Should this be considered a successful season?

[BaltimoreTerp]

So, you're asking is it a success relative to itself? I'm not sure why or how that's important. I doubt a politician concludes his campaign was a success because he closed from 10 points down to 6 points down by Election Day.

Similarly, for instance, our game against Memphis wasn't a "success" because we lost by 19 after being down much bigger than that - avoiding losing by 40 isn't a success.

The deficiencies on this team are very apparent. And, while GW isn't to blame for every little thing gone wrong, he bears the ultimate responsibility for severe roster shortcomings.

I went from thinking that Gary should probably resign to being proud of the coaching job he's done.

I really enjoyed parts of this season. Doesn't make it a "success."

By your logic, though, anything less than a national championship for ANY team is a failure, and therefore only one team every year can be called a success.

Let's use a different team: the Baltimore Orioles.

Let's say that the Orioles go out and somehow win 86 games this year and finish in third place. Would you call that a successful season?

Based on your responses here it seems you would not think so since they didn't win a championship and, despite this season's roster and expectations, the team has fallen from the heights of the 1966-1983 period, or even the 1996-97 period.

[Lucky Jim]

By your logic, though, anything less than a national championship for ANY team is a failure, and therefore only one team every year can be called a success.

Let's use a different team: the Baltimore Orioles.

Let's say that the Orioles go out and somehow win 86 games this year and finish in third place. Would you call that a successful season?

Based on your responses here it seems you would not think so since they didn't win a championship and, despite this season's roster and expectations, the team has fallen from the heights of the 1966-1983 period, or even the 1996-97 period.

That's not the end of my logic. Not even remotely.

[Mackus]

I think FLK is pretty frequently over-the-top in his criticism of the program. That said, I just don't understand Mackus's "Gary destroyed our expectations and then exceeded them in their lowered state = success" argument.

First of all, Gary didn't "destroy our expectations".

If we had the players he wanted here, specifically Gilchrest, we would have been a lot better and have been expected to be a lot better. Once Gilchrest left and we couldn't get a JuCo PG in here for external reasons, expectations changed.

Not many people felt we would be a tournament team this year. Nobody asked if you thought the program is where it should be right now. That wasn't the question.

Was this season a success? Considering what expectations were and how shorthanded of a team we were on the inside, it definitely was. If you aren't answering yes, then I don't think you are looking at the question correctly, because if you are answering the question properly, yes is the only answer.

If you are answering no you are answering a different question.

If someone had asked you at the beginning of the season what your criteria for success is, would you have said something more than winning 1 game in the NCAA tournament?

[Lucky Jim]

First of all, Gary didn't "destroy our expectations".

If we had the players he wanted here, specifically Gilchrest, we would have been a lot better and have been expected to be a lot better. Once Gilchrest left and we couldn't get a JuCo PG in here for external reasons, expectations changed.

Not many people felt we would be a tournament team this year. Nobody asked if you thought the program is where it should be right now. That wasn't the question.

Was this season a success? Considering what expectations were and how shorthanded of a team we were on the inside, it definitely was. If you aren't answering yes, then I don't think you are looking at the question correctly, because if you are answering the question properly, yes is the only answer.

If you are answering no you are answering a different question.

If someone had asked you at the beginning of the season what your criteria for success is, would you have said something more than winning 1 game in the NCAA tournament?

suc·cess

Pronunciation:

\sək-ˈses\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Latin successus, from succedere

Date:

1537

1obsolete : outcome , result

2 a: degree or measure of succeeding b: favorable or desired outcome ; also : the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence

3: one that succeeds

This season was, indeed, an outcome and/or result.

Otherwise, I disagree. You're a rational, fair-minded guy, and I don't think there's any real need to argue with you about this. But the bolded part is absurd - and points to your limitation, not the limitation of anyone who disagrees with you.

In the end, there real difference in our interpretation is that you seem to think the recruiting woes are "external". I simply can't see them that way - the issue with Gilchrest were foreseeable from the beginning. Neither JUCO PG was the answer to our problems (and neither had any real place at Maryland).

The fact remains, he shouldn't have been reliant on Gilchrest to begin with, nor should the need for a JUCO PG ever have arisen.

No one should be surprised when a hail-mary attempt to cover previous recruiting shortfalls doesn't pan out.

To sum up: we were below .500 in conference play; we lost several games in embarrassing fashion; we had the third-worst graduation rate of any tournament team; we lost 13 games; and we bowed out in the second round of the tournament.

The players who accomplished the above are the people who Gary chose to recruit, and the players he was able to successfully recruit and retain. The fact that he did a masterful coaching job is a reason for hope, but it's not enough to label the season a success.

[Mackus]

You are judging this year based on things that happened before this year ever started. You are judging multiple years.

I'll ask again:

If someone had asked you at the beginning of the season what your criteria for success is, would you have said something more than winning 1 game in the NCAA tournament?

[Lucky Jim]

You are judging this year based on things that happened before this year ever started. You are judging multiple years.

I'll ask again:

If someone had asked you at the beginning of the season what your criteria for success is, would you have said something more than winning 1 game in the NCAA tournament?

Yes, I would.

Just as I measure the O's based on a holistic consideration of the past and future, of improvements made and past errors corrected, I judge the Terps on a scale that's not limited to their self-imposed shortcomings.

[Mackus]

Yes, I would.

Just as I measure the O's based on a holistic consideration of the past and future, of improvements made and past errors corrected, I judge the Terps on a scale that's not limited to their self-imposed shortcomings.

Well I can't disagree with that any more strongly.

We're debating this year's squad, not the state of the program. If you honestly would only have been happy if the team reached the Sweet 16 or had 23 regular season wins or whatever then I don't know what else to say.

This team met or exceeded most of my expectations for them this year. That would constitute a successful season according to almost anybody.

The team didn't have a season that I would be happy about if it was the absolute best the program could ever do. But in terms of one year, it has to be viewed as successful.

I don't think I can get behind your absolute scale. There has to be some slide based on expectations if all you are judging is each year's team. Grade the program and the job Gary has done overall on a more absolute scale, but judging this year's players and the effort they put forth I think you definitely have to judge on a more sliding scale.

[Ruzious]

They successfully recruited 2 good centers - in Gilchrest and Jennings, the backup center on Louisville - who looks really good - but for one reason and another - they both left. And Burney had foot problems all season. So, the top 3 bigs they were counting on at one point or another, never materialized. Plus, Bobby Maze, who they successfully recruited but then got turned away, was the starting point guard for Tennessee - an NCAA tournament team.

[Dr. FLK]

I hope you understand how much hyperbole you've used in this thread and how poorly hyperbole plays when trying to sway a debate. You've made good points in this thread, but they've been totally undermined by the JTrea-like hyperbole IMO.

Which was hyperbole?

They did lose "must win" games down the stretch. At the time, most here agreed they needed the UVA and Wake game for sure.

They did get whooped by Memphis.

They did barely make the tourney. One less ACC tourney win nand they are most likely out.

I don't think any of those are stretches...

[Dr. FLK]

By your logic, though, anything less than a national championship for ANY team is a failure, and therefore only one team every year can be called a success.

Let's use a different team: the Baltimore Orioles.

Let's say that the Orioles go out and somehow win 86 games this year and finish in third place. Would you call that a successful season?

Based on your responses here it seems you would not think so since they didn't win a championship and, despite this season's roster and expectations, the team has fallen from the heights of the 1966-1983 period, or even the 1996-97 period.

So, the other day, you scold me for comparing the Terps to the Wiz...and today, you use an Orioles analogy to prove your point? I think that by comparing them to the Os, you just helped out my point. The state of the program is not good at all...

[ccbird]

When I first answered Yes to the question I based that answer off my November expectations but the more I think about it the more I think you have to include other factors in making your decision. It's getting harder for me to accept our mediocre season as being successful. Certainly there are times when you will be content or even overjoyed with being average but does that really = success. There are a lot of positives to say about this year's team and I'm happy with the results based on my Novemver expectations but I now think I'll stop short of calling it a successful season.

[Mackus]

They did barely make the tourney. One less ACC tourney win nand they are most likely out.

This isn't a real criticism.

If you are counting it against them for "barely making" the tournament then people who argue for Gary should be able to count "barely missing" the tournament as pluses in 2008, 2006, and 2005.

You either make the tournament or you don't. No shades of gray on this one.

[Dr. FLK]

When I first answered Yes to the question I based that answer off my November expectations but the more I think about it the more I think you have to include other factors in making your decision. It's getting harder for me to accept our mediocre season as being successful. Certainly there are times when you will be content or even overjoyed with being average but does that really = success. There are a lot of positives to say about this year's team and I'm happy with the results based on my Novemver expectations but I now think I'll stop short of calling it a successful season.

I think this is a very well-said post, that remains more level-headed than most of us (on either side of the debate). The team did some nice things, but I expect much more out of a "success". The season wasn't all bad, and it was better than seasons past...but....

[glenn__davis]

When I first answered Yes to the question I based that answer off my November expectations but the more I think about it the more I think you have to include other factors in making your decision. It's getting harder for me to accept our mediocre season as being successful. Certainly there are times when you will be content or even overjoyed with being average but does that really = success. There are a lot of positives to say about this year's team and I'm happy with the results based on my Novemver expectations but I now think I'll stop short of calling it a successful season.

This is sort've what I was trying to get at with the poll. I purposely left the poll very vague, when obviously a lot of "conditionals" applied. I was tyring to get a "snapshot" of how everyone felt about the year. Like I said in an earlier post, I wonder what would happen if the same question were asked a few months from now. I think the yays would still have it, but I don't think it would be so overwhelming.

[Mackus]

I think this is a very well-said post, that remains more level-headed than most of us (on either side of the debate). The team did some nice things, but I expect much more out of a "success". The season wasn't all bad, and it was better than seasons past...but....

That's a fair assessment.

I think calling this season anything less than a success is a slap in the face to the players that were here. They all played incredibly hard and got just about the absolute maximum out of their abilities. And they managed to meet some of the basic criteria that any season would be judged by - specifically making and winning a game in the NCAA tournament. That's why the season is a success to me.

If you want to say that it wasn't a success because the players aren't good enough, I really feel that you are answering a different question. That goes back to judging Gary's recruiting more than the actual performance of the people who are here.