Should this be considered a successful season?

[Baltimore Chop]

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 seasonas 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.

A 20+ win season with a tourney bid and a win in the Big Dance constitutes a mediocre season?

Wow, OK. I would argue that there are a LOT of teams out there that would accept mediocrity, then.

To answer the question, emphatic yes. Anytime you make the tourney and win a game (a feat accomplished by only 31 other teams), it has to be considered a success.

If you want to look at the season going in, there was no way this team was going to sniff the tourney...yet they did. Plus, with the guns coming in, I would argue things are looking up.

[Lucky Jim]

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 feel like I've won a convert.

[Mackus]

To answer the question, emphatic yes. Anytime you make the tourney and win a game (a feat accomplished by only 31 other teams), it has to be considered a success.

I don't necessarily think this is true.

For example, if the National Championship team had lost in the second round to Kentucky, I don't think that season could have been considered a success even though they were a 1-seed and would have finished with a 27-5 record. The #1 seed would have been a nice accomplishment, as would the ACC Regular Season title, but they wouldn't have won the ACC tournament, reached the Final 4, or won the National Championship - which given that team were the major goals set forth at the beginning of the year.

Similarly, I've heard Gary say before that the team with Steve Francis was a mild disappointment overall because they lost in the Sweet 16 when he felt they were good enough to go much farther.

I think you should reflect at the end of each season and see which of the goals you had for the team at the start were met and which weren't. If you accomplished most of your goals, its a success. If you didn't, its not.

There was no goal bigger this year than making the NCAA tournament, which why this season is undoubtedly considered a success. We even won a game once there. There is no valid opinion that can look at this season as a whole and say its not a success. Certainly you can make the argument that having a team that all we need to call it a success is reaching the NCAA tournament is not where this program should be, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. But that doesn't mean this individual season was not a successful one for the players and coaches who were on the team this year.

[Baltimore Chop]

I don't necessarily think this is true.

For example, if the National Championship team had lost in the second round to Kentucky, I don't think that season could have been considered a success even though they were a 1-seed and would have finished with a 27-5 record. The #1 seed would have been a nice accomplishment, as would the ACC Regular Season title, but they wouldn't have won the ACC tournament, reached the Final 4, or won the National Championship - which given that team were the major goals set forth at the beginning of the year.

Similarly, I've heard Gary say before that the team with Steve Francis was a mild disappointment overall because they lost in the Sweet 16 when he felt they were good enough to go much further.

I think you should reflect at the end of each season and see which of the goals you had for the team at the start were met and which weren't. If you accomplished most of your goals, its a success. If you didn't, its not.

There was no goal bigger this year than making the NCAA tournament, which why this season is undoubtedly considered a success. We even won a game once there. There is no valid opinion that can look at this season as a whole and say its not a success. Certainly you can make the argument that having a team that all we need to call it a success is reaching the NCAA tournament is not where this program should be, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. But that doesn't mean this individual season was not a successful one for the players and coaches who were on the team this year.

True, but they still raise a banner everytime they make the Big Dance, don't they?

Teams in other sports raise banners when they make the playoffs, don't they?

Point being, programs are generally considered successes based on the number of tournaments/playoff appearances, etc. they make. Obviously, the further you go, the bigger of a success it is considered. But it is a success, nonetheless.

Now, you can have aspirations of a Final Four and lose in the second round. It would be a disappointment, but still a success, IMO.

I think we're splitting hairs on this one -- just level of degree, that's all.

[Mackus]

True, but they still raise a banner everytime they make the Big Dance, don't they?

Teams in other sports raise banners when they make the playoffs, don't they?

Point being, programs are generally considered successes based on the number of tournaments/playoff appearances, etc. they make. Obviously, the further you go, the bigger of a success it is considered. But it is a success, nonetheless.

Now, you can have aspirations of a Final Four and lose in the second round. It would be a disappointment, but still a success, IMO.

I think we're splitting hairs on this one -- just level of degree, that's all.

Right, making the NCAA Tournament is always one of the goals for this team. It should be the goal every year. However, (hopefully) most years we'll be able to consider making the NCAA Tournament as a given, and our goals will go above and beyond that.

LuckyJim seems to be saying that the reason the season was not a success is because the team wasn't good enough to begin with to have any goals beyond making the NCAA tournament. That's one way to look at it, but its a poor one, IMO. If you take that standpoint, there was nothing this team could do, short of a miracle, to constitute a success. Since they didn't meet some quota that he has for how good the team was, no matter what they do they are a failure. I think that is an awful way to look at the team each year. Its an ok way to look at the program overall, but not the performance of each individual team.

[Lucky Jim]

Right, making the NCAA Tournament is always one of the goals for this team. It should be the goal every year. However, (hopefully) most years we'll be able to consider making the NCAA Tournament as a given, and our goals will go above and beyond that.

LuckyJim seems to be saying that the reason the season was not a success is because the team wasn't good enough to begin with to have any goals beyond making the NCAA tournament. That's one way to look at it, but its a poor one, IMO. If you take that standpoint, there was nothing this team could do, short of a miracle, to constitute a success. Since they didn't meet some quota that he has for how good the team was, no matter what they do they are a failure. I think that is an awful way to look at the team each year. Its an ok way to look at the program overall, but not the performance of each individual team.

First, there's no reason to try to qualify my reasoning as "poor". It's not "poor". It's different than yours, and your continued insistance that there's only one way to look at this is off-putting.

Second, the very fact that - by your own account - it would take a "miracle" for this team to have done something more than reach the second round of the ACC tournament, lose less than 13 games, and avoid several enormous blow-outs is exactly the reason why I can't call this season a success. When I fail to study for a test and then somehow manage to get a C, it's not a success. A season is not defined only by the games played: it's defined by the work done leading into it as well.

You may disagree with this, but you really need to give up the idea that there's only one way to look at this. You're displaying serious intellectual limitations.

I've already said I like this team, I enjoyed parts of the season very much, and my faith in Gary's ability to coach (if not recruit) was revived. Those are compliments. Just because my measure of what happened doesn't track your pie-eyed interpretation doesn't make my reasoning weak. The more you argue this - against someone who is definitively not a Gary-hater - the more like an apologist you seem.

[Mackus]

You are looking at multiple years and things that have nothing to do with the players on the court.

You are not answering the question that is being asked. You are answering a different question.

You are answering something like:

"Should this season make us happy with where the program is"

when the question is:

"How well did these players do this year"

I don't disagree with your answer to the question you are answering. You just aren't answering the same question as everybody else.

[Dr. FLK]

You are looking at multiple years and things that have nothing to do with the players on the court.

You are not answering the question that is being asked. You are answering a different question.

You are answering something like:

"Should this season make us happy with where the program is"

when the question is:

"How well did these players do this year"

I don't disagree with your answer to the question you are answering. You just aren't answering the same question as everybody else.

In my opinion, there are 2 ways that a season can be deemed a success for a team of MD's "stature".

1. The team is currently very good, and they make a strong tourney run.

2. The team is rebuilding, and they develop key pieces that strengthen their chances for future runs.

This team didn't do either.

The BBall season starts at recruiting. They obviously failed at that this off season. They had some decent recruits who ended up elsewhere for various reasons. So, I think it's perfectly fair to consider recruiting as part of the season.

The fact that so many people are willing to put a great spin on this season shows the rapid decline of the program from a "NC caliber team" to a team on par with FSU-ish teams.

I am answering the question that was asked. IMO, this season was in no way a success. They didn't have a good year. They were below 500. They didn't set themselves up for next year. They didn't bring in a good recruiting class. They did nothing but exceed the poor expectations that were set by poor planning/recruiting for this season. If that's what you were looking for, then swell. But, I expect more from this program.

[Lucky Jim]

You are looking at multiple years and things that have nothing to do with the players on the court.

You are not answering the question that is being asked. You are answering a different question.

You are answering something like:

"Should this season make us happy with where the program is"

when the question is:

"How well did these players do this year"

I don't disagree with your answer to the question you are answering. You just aren't answering the same question as everybody else.

That's not the question at all. The question is "was the season a success?" That you choose to define it that way is your choice. It is neither the only reading of the question, nor the most obvious.

[Mackus]

You can define a success however you want as well, I just think the way you guys are defining it is a strange way to do it. It has little meaning in terms of what actually transpired on the court this year the way you guys are looking at it.

You set goals at the start of the season then you either accomplish them or you don't.

You can also set longer term goals, which I definitely agree we haven't met recently, but I think you have to look at each year individually when judging at the end of the season whether it was a good year or a bad one.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I interpret this question based on where I think the program should be year-in, year-out.

So my answer is a resounding "no."

[Lucky Jim]

You can define a success however you want as well, I just think the way you guys are defining it is a strange way to do it. It has little meaning in terms of what actually transpired on the court this year the way you guys are looking at it.

You set goals at the start of the season then you either accomplish them or you don't.

You can also set longer term goals, which I definitely agree we haven't met recently, but I think you have to look at each year individually when judging at the end of the season whether it was a good year or a bad one.

And your interpretation means there's no objective measure of success. If Gary stopped recruiting altogether and ran out a bunch of DIII guys and yet somehow won 10 games the season would be a "success."

A determination of success must have some objectivity to its measure and it needs to invoke some accountability.

And sorry for any sharpness of tone - I think we largely agree on both the enjoyable quality the year had, as well as the problems and obstacles that face the program. We both also agree that Gary has proven that he has what it takes on court, and that time (and confidence) is warranted.

It's a semantic argument, and shouldn't be blown up into anything more.

[Mackus]

And your interpretation means there's no objective measure of success. If Gary stopped recruiting altogether and ran out a bunch of DIII guys and yet somehow won 10 games the season would be a "success."

A determination of success must have some objectivity to its measure and it needs to invoke some accountability.

And sorry for any sharpness of tone - I think we largely agree on both the enjoyable quality the year had, as well as the problems and obstacles that face the program. We both also agree that Gary has proven that he has what it takes on court, and that time (and confidence) is warranted.

It's a semantic argument, and shouldn't be blown up into anything more.

I think what we're arguing over here can be summed up with a baseball analogy.

I feel like you are grading the GM, while I am grading the Manager.

It gets tricky in college basketball because the Head Coach is both GM and Manager. I totally agree that Gary has struggled recently in the GM-side of things, doing a poor job of filling the team with the talent we deserve. But given what he had to work with this year, he and the players did an incredible job; as a Manager he did a terrific job.

And then it starts to differ from the baseball analogy. If Trembley leads the Orioles to an 84-78 record, most will call that a success because they outperformed expectations by roughly the same amount MD outperformed their expectations this year. However, unlike baseball where a slightly over .500 record doesn't really mean anything, making the NCAA tournament is a tangible goal that does mean something. Going 84-78 instead of 78-84 makes no real difference in baseball, but making the NCAAs instead of the NITs makes a huge difference in college basketball.

My "objective measure of success" that you think my argument lacks is the NCAA appearance. I'm not saying that three years ago when we had Chris McCray fail out of school and we still rallied without out best player to get close to the NCAA's was a successful year. I'm saying us making the tournament this year makes it a success. That is always my minimum criteria for a successful year. Some years have to go beyond that, and hopefully most years if the program is where I think it should be. Pretty much any year from 1998-2004 I would only have considered the year a success with either 1-2 NCAA tournament wins (or more in some years) or an ACC Tournament championship.

[beaner]

What do you guys think Maryland's "stature" is? I've read some really good stuff on this thread but my question is what exactly are you comparing it to? It seems like based on the expectations coming into the season (Sporting News picking them 12th in the ACC as an example), this season should be considered a success.

However, comparing it to the Final Four years in 2001 and 02, obviously it's not. So what's the ceiling?

I firmly believe that Maryland has been consistently the #3 program in the ACC the past 15 years, with a few years of being #1 and 1.5 and a few years of being #'s 5 and 6.

Is that enough for you guys? Or do you want Maryland to be as Lefty used to say, "The UCLA of the East"?

[Lucky Jim]

What do you guys think Maryland's "stature" is? I've read some really good stuff on this thread but my question is what exactly are you comparing it to? It seems like based on the expectations coming into the season (Sporting News picking them 12th in the ACC as an example), this season should be considered a success.

However, comparing it to the Final Four years in 2001 and 02, obviously it's not. So what's the ceiling?

I firmly believe that Maryland has been consistently the #3 program in the ACC the past 15 years, with a few years of being #1 and 1.5 and a few years of being #'s 5 and 6.

Is that enough for you guys? Or do you want Maryland to be as Lefty used to say, "The UCLA of the East"?

I think it's fair to have the #3 team in the ACC as a standard. We clearly weren't that this year.