Yesterday I addressed the DC Metro area’s media coverage of college basketball being very pro-Maryland. I spoke in a lot of generalities since I wrote before reading the morning editions. Now, we can go back, examine the text of the local papers, and see the truth of their stories. Here we go.

Let’s start with The Washington Times. Times beat writer for the Hoyas Barker Davis was flamboyant in his account of the game. Davis’ opening line alliteration was, “The battle for bragging rights inside the Beltway was a beatdown.” Ouch. Davis understands the game very well, but he never pulls any punches, and most of his warranted attacks could be seen as harsh. Not unfair, but still harsh. For example, regarding the expected energy and enthusiasm from the players for such a hyped up game, Davis conceded, “Apparently the Terrapins didn’t get the memo.” He concluded that the Hoyas “dominated Maryland in every conceivable category.” Not very nice, but not debatable either.

As for The Washington Post, the Hoyas’ beat writer is Liz Clarke, for the Terps’ side it was Steve Yanda. Clarke was honest and yet gracious with her description of the game. She rightly used the term “rout” to classify the outcome, and noted that Maryland, “turned in an error-prone effort on offense and made a half-hearted stab at defense.” It would be hard for any Terp fan to argue with that statement. Clarke didn’t need to be overly opinionated in her article and she chose to let the stats from the game speak for themselves.

As for Maryland’s side of the story, Yanda noted, “Maryland was outdone by a more precise and a more complete Georgetown squad.” That seems like a bit of an understatement. Talking about Georgetown’s effective offense and multitude of scoring options, Yanda concluded, “Maryland, at least on this night, was ill suited to stop any of them.”

As Yanda mentioned the Hoyas leading by 18 at halftime, he began his second half recount with the intentional foul called on Landon Milbourne to stop the breakaway for DaJuan Summers. The call was debatable, and could have gone either way without much room for argument. The play was totally insignificant on the outcome of the game, but there are two paragraphs in the article addressing the Maryland frustration with the officiating.

So let’s get this straight. A 27-point win against a local rival in a game that reporters have been waiting for over a decade to see can be simply dismissed with, the Hoyas were “more precise”? And the phrase “on this night” indicates that the Hoyas just caught the Terps on a bad day. That is absolutely ludicrous. At this point of the season, the Hoyas are superior to the Terps – offensively, defensively, individually, collectively, and even (believe it or not) when it comes to rebounding. The result of this game was not a matter of Maryland having one of those days; it was a matter of a team with better players dismantling a legitimate opponent.

I don’t begrudge any writer. They have a job to do, and they need to consider subscriptions, and online hits, and all of the business end of reporting. But it’s hard to imagine in a blowout loss for Georgetown, the media talking about a questionable call in a 20-point game, or chalking the embarrassment up to one bad night. There’s a difference between perception and reality. The perception may be that the Terps came out flat and couldn’t recover, the reality is that they were outclassed by a team with better tools and better execution.