182 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Of course. So for these recent O's seasons, Chris would have called me defeatist due to my outlook based on his logic presented here, I would have called it realistic.

Some teams realistically have better outlooks than others. Some teams have better or more realistic paths to significant success than others. Maryland football does not provide much reason for optimism at Chris's level other than the notion that they could make an unexpected leap as some other schools have. That would be exactly that though, unexpected, not something that could have reasonably been predicted.

 

No, I would call your immediate outlook on the O's (and Terps) realistic.   It's defeatist to say it has to always be that way. 

I would also fully agree with you that some teams have better or more realistic paths to sustained and continuing success than others. 
100% true. 

I would fully disagree with you that if MD continues to stack Top 30 classes, it would be an unexpected leap if they became a consistent Top 25 program.  

 

 

Where we agree is that MD is not good enough right now.  

 

I just think that there is more that they can realistically achieve.  Whether they will or now, we will see.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Of course. So for these recent O's seasons, Chris would have called me defeatist due to my outlook based on his logic presented here, I would have called it realistic.

Some teams realistically have better outlooks than others. Some teams have better or more realistic paths to significant success than others. Maryland football does not provide much reason for optimism at Chris's level other than the notion that they could make an unexpected leap as some other schools have. That would be exactly that though, unexpected, not something that could have reasonably been predicted.

I’m just going back to where you appear to single out a large segment of college football fans as “delusional.” I think you can make the case every fan of any competitive sports team is somewhat delusional, since nothing is ever assured and we have no control over the outcome. The root word of fan is fanatic, after all.

[mweb08]

For us? No, you and I can not systematically address.

But we're not talking about us in this case, we're talking about MD... and some of things they can control.. (improving their facilities, bringing in better talent, etc) they are addressing.

You said that I have a defeatist attitude on this, so yes, us is precisely what that referred to.

Can Maryland make significant improvements? Yes.

Is Maryland very likely to make significant improvements? I don't see why anyone would say yes unless they're thinking with their hearts.

[mweb08]

I’m just going back to where you appear to single out a large segment of college football fans as “delusional.” I think you can make the case every fan of any competitive sports team is somewhat delusional, since nothing is ever assured and we have no control over the outcome. The root word of fan is fanatic, after all.

College sports (especially football) are inherently less equal than the pros, though, so that's the difference. I've been a fan of several teams since the mid to late 80's, and Maryland football is the only one of those where there's never been a realistic hope for a title in the moment or the foreseeable future. That's saying something too considering some of the teams I root for.

[BSLZackKiesel]

Seems like the same dumb argument happens here every few months.

Maryland football is bad right now, so the athletic department should give up on the program and focus solely on the basketball team (who hasn’t made it past the Sweet Sixteen in almost 20 years) because apparently they can’t try to improve both?

And the university should have never left the ACC (even though staying would’ve meant bankrupting the athletic department and cutting even more non-revenue sports.)

[mweb08]

No, I would call your immediate outlook on the O's (and Terps) realistic. It's defeatist to say it has to always be that way.

I would also fully agree with you that some teams have better or more realistic paths to sustained and continuing success than others.
100% true.

I would fully disagree with you that if MD continues to stack Top 30 classes, it would be an unexpected leap if they became a consistent Top 25 program.


Where we agree is that MD is not good enough right now.

I just think that there is more that they can realistically achieve. Whether they will or now, we will see.

I never said it always has to be that way. I don't know why anyone would expect it to get substantially better though (sticking to the Terps here).

[BSLChrisStoner]

You said that I have a defeatist attitude on this, so yes, us is precisely what that referred to.

Can Maryland make significant improvements? Yes.

Is Maryland very likely to make significant improvements? I don't see why anyone would say yes unless they're thinking with their hearts.

 

You do have an attitude which says, "Show me," and that's 100% fine (and largely correct imo).  And our opinions have no real bearing on anything (though I guess you can argue that if enough fans / potential fans don't believe or do believe of what can be achieved...there are tangible implications). 

I'll just leave it where we agree.  MD can make significant improvements.... will they? I don't know. But if they keep systematically working on the issues they face, I do think they have the ability to do so. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

You do have an attitude which says, "Show me," and that's 100% fine (and largely correct imo). And our opinions have no real bearing on anything (though I guess you can argue that if enough fans / potential fans don't believe or do believe of what can be achieved...there are tangible implications).

I'll just leave it where we agree. MD can make significant improvements.... will they? I don't know. But if they keep systematically working on the issues they face, I do think they have the ability to do so.

They arent making any improvements with this head coach and everyone knows it

[BSLChrisStoner]

They arent making any improvements with this head coach and everyone knows it

 

As I said to Jason, I don't know if he can coach or not.  Most college coaches can either coach or recruit, few can do both. 

I'd continue to invest in the Assts. 

Locksley might be only able to get you to a certain point.   If he stacks 4-5 Top 30 classes, and reestablishes MD as a place locals will consider... and gets more Alums interested (donating)....  and he sells the idea of what he thinks MD can become.... that has value, even if he's not ultimately the guy to take MD to another level on the field. 

[BSLZackKiesel]

They arent making any improvements with this head coach and everyone knows it

This is ridiculous. He’s not even halfway through his third year. No one wanted this job in 2019, and he inherited an extremely volatile program after Jordan McNair’s death. At least let the man finish his third season before simply writing him off.

[BSLChrisStoner]

This is ridiculous. He’s not even halfway through his third year. No one wanted this job in 2019, and he inherited an extremely volatile program after Jordan McNair’s death. At least let the man finish his third season before simply writing him off.

It's rather unfortunate for Locksley that he has the L's on his resume from New Mexico.  That's held against him. 

We know he can recruit.  We know everyone can function at Alabama... but Saban believed he could get something out of him, and that should say something.  He certainly held up his end while there. 

 

What I like best about Locksley is that this is obviously his dream job. 

But I do think continuing to invest in the surrounding staff is the way to go.  

Given the flux MD has had...  I'd be giving Locksley a very long run.   Go through several more recruiting classes, and see if you can breakthrough.  If at some point you have continued to get knocked out in statement games, there will be a point you have to walk away.  But for me, that's several years away.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

As I said to Jason, I don't know if he can coach or not.  Most college coaches can either coach or recruit, few can do both. 

I'd continue to invest in the Assts. 

Locksley might be only able to get you to a certain point.   If he stacks 4-5 Top 30 classes, and reestablishes MD as a place locals will consider... and gets more Alums interested (donating)....  and he sells the idea of what he thinks MD can become.... that has value, even if he's not ultimately the guy to take MD to another level on the field. 

Ha. What do you mean you dont know if he can coach or not. Come on. And recruiting will tail off not get better as he proves he cant coach

[BSLChrisStoner]

Ha. What do you mean you dont know if he can coach or not. Come on. And recruiting will tail off not get better as he proves he cant coach

 

He's not going to be Fridge and be good enough schematically to give you a chance vs. better teams....  but if he builds a good enough staff, and continues to recruit...  he could be effective enough.   

I have no idea what he is like as a leader.  I would think his recruiting ability is tied to his ability to connect, build relationships, and communicate with others. Those are traits which should serve him well in-terms of managing his staff etc. 

[mweb08]

Have they ever been a consistent top 25 team aside from the three year run at the beginning of Fridge's run?

I wouldn't consider that or what they did under Bobby Ross being a consistent 25 team. Heck, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to say they've ever been a consistent top 25 team. For that, I'm looking at 10+ year runs. We've never had a 10 year stretch with more than 6 top 25 (AP) finishes no matter how you slice it.

Fridge had 3 in a row, but only 1 in his other 7 years. Ross was 3/5 and surrounded by 3 non top 25 years on the frontend and 14 on the backend. Presently, this looks like it will 11 straight years out of the top 25.

But I'd sure love to go back to that run in the early to mid 50's!

Btw, after that run ended with Tatum moving on after '55, they only had 3 winning seasons in the next 17!

[hallas]

No, it didn’t. Their incompetence and low standards ensures they will never leave. If they want a great basketball program, they can have one. The entire university has to be committed and on the same page; the regents, president, boosters, etc. None of that has anything to do with what conference they’re in.

 

And check your history. They entered the Big Ten in the 2014-15 season. That was 11 seasons after that big ACC tournament run. The next two seasons (2005-06) they were NIT. Pretty mediocre.

 

Maybe difference of opinion, but I don't really think 3 out of 6 years in the tourney immediately following a championship and some moderate tourney success is a descent to mediocrity.  4 straight years missing the tourney is a descent to mediocrity.  Just my opinion.

 

 

The rest is BS, but you got the bold part spot on. The move was all about money. They might have spun this as a good thing for football, but that was just to try and win over a skeptical public. The benefit of going to the Big Ten was that they didn't have to cut more sports than they already did a couple years before they announced the move.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as being BS here.  Do you disagree with using national championships as a proxy for conference strength?

[hallas]

Seems like the same dumb argument happens here every few months.

Maryland football is bad right now, so the athletic department should give up on the program and focus solely on the basketball team (who hasn’t made it past the Sweet Sixteen in almost 20 years) because apparently they can’t try to improve both?

And the university should have never left the ACC (even though staying would’ve meant bankrupting the athletic department and cutting even more non-revenue sports.)

 

 

I've softened my stance on the move to the Big 10, mostly because I understand that we were in dire straits financially when we agreed to move.  I still consider it a mistake, but I understand why they did it.  That said, I think that given how frequently conferences realign, Maryland should be looking to jump back into the ACC once they are financially able.  We have more natural rivals, easier travel schedule, and it's dramatically better for our best sport.  And yes, you're right that Maryland should be trying to improve both.  But it's a lot easier to see the top-end potential for basketball, where we had a successful program under multiple coaches, than it is for football, where we've pretty much always been an afterthought.

 

I'd be concerned that Maryland basketball in the Big-10 is never going to generate the kind of hype and excitement that ACC games did even if Maryland were a perennial top-10 team, which is why I don't think we're going to reach the same heights in the Big-10 as we could in the ACC.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I'm not sure what you're referring to as being BS here.  Do you disagree with using national championships as a proxy for conference strength?

I think it’s just one of several measuring sticks, but one that’s most likely to alter the narrative for what is an otherwise weak overall conference. Whether FSU in the early 2010’s or Clemson after that, the ACC has been extremely top-heavy for a long time. Now that they have no one at the top (sorry, Wake Forest, you ain’t it) they’re mentioned in the same sentence as the Pac-12 as even being below 1 or 2 of the G5.

[BSLRoseKatz]

I've softened my stance on the move to the Big 10, mostly because I understand that we were in dire straits financially when we agreed to move.  I still consider it a mistake, but I understand why they did it.  That said, I think that given how frequently conferences realign, Maryland should be looking to jump back into the ACC once they are financially able.  We have more natural rivals, easier travel schedule, and it's dramatically better for our best sport.  And yes, you're right that Maryland should be trying to improve both.  But it's a lot easier to see the top-end potential for basketball, where we had a successful program under multiple coaches, than it is for football, where we've pretty much always been an afterthought.

 

I'd be concerned that Maryland basketball in the Big-10 is never going to generate the kind of hype and excitement that ACC games did even if Maryland were a perennial top-10 team, which is why I don't think we're going to reach the same heights in the Big-10 as we could in the ACC.

 

I have attended two different games against a ranked Iowa that had good atmospheres, you get enough teams on your schedule that have a number between 1 and 25 in front of them and people will get excited where I really don't think it matters.

 

MSU has lots of Final Fours, Wisconsin knocked off the unbeaten Kentucky team back in 2015, Purdue should've made the Final Four in 2019, Michigan made the title game twice in the 2010s, etc. If your only standard is winning the national title then yeah I guess the Big Ten is weaker than the ACC but there's a pretty consistent group of good teams Maryland sees and that's not even counting other programs who can put everything together like Illinois did last year

[hallas]

I have attended two different games against a ranked Iowa that had good atmospheres, you get enough teams on your schedule that have a number between 1 and 25 in front of them and people will get excited where I really don't think it matters.

MSU has lots of Final Fours, Wisconsin knocked off the unbeaten Kentucky team back in 2015, Purdue should've made the Final Four in 2019, Michigan made the title game twice in the 2010s, etc. If your only standard is winning the national title then yeah I guess the Big Ten is weaker than the ACC but there's a pretty consistent group of good teams Maryland sees and that's not even counting other programs who can put everything together like Illinois did last year

 

Just so we're clear my gripe with the Big 10 for basketball is more due to the fact that Maryland sticks out like a sore thumb geographically compared to the other schools, especially when it comes to the competitive basketball schools.  Michigan, MSU, OSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana are all good programs.  They all also are geographically much closer to each other than to Maryland, and have many cases have natural rivalries with long histories.  (Purdue/Indiana, Michigan/OSU, Michigan/MSU, to name a few.)  IMO it helps to sustain interest in a program during down years when schools have natural rivals with long histories.  And during good years, I think the fire burns even brighter.  You see this in other leagues as well.  Giants/Dodgers.  Yankees/Red Sox.  Ravens/Steelers.

 

Yeah I get that Maryland didn't really have any natural rivals in the ACC either other than *maybe* UVA (which diminished in importance after the Hokies joined the ACC) but I believe that Maryland's proximity to those schools really helped people become emotionally invested in the games in a big way.  You're more likely to run into an ACC student/grad around Maryland/DC than a Big Ten student/grad.

 

If Penn State or Rutgers somehow become elite basketball schools, sure, it becomes a little bit easier to stay in the Big Ten and be happy.  And we have no idea how the ACC will play out with Coach K out at Duke.  But assuming Scheyer doesn't misfire, it's a lot easier to imagine the ACC as a conference where Maryland could play meaningful basketball that lots of people in the region are emotionally invested in.

 

And yeah, football might have a deeper conference to test their mettle in the Big Ten.  But Maryland has shown zero ability or desire to build and support a top-flight football team over the past 100 or so years.  Sure it could happen, but if you were to bet who is more competitive over the next 20 years, Maryland Football vs Maryland Basketball, I am pretty sure 100% of the money would go to the basketball team.  I think Maryland has to build a decent football program before they consider things like geography and natural rivals.  With basketball, they're at least already decent and have a long history of being decent-to-great.

[Mike in STL]

I wouldn't consider that or what they did under Bobby Ross being a consistent 25 team. Heck, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to say they've ever been a consistent top 25 team. For that, I'm looking at 10+ year runs. We've never had a 10 year stretch with more than 6 top 25 (AP) finishes no matter how you slice it.

Fridge had 3 in a row, but only 1 in his other 7 years. Ross was 3/5 and surrounded by 3 non top 25 years on the frontend and 14 on the backend. Presently, this looks like it will 11 straight years out of the top 25.

But I'd sure love to go back to that run in the early to mid 50's!

Btw, after that run ended with Tatum moving on after '55, they only had 3 winning seasons in the next 17!

The AP Poll has existed for 85 years. Maybe it would take forever to see how every school did every year to measure all their ten year stretches. But going by your definition of consistency, finishing in the top-25 60% of the time, only five schools have done that. Only 10 schools have finished in the AP top 25 50% of the time.

 

Teams outside of that 10 include LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Clemson, Florida. Some of them better recently rather than in years past. Some of the ones in the top 10 were better in years past than they are recently. USC, Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee. 

 

Coaching matters a lot. If James Franklin took over for Fridge, who knows what MD looks like the last decade. Probably a lot better. Maryland has its flaws, but Franklin put together solid teams, selling kids on playing for child molester university. Was there a tougher sell in college sports? 

 

Nebraska has made some bad coaching hires (which I don't understand why Frost sucks so bad given his background) but they haven't finished a season ranked since 2013. I think you can fall out of consistency easier than it takes to stay consistent. If Alabama hires the wrong coach after Saban, they might go the way the of Nebraska. They were unranked 8 out of 11 years before Saban. 12 years if you count Saban's first season there. Florida State, Texas, powerhouse schools that can't find decent coaches recently.

 

It goes the other way. Clemson had some success in the early 80s. Average up until Dabo Swinney comes in and they go to an elite program. Nat'l titles, 11 of his 12 seasons finishing ranked. 

 

It's not impossible for Maryland to one day find that right combination.