning out. There is a ripple effect created by that (forward in time) on the recruiting front.

As for Shane Clark... he dropped out of the picture in early September of his Freshmen year which would have been a month or so before mid-night madness. No time to fill that hole.

Jagwar

12-10-2007, 04:14 PM

But remember, the 2002 and 2003 classes each had four-or-five recruits.
You can only give out so many scholarships. And sometimes you have to fill needs when needs arise.

I almost think this strengthens the argument that GW's recruiting was poor. He had two consecutive classes with 5 recruits, then had two classes with Gist and Neal as the only 4-year players (Shane Clark notwithstanding). It is not as if it was a mystery that the roster would be young in 07-08.

I also think GW probably put a lot of hope in Rudy Gay, even though in hindsight Gay wouldn't have been around now anyway

Eight

12-10-2007, 04:32 PM

What was the timeframe on Shane Clark's switch? Was there enough time to pursue other recruits?

Shane Clark never "decommitted" per se. He was set to enroll (or had enrolled?) but there was a snafu with his transcripts or the like. This was in September of '05 (he would have debuted that fall). It's a shame, I think he would have been a very good player.

I thought I'd be very discouraged with a loss to BC, but given the circumstances with Vasquez, I can't be too upset. Not a good loss, but with Vasquez I feel pretty confident that we win.

Hayes playing the point more often will help this team. The fact that he and Vazquez had only 1 turnover in about 70 minutes is fantastic. Hopefully Tucker will continue to come on strong. He looks very good so far. We saw what Dupree can do, now let's have some more consistency. Gist should be having more games like last night now that he seems to realize that he's a post player and not a perimeter player.

There are lots of moving parts and lots of young players. We've dug a hole for ourselves, but I still think this team can play in the tournament...

glenn__davis

12-10-2007, 04:51 PM

There are lots of moving parts and lots of young players. We've dug a hole for ourselves, but I still think this team can play in the tournament...

Right. I have very little doubt that by season's end, this team will be worthy of playing in the NCAA tournament. The question is how heavily these early season losses will weigh.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm really encouraged by what I see in spurts from this team. Obviously they need to do it more consistently, but I think that will come with time.

Todd-O

12-10-2007, 05:17 PM

I'm pretty much in your camp... that being, very encouraged by the prospects of what will be. It is a very... very... young squad. Just a couple of observations:

1) We need to have a center step-up. There was a real lack of scoring presence on the inside last night.

2) I'd love to see Tucker get more playing time. Obviously the kid has a nice shot... but just in watching him run without the ball, he definitely appears to be playing calmly within the system. He looks comfortable. I really expect great things out of him.

3) Milbourne. Spotty. One moment he makes a great move to the hoop. The next he's trying to force something that's not there. There were multiple times last night that he tried to make a strong move to the hoop - every time he curled the ball with a straight left arm. That move only worked a few times... other times he got crushed. I think he's going to be a nice player once he gets a feeling for when he can successfully make a move like that.

4) I've liked what I've seen from Dino. Very solid.

5) Osby. Another example of kid that - IMO - would be a solid role player seeing limited time on a very good mature squad. I like him. He brings a lot of energy and great defense to the floor. He shows some good offense. I'm not sure if he is the kind of guy that you want as a primary weapon on a team in the ACC... but, it is what it is.

6) Hayes and Vasquez. I'd like to see Hayes playing primary point. Vasquez needs to be more of a slasher. Perhaps a great starting three would be Hayes at the 1, Tucker at the 2 and Vasquez at the 3 (perhaps he's too small for that position). At any rate, I think Hayes has a good stroke and puts his long arms to use on the glass -- a great rebounding PG.

Unfortunately, last night is the kind of game that will probably haunt the Terps at the end of this season. I say that because they could have put the game away at several points in the first and definitely with about 10 to go in the 2nd. But, they are so young and GREEN... they just don't have it quite there yet. Maryland definitely needs to get wins against lesser opponents - kind of generic duh statement... but you've gotta win ugly early on in order to make late season surges worthwhile.

Go Terps!

Ruzious

12-10-2007, 05:41 PM

Premature. I'm just watching them game to game - thinking about the tawnament is irrelevant at this point. I just want to see wins and improvement - then, I'll think NCAA's.

Fairfax Bird

12-10-2007, 08:18 PM

It is still early and maybe too early to even talk about this since MD has a young squad that figures to get better as the year goes along.

However, 10 games have been played, so there should be some sense of what you think this team will be.

So, what do all of you think?

I have barely watched them play, so I don't have much of an opinion based off of what I have actually seen.

I see we are stirring up trouble.

I don't think it is possible to know until deep into the ACC season. One thing is for sure and that is that they are playing poorly right now. Gist has not been as good as I thought he would be and Vasquez looks like a shell of his former self. Check back with me on Feb. 1.;)

ccbird

12-11-2007, 01:21 AM

I see we are stirring up trouble.

I don't think it is possible to know until deep into the ACC season. One thing is for sure and that is that they are playing poorly right now. Gist has not been as good as I thought he would be and Vasquez looks like a shell of his former self. Check back with me on Feb. 1.;)

While true that this team is young and will get better I still worry about the overall talent of the players. This is the least athletic team we have had in a long time, as long as I can remember. It is almost like Gary got so frustrated with the athletic but low basketball IQ players we had from the 02 and 03 class that he was determined to get smarter ball players and in doing sacrificed too much athleticism. Our guards are slow and struggle staying with other players on D and the big men are getting out rebounded and aren't explosive going to the rim outside of Gist. I think we are staring at 5 or 6 ACC wins that might get to 7 or 8 if we see some rapid improvement from some of the freshman. I would be suprised, but happy, if we are even in the discussion as a bubble team come Selection Sunday.

rjbatzler

01-01-2008, 08:39 PM

Terps look like they are out of it already. Losses against mediocre (I'm being genorous here) teams like American and Ohio don't look good on their resume. They are young and I feel like they are going to struggle in conference play this year.

Dr. FLK

01-02-2008, 09:26 AM

Jagwar

01-02-2008, 10:19 AM

At this point, they don't even look like an NIT team. Vazquez is talented, but usually out of control. Hayes can shoot, but doesn't create his own shot. The freshmen look lost. The big men disappear for what seems like an eternity each and every game. They can't/don't shoot threes. The refuse to feed the low post, even against smaller teams. Their rebounding stinks. Their ball handling stinks. Did I leave anything out?

Their new uniforms are ugly too? ;)

Terps absolutely need to win the next 3 games leading into the ACC season. After that, I would think that an 8-8 conference schedule would be overachieving, especially since they are already 0-1 with a home loss.

YardBirds13

01-02-2008, 01:25 PM

Their new uniforms are ugly too? ;)

Terps absolutely need to win the next 3 games leading into the ACC season. After that, I would think that an 8-8 conference schedule would be overachieving, especially since they are already 0-1 with a home loss.

Even an 8-8 conference schedule isn't going to get them in the NCAA's Not saying you were implying that, just saying).

They need to go 10-6 with one really good win (UNC/Duke) or 9-7 with 2 wins over UNC/Duke. That's just to even get in the conversation.

If it makes you feel better Terp fans, last year around this time I was completely flustered that UVa had no shot at the tournament once again. We had one nice win over Arizona (like yours over Illinois) and two really bad losses (Appalachian State and Utah in Puerto Rico, similar to your losses to American and Ohio, albeit yours were at home and ours on a nuetral floor). We also lost two tough games to big conference schools (Stanford and Purdue, home/road), while you guys lost to UCLA and Mizzou, both neutral. You guys have an extra loss thrown in (VCU), but it certainly isn't a terrible loss.

What got some hope going for me was a really nice OOC win in early January against Gonzaga, where we destroyed them. Now, I know Charlotte isn't Gonzaga, but that's a win the Terps could get to at least get headed in the right direction.

So while things look pretty bleak right now, a few wins before conference play and then stealing a couple conference road games (ala the Hoos amazing comeback down in Clemson last year) and they are back in the discussion.

rjbatzler

01-02-2008, 09:51 PM

They need to go 10-6 with one really good win (UNC/Duke) or 9-7 with 2 wins over UNC/Duke. That's just to even get in the conversation.

.

Absolutely. The Terps can lose no more than seven losses if they were to have a 20 win season. Unless they surprise everyone during conference play, their only chance will be the ACC tourney. This isn't the year of the turtle apparently.

Mackus

01-02-2008, 10:15 PM

I think if they go 10-6 they would be pretty much a lock to get in. How often do ACC teams go 10-6 and get left out, even with the new teams? Especailly a recent National Champion like Maryland.

9-7 and they are definitely sweating it out, and would probably need at least one big time win. But I think they're in at 10-6 even if they don't have a marquee victory. Especially if they get an ACC tourney victory on top of that.

I don't think they'll go 10-6, or even 9-7, but if they do, they're certainly dancing.

Danielos38

01-02-2008, 11:42 PM

HUGE win against a tall and powerful Savannah State team tonight. This win pretty much guarantees the Terps of a tourny bid.

Seriously though, if the Terps lose to both Holy Cross and Charlotte, then they'll only be able to lose 5 or 6 games in conference. If they beat both, they could potentially sneak by with 7 conference losses.

glenn__davis

01-02-2008, 11:48 PM

HUGE win against a tall and powerful Savannah State team tonight. This win pretty much guarantees the Terps of a tourny bid.

Maybe I'm just in a goofy mood, but I laughed out loud at that.

Sheesh, is it conference season yet? I'm ready to get some real games going.
As embarrassing as the Ohio and American losses were, the game that gets me the most right now is the BC game, especially because I think we win that game if Vasquez doesn't foul out so early.

Sports Guy

01-03-2008, 12:02 AM

Mackus

01-03-2008, 12:13 AM

FSU was 10-6 recently and got left out.I know, but I'll still go on record saying I don't think there is any chance Maryland is left out with a 10-6 record. It just won't happen.

Pedro Cerrano

01-03-2008, 12:21 AM

I know, but I'll still go on record saying I don't think there is any chance Maryland is left out with a 10-6 record. It just won't happen.

Unfortunately I am going to have to go on record by saying there is no way we will ever find out this year if you're right or not.

Mackus

01-03-2008, 12:48 AM

Unfortunately I am going to have to go on record by saying there is no way we will ever find out this year if you're right or not.Yeah I think its incredibly unlikely as well.

6-10 would be my guess at this point, and that might even be optimistic.

It'll be real interesting to see what they do once they get back to playing decent competition. Was the stench that was the Ohio and American games a short-lived thing or is that more likely who they really are. They didn't play that badly against BC, and beat Illinois earlier, so they clearly can play at least decently well. Who knows?

Danielos38

01-03-2008, 04:18 PM

Maybe I'm just in a goofy mood, but I laughed out loud at that.

Sheesh, is it conference season yet? I'm ready to get some real games going.
As embarrassing as the Ohio and American losses were, the game that gets me the most right now is the BC game, especially because I think we win that game if Vasquez doesn't foul out so early.

You know I wasn't being serious right?

glenn__davis

01-03-2008, 04:25 PM

You know I wasn't being serious right?

Ha, yeah, I know.

Danielos38

01-03-2008, 06:52 PM

Ha, yeah, I know.

Ok, good. Just making sure you knew I wasn't a complete idiot. ;)

tywright

01-07-2008, 03:23 PM

FSU was 10-6 recently and got left out.

If I remember right, FSU has a poor out-of-conference schedule, as do the Terps this season, and also lost in th 1st rd of the ACC tourney to Wake, who were a 12 seed. Basically FSU, was one of teh weakest 10-6 teams in ACC history.

The Terps definitely need to be a 10-6 team and win an ACC tournament game to make a case. They'll more than likely be an 8-8 team and not much of a bubble team.