Some data on Maryland in their 5 years in the B1G. Some comparisons to Michgian thrown in.
Finishes: 2nd, tie 3rd, tie 2nd, 8th, 5th.
W-L: 59-33, for comparison, UM is 56-36 in the same period.
B1G Tourny Record: 2-5, for comparison, UM is 13-3 in the same period.
NCAA Tourny Record; 4-4, for comparison, UM is 12-4 in the same period.
Head to Head record with UM. Michigan leads 6-3.
So, in conclusion, in their 5 years in the B1G, Maryland has been very good in the regular season (less good more recently), however, in the B1G and NCAA tourneys, not so much.
I didn’t find how Maryland was predicted to finish in the B1G regular season the last 5 years, however, it seems they have under performed a little. They certainly have under performed their seeding in the B1G tourney and the NCAA tourneys.
That said, I think Maryland’s post season record reflects on Mark Turgeon’s underperforming coaching ability. It will be interesting to see what the 2019-20 data adds this analysis.
Turgeon’s record against B1G teams outside the top 25 during the conference regular season is as follows:
2014-15 - 13-3
2015-16 - 10-3
2016-17 - 13-3
2017-18 - 8-5
2018-19 - 9-3
There’s a legitimate chance that there’s only 2-3 ranked teams in our conference this year. Based on the record above, Maryland has a couple slip ups against worse teams. And are below .500 against ranked teams. I think Maryland’s chances for second are tied to how good the rest of the conference is. If OSU, Michigan and Purdue are closer to their best case scenarios, I think Maryland could slide down. Turgeon teams rarely seem to overperform. I don’t think they necessarily underachieve - outside of single elimination tournaments - and I think they perform at about their talent level.
I think alot of the Maryland underachieves talk stems from that one season where they were top 5 nationally for 75% of the year and spectacularly collapsed from mid February on. That is the one team you could point to that clearly underachieved throughout the year.
That team was stacked though and they really had nothing to show for it. I’m sure Maryland fans feel that season was an epic disappointment. No Big Ten regular season title, no BTT title, 5 seed NCAA tourney after being ranked #2 in the country in mid-February, blown out in the Sweet 16. Yeah, some teams would consider that a good season, but given the expectations that season was a major let down.
That season was alot like our 2012-13 season, except for the finish.
Both teams won a nonconference tournament.
Both teams spent almost all of their season inside the top 5
Both teams headed into mid-February with 4 losses or less
Both teams lost to a conference bottom feeder late in the season (Penn State finished 2-16 in 2013, Minnesota 2-16 in 2016)
Both somewhat stumbled into the NCAA Tournament and finished 12-6 in conference play
Both teams played Kansas in the Sweet 16
I don’t know if our season would have been considered underachieving, but that’s mostly because the conference was better that year. There were four top 10 teams in the conference. Only one in 2015-16.
I think the conversation on Mark Turgeon looks a lot different if that Trimble-Stone team had a full top 5 season like they should’ve. He definitely has consistent results and has kept Maryland as a good team every year, but as you see with someone like Harbaugh even, coaches are often defined and judged by breaking through, becoming “great” and getting “trophies” of some kind.
Yeah. The overemphasis on NCAA Tourney results is nothing new in college basketball. That’s what matters, it also isn’t the best gauge of what team is “best”.
Beilein’s tenure at Michigan is viewed completely differently if it wasn’t for a pair of 28 foot jump shots.
Sure, coaches are generally judged disproportionately upon NCAA Tournament results. Until last season, the knock on Tony Bennett was that he couldn’t get it done in the postseason. There’s no arguing Virginia had a lot of luck to win that championship.
Regardless, there’s something to be said about the way Beilein and Bennett consistently maximized the potential of their teams throughout the regular season. The same can’t be said of Turgeon. At least not with a straight face.
Yeah my larger point is that winning is what coaches should be judged on. If two coaches win 25 games and one has a more talented roster it means they are both good coaches with different strengths. Recruiting talent is part of coaching.
I think it’s a combination of everything. Wins, hardware, postseason results, product on the court.
That said, give me a John Beilein or Matt Painter allllllllll day over a coach like Turgeon who may recruit a little better than those guys, but isn’t half the coach they are. To put it bluntly, I don’t know how Juwan will do, but I would have been extremely disappointed if Turgeon was hired as Michigan’s new coach.
At the end of the day yes, the wins are all that technically matter.
That being said, tons of people I’m sure, including me, also judge a coach by if you give “x” amount of teams the same roster, which coach would come out ahead.
Anyhoo, if the argument is that Turgeon wastes his talent, well, he’s got some to waste this year. They’re gonna win some games. If Howard is a good coach, it’s easy to see Michigan finishing ahead of them. But that’s an if.