Jump to content

Should this be considered a successful season?


Should the 2008-2009 season be considered a successful one?  

76 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the 2008-2009 season be considered a successful one?

    • Yes
      70
    • No
      6


Recommended Posts

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"?

Maryland should be better than an afterthought, and that's what they were this year. They have all of the tools to be a stud program year after year. They have talent like Durant, Beasely, Gay, Lawson, Boone, Carmelo, etc... coming out of their back yard every single year. Going under .500 in the ACC, getting annihilated by Memphis, and losing at home to Morgan St. isn't the end of the world. But, it sure as heck isn't where they should be. Year after year they miss out on the talent they should be stockpiling. There certainly is no excuse for this team to be outside of the top 25. I know it's bound to happen from time to time. But they have found a way to parlay a NC into nothing. They have regressed faster from a NC than any team in the last 20 years. I expect a top 25 team year after year. I expect above 500 in ACC play. And, I expect respectable showing in the tourney. Obviously, there will be years that don't fit that mold...and those years wont be successes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Maryland should be better than an afterthought, and that's what they were this year. They have all of the tools to be a stud program year after year. They have talent like Durant, Beasely, Gay, Lawson, Boone, Carmelo, etc... coming out of their back yard every single year. Going under .500 in the ACC, getting annihilated by Memphis, and losing at home to Morgan St. isn't the end of the world. But, it sure as heck isn't where they should be. Year after year they miss out on the talent they should be stockpiling. There certainly is no excuse for this team to be outside of the top 25. I know it's bound to happen from time to time. But they have found a way to parlay a NC into nothing. They have regressed faster from a NC than any team in the last 20 years. I expect a top 25 team year after year. I expect above 500 in ACC play. And, I expect respectable showing in the tourney. Obviously, there will be years that don't fit that mold...and those years wont be successes.

So a tourney appearance, a good run most years. Sweet 16 at least? I'm going through the recent title teams and Florida has been in the NIT the past two years after winning their national titles.

I think your expectations are valid, and certainly reachable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a tourney appearance, a good run most years. Sweet 16 at least? I'm going through the recent title teams and Florida has been in the NIT the past two years after winning their national titles.

I think your expectations are valid, and certainly reachable.

I also don't believe that all teams "succeed" every season. Sometimes, you have bad years....it happens to everyone. I'm just not a fan of having 7 in a row right after a NC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a tourney appearance, a good run most years. Sweet 16 at least? I'm going through the recent title teams and Florida has been in the NIT the past two years after winning their national titles.

I think your expectations are valid, and certainly reachable.

My expectations for the MD program are that most years we go into the season wondering what seed we'll end up with in the NCAA tourney, not whether or not we'll make the tourney at all. And I think Lucky Jim's criteria of consistently being the 3rd best team in the ACC is fair, with some years being a little better and some years being a little worse. I also don't expect 6 years between Sweet 16 apperances.

I also don't believe that all teams "succeed" every season. Sometimes, you have bad years....it happens to everyone. I'm just not a fan of having 7 in a row right after a NC.

To be fair, it hasn't been 7 straight bad seasons. The season right after the NC was a good one. I believe we were a 6-seed that made the Sweet 16 and missed the Elite 8 by a Steve Blake buzzer beater. Strawberry, Ibekwe and Jones' senior year was a pretty good one, we were in the tourney comfortably and I believe had a 5-seed, losing to a good Butler team in the second round. You could even make the case that the team after Blake had a good season, winning the ACC tourney and losing in the 2nd round of the NCAAs as a 4-seed to Syracuse.

And even the "bad" seasons weren't really bad. For the most part we were always on the bubble until the last week or so of the season. Now, I don't call that a good season at all, or acceptable, but it's not like they were doormats or jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't believe that all teams "succeed" every season. Sometimes, you have bad years....it happens to everyone. I'm just not a fan of having 7 in a row right after a NC.
You sound insane if you're saying we've had 7 straight bad seasons.

We've been in the tournament 4 times the past 7 seasons. In those four seasons we were a 6 seed, a 4 seed twice, and a 10 seed. We made the Sweet 16 one year, won our first round game the other three, and threw in an ACC Tournament championship as well - the first one in twenty years.

Calling every one of the last seven seasons failures is an absolute joke. Certainly the state of the program isn't where we want it to be right now, but to say each of the last seven years that MD has been "an afterthought" and not been successful isn't just wrong, its a downright lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My expectations for the MD program are that most years we go into the season wondering what seed we'll end up with in the NCAA tourney, not whether or not we'll make the tourney at all. And I think Lucky Jim's criteria of consistently being the 3rd best team in the ACC is fair, with some years being a little better and some years being a little worse. I also don't expect 6 years between Sweet 16 apperances.
I agree with this completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound insane if you're saying we've had 7 straight bad seasons.

We've been in the tournament 4 times the past 7 seasons. In those four seasons we were a 6 seed, a 4 seed twice, and a 10 seed. We made the Sweet 16 one year, won our first round game the other three, and threw in an ACC Tournament championship as well - the first one in twenty years.

Calling every one of the last seven seasons failures is an absolute joke. Certainly the state of the program isn't where we want it to be right now, but to say each of the last seven years that MD has been "an afterthought" and not been successful isn't just wrong, its a downright lie.

It was an exaggeration...not a downright lie. You need to stop acting like the people who don't agree with you are somehow slandering your family. I'd respond more thoroughly to this. But, you've already decided that everyone who doesn't agree with you is on a lower intellectual level. So, I don't see the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an exaggeration...not a downright lie. You need to stop acting like the people who don't agree with you are somehow slandering your family. I'd respond more thoroughly to this. But, you've already decided that everyone who doesn't agree with you is on a lower intellectual level. So, I don't see the point.
There is nothing more thoroughly to respond to. There is no way you can make any sort of rational case that each of the past 7 seasons have been failures and that none of them can be considered a success.

An ACC Tournament Championship season is a success. A Sweet-16 run after losing Juan Dixon, Lonny Baxter, Byron Mouton, and Chris Wilcox is a success.

I disagree completely that this year wasn't a success, but if you are using some weird interpretation where you are looking at things other than the players on the team, I suppose it can be seen as such. But nobody can say that the 2003 and 2004 teams weren't successful under any definition of the word and I'd argue the 2007 team was pretty damn successful, too.

The teams that missed the NCAAs were definitely failures, as all three of those teams were talented enough that they should have been there and played well once there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree completely that this year wasn't a success, but if you are using some weird interpretation where you are looking at things other than the players on the team, I suppose it can be seen as such. But nobody can say that the 2003 and 2004 teams weren't successful under any definition of the word and I'd argue the 2007 team was pretty damn successful, too.

The teams that missed the NCAAs were definitely failures, as all three of those teams were talented enough that they should have been there and played well once there.

I didn't go back and look at all 7 of the last seasons. That was more of an exaggeration. I should have restricted my comment to the last 4-5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really seems like a silly question... "Was the season as success?"

Come on. This team was severely undermanned. No center. Relatively little above the rim athleticism. Some really spotty play. The result of abysmal recruiting and planning on the part of the coaching staff.

For the team... perhaps they can pat themselves on the back. It was an outstanding EFFORT. Dave Neal definitely encompasses that notion. Good job, Dave. Shawn Mosely --- great job this year. Same with Hayes off the bench and Vasquez.

But a success? Absolutely not. The disparity between a successful season and a nice effort season was clearly on display against Memphis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • No, they can’t fit them both in all likelihood, unless they do the smart thing and make some trades, which they should have done already.
    • A lot good they did 😛 Off topic that was the excuse used when the team wasn't hitting the last 2 weeks of the regular season. It wasnt true considered it continued in the playoffs..    Hopefully the Mateo PAs is under. With Felix gone and Bradish and Means missing time they are going to win as many of those games where they only score 1 or 2 runs that seemed to go through a lot last year
    • The problem is you only get 13 spots. Right now it's hard to see how you could fit both Kjerstad and Cowser on the roster without an injury or trade. As it is, for either of them to make the roster, Mateo has to be the defensive OF guy (which is OK, since Hays and it seems Cowser could also be adequate defensive subs, as well as Westburg). Adley McCann Mountcastle O'Hearn Gunnar Urias Westburg Mateo = 8 spots  Mullins Hays Santander = 3 spots That leaves two spots. Holliday or Maton/Wong gets one.  I just don't see a way to fit both Kjerstad and Cowser without an injury or move. Still, one of Kjerstad/Cowser can play the Hicks 3-4x per week role with the other being the next man up. There will be struggles and there will be injuries and both will get to play that role at times, maybe more. If Kjerstad and Cowser have success in their opportunities, they may well push Hays to the 5th OF spot, or O'Hearn to AAA, but I don't think we make those moves prematurely. I think both get 300+ AB's this year but they don't have to make the opening day roster for that to happen. Will be interesting to compare the end of year AB's for Cowser, Kjerstad, O'Hearn, and Mountcastle.   
    • If Buck O’Neil were there yesterday, he’d tell Roch about how he heard a sound that he’d never heard before. And it was Babe Ruth hitting that ball. And then he didn’t hear it again until a few years later, and it was Josh Gibson hitting that ball. Then he didn’t hear it again until it was Bo Jackson hitting that ball. And then he didn’t hear it again until it was Kyle Stowers hitting that ball. 
    • Updated through leap year game. - Mateo keeps getting SS starts but no outfield time. - Basallo takes BP - Yennier Cano has been put on a milk carton - McKenna hitless while battling for a spot - Holliday has first good game at the plate - Burnes struggles - Kimbrel, Coulombe and Webb all scored upon. (Bullpen not looking strong in early going)  
    • Everyone excited about hot starts this spring.  Meanwhile, not a peep about Jorge who’s crushing the ball right now.   Looks like he’s in mid April form.   Jorge, if only this could last longer than a few weeks or a month or two.   When Jorge doesn’t commit too early he’s a dangerous (I didn’t say good) hitter.   He must drive the hitting coaches crazy.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...