I think it depends how they train. TMA isn't a consistent training model, so if you sent those folks to 100 random TMA programs, you're probably going to get a huge range of results. As we've discussed before, one of the advantages of some types of competition is they tend to weed out programs/instructors who can't deliver a win, or at least a competitive...competitor. A good TMA school, with a focus on what actually works in a fight (as we've talked about before - not actually the focus of all TMA schools), should be able to produce reasonable results in that same timeframe. I'd guess they'll be in the same ballpark, under that last assumption. Of course, that also has to assume all 300 stay in the program - competition does tend to also weed out people who don't develop as fast or are less gifted (not a universal, but a general truism). Of course, the question remains...are we talking about TMA with no competition? I'd guess that TMA with competition (something roughly similar to the format we're evaluating on) will have somewhat better results than if there's no competition. Internal (informal) competition inside the school will be better than no competition, but probably less effective than open competition.
All that presupposes the competition we're talking about (including the combat sport) are training something in alignment with the assessment we're doing at the end. BJJ fare badly if the end test is striking, but better if it's fewer rules. And a similar setup for boxing (though they seem to be less adaptable to open rules if they don't train to it). Likewise, a TMA school that doesn't train to a similar fight style to the ruleset will have more trouble.
