Maryland's 0-9 record against top 50 RPI teams this year is, to put it nicely, disappointing. With Wake Forest moving into the top 100 RPI, we are now 3-3 against teams 51-100. Last year the Terps were 3-5 against the top 50 and 3-6 against 51-100, In Mark Turgeon's first season, we were 1-10 against the top 50 (0-10 if you use NPI) and 2-4 against 51-100.
If you add that up, Maryland is 4-24 against the top 50 and 8-13 against 51-100. Looked at another way, Maryland is 12-37 against the top 100 over the last three years. (Disclaimer: I will admit I am not an elite statistician like some on this site. I might be a game off here or there. Our Golden is sick. My wife is grumpy. It's an honest effort.)
Regardless, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is not very good.
My intention is not to start a fight over Gary. Personally, I've grown tired of it. But we need something to compare Mark Turgeon's record to. In the last three years of Gary Williams' tenure here, Maryland was 13-23 against the top 50 and 13-10 against 51-100. Combined that's 26-33. Strangely, both three-year periods included 59 games against top 100 competition. Anyway, I would think at least a .500 record against the top 100 would be a reasonable expectation for a program like Maryland. Neither coach accomplished that and Williams had the advantage of a very good team in 2009. So while his record is significantly better, it's really not that good. On the other hand, I think the ACC was better then and Maryland never played a schedule as weak as last season's that I can remember. Still, I think the point stands that both are below expectations.
So what about other coaches who entered a new program in the 2011 season? Is there a way to compare progress?
There were 56 coaches hired in 2011. Most of them are at schools you've probably never heard of or don't care about it. I picked nine that either seemed like reasonable schools to compare our program to, are in the ACC, are local programs, or was a school we played this season. Not scientific by any stretch, but not a bad cross-section. The schools I choose are: Boston University, George Washington, Georgia Tech, Miami, Tennessee, Missouri, NCST, Oklahoma, Texas A&M.
The first line will be the team's record for the last three years starting with the first year (2011)
Boston University: 16-16, 17-13, 21-9 (projected NCAAT)
George Washington: 10-21, 13-17, 20-7 (projected NCAAT)
Georgia Tech: 11-20, 16-15, 13-15
Miami: 20-13 (NIT), 29-7 (Sweet 16), 14-14
Tennessee: 19-15 (NIT), 20-13 (NIT), 16-11 (weak bubble)
Missouri: 30-5 (NCAAT), 23-11 (NCAAT), 19-9 (strong bubble)
NCST: 24-13 (Sweet 16), 24-11 (NCAAT), 17-11 (NIT?)
Oklahoma: 15-16, 20-12 (NCAAT), 20-8 (projected NCAAT)
Texas A&M: 14-18, 17-14, 16-12 (NIT?)
Maryland: 17-15, 25-13 (NIT semis), 15-12 (NIT)
Overall, I would say we are underperforming for a program of our stature and compared to other programs that underwent coaching changes in 2011. Frankly, I keep hoping we've bottomed out, but I'm not sure. I'm not trying to bash Turgeon. My own feeling is we need MT to succeed here or we are going to have some real problems restoring this program. But I have a lot of friends in the sports world who keep asking me"what's going on at Maryland?"
I wish I knew.