These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through games of 2/26/2012
Showing posts with label Women's Basketball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women's Basketball. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Women's Regional Rankings 2/20/2012
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through games of 2/19/2012
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through games of 2/19/2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Women's Regional Rankings 2/13/2012
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through games of 2/12/2012
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through games of 2/12/2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Women's Regional Rankings 2/6/2012
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through games of 2/5/2012
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through games of 2/5/2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Women's Regional Rankings 1/31/2012
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/30/2012
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/30/2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Women's Regional Rankings 1/24/2012
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/23/2012
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/23/2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Women's Regional Rankings 1/16/2012
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/15/2012
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/15/2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Women's Regional Rankings 1/3/2012
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/2/2012
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 1/2/2012
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Women's Regional Rankings 12/28/2011
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 12/27/2011
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops.
Through (most) games of 12/27/2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Women's Regional Rankings 12/20/2011
These regional rankings are not official. All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops. This data gets a lot better as the season goes on (I know the d3sports guys are pretty busy right now with football playoffs and men’s and women’s basketball all going on).
Through (most) games of 12/18/2011
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (the first official set come out in early February). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops. This data gets a lot better as the season goes on (I know the d3sports guys are pretty busy right now with football playoffs and men’s and women’s basketball all going on).
Through (most) games of 12/18/2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Women's Regional Rankings 12/15/2011
These regional rankings are not official. I use my own formula (heavily based on RPI). All data comes via d3hoops.com.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released starting in early February. These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops. This data gets a lot better as the season goes on (I know the d3sports guys are pretty busy right now with football playoffs and men’s and women’s basketball all going on).
Through (most) games of 12/11/2011
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released starting in early February. These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops. This data gets a lot better as the season goes on (I know the d3sports guys are pretty busy right now with football playoffs and men’s and women’s basketball all going on).
Through (most) games of 12/11/2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Women’s Regional Rankings 12/6/2011
I’ve been doing rankings of this sort on the men’s side of things for a couple of years now, so if you’ve followed me with that then you have a pretty good idea of what I’m doing here. If not, I’ll explain.
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (I think the first official set come out in early February, but it may be late January). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops. This data gets a lot better as the season goes on (I know the d3sports guys are pretty busy right now with football playoffs and men’s and women’s basketball all going on).
Through (most) games of 12/4/2011
The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (I think the first official set come out in early February, but it may be late January). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.
The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.
So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.
All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops. This data gets a lot better as the season goes on (I know the d3sports guys are pretty busy right now with football playoffs and men’s and women’s basketball all going on).
Through (most) games of 12/4/2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Printable (and extensive) Calvin Hoops Schedule
I was compiling an easy-to-use Calvin comprehensive basketball schedule for myself, but I decided to post it here in case anyone else was interested in printing it and using it as well.
Hopefully this will make it easy for me (and you) to make it to more women's and JV action. I've noted all of the men's games that are preceded (or in some cases followed by) a tournament game, a women's game, a (men's) JV game. These are the days in which we can catch some extra action by simply showing up a bit early, or staying a bit late.
I too often miss some of these games because I simply forget to check the schedules! Now it's all in one place. Cheers.
Home games in bold.
2011-12 Calvin Basketball Schedule
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
Hopefully this will make it easy for me (and you) to make it to more women's and JV action. I've noted all of the men's games that are preceded (or in some cases followed by) a tournament game, a women's game, a (men's) JV game. These are the days in which we can catch some extra action by simply showing up a bit early, or staying a bit late.
I too often miss some of these games because I simply forget to check the schedules! Now it's all in one place. Cheers.
Home games in bold.
2011-12 Calvin Basketball Schedule
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sneak Peak at the 2011-2012 Lady Knights
First of all, I should thank Matt for letting me join the FFTMAG staff! After spending the last 4 years as a member of Calvin Women’s Basketball team, I’d say I’ve learned a thing or two about Calvin basketball and am excited to share some of my thoughts on the team this season.
To remind you of the great 2010-2011 season Calvin had, here are some highlights:
- Record of 25-5
- MIAA regular season co-champs
- MIAA conference tournament champs
- 2 huge wins over #1 ranked Hope
- NCAA Tournament Host
- NCAA Second Round team
- Set all time MIAA record for best defense (fewest points allowed to MIAA opponents)
Fortunately, Calvin is returning the majority of its players from last season and is ready to build on the foundation they’ve laid!
Here are just a few of my thoughts on the 2011-2012 roster…
Seniors:
Jill Thomas (5’6, Guard) *Captain
Jill’s athleticism, court awareness, and ability to shoot the 3 from anywhere on the court (remember her shot against Hope in the MIAA championship game?), make her a threat against any team. I think last season proved that Jill is a dependable player who is always ready to step up and hit the big shot or the make the big play. Her leadership on the court is going to be crucial for this year’s team to be successful but I have no doubts that Jill’s up to the challenge.
Courtney Kurncz (5’11, Guard) *Captain
Courtney is the ideal basketball player. She typically plays the “3” but has the ability to play any position out on the court. She’s hard to guard because not many teams have 5’11 guards to match up against her. Her experience the past 3 years will allow her to be a great leader.
Leah Mattson (5’7 Guard) *Captain
Leah was the second most efficient 3-point shooter on the roster, behind Kelsey Irwin. Coming off the bench last year, she was a defensive spark, always ready to work hard and be aggressive. As a senior captain, her teammates are going to look towards her for leadership both on and off the court.
Heather DeKleine
Unfortunately, Heather is out for the season following a knee injury during the 2010-2011 season. Heather provides a lot of leadership off the court that will be instrumental for this team.
Juniors:
Carissa Verkaik (6’2, Forward) *Captain
Two-time MIAA MVP and a 2011-2012 Preseason 1st Team All-American says it all. Carissa has been an integral part of the Knights’ success of the last 2 seasons and she only an underclassmen. Carissa is any team’s dream player; not only is she an incredible post presence, but she has great work ethic, a humble attitude, and sportsmanship mentality. There is nothing more you can ask for in a star player.
Ally Wolfiss (5’11 Forward)
In her sophomore season, Ally led the MIAA in field goal percentage (63%). Ally’s strength, combined with her ability to score efficiently makes it difficult for any team to guard her. I’m excited to see the damage both Ally and Carissa will do inside the paint this year.
Julia Hilbrands (6’0 Forward)
Unfortunately, the basketball team will be without Julia for the first month or so as she is a member of the Calvin Volleyball team which is trying to claim their second consecutive National Championship. But when she returns, her athleticism and aggressiveness will provide a spark coming off the bench. Combine her with Ally and Carissa, and there will be no stopping this frontline.
Kelsey Irwin (5’4, Guard)
Simply put, Kelsey is a threat from anywhere along the 3-point line. She led Calvin in 3-point percentage (shooting 37% beyond the arc) last season. Her quick shot and smooth step back provide Calvin with a great inside-out option. Look for Kelsey to put up some big shots in big situations this season.
Logan Marsh (5’6, Guard)
Logan’s biggest contribution to Calvin is her quickness and speed, which plays right into the team’s desire to fast break. Logan led the guards in the most steals last season with 39. Look for her to continue that trend this season and give the defense a big boost this season.
Sophomores:
Kirstin Tripp (5’6, Guard)
As a returning point guard, the team is going to look towards Kirstin as a leader out on the court. With one year under her belt and increased confidence, she has the potential to create some great plays for her teammates. Her aggressive attitude on the defensive end played a large part in Calvin’s ability to set the MIAA defensive record mentioned earlier
New to Varsity:
Shelby Sheehan (5’3, Guard)
Quick, left-handed point guard. Played JV last season
Kayla Engelhard (5’7, Guard)
Freshman point guard
Danielle Kapustka (5’7, Guard)
Sophomore guard who transferred from Aquinas.
Breanna Verkaik (5’11, Forward)
Not as tall as her older sister, Carissa, but can play the guard or post position. She has the potential to be a secret weapon due to her chemistry with Carissa out on the court.
Jessica Lang (5’9, Forward)
Although Jess is formally a point guard, she will be playing post at Calvin.
Maria DeKuiper (6’0, Forward)
Maria joins the Calvin post trio (Ally, Carissa, and Julia). She was a great scorer in high school, so I’m looking forward to seeing what she can do at the college level.
Calvin is currently ranked #8 according to the DIII Newsletter and Carissa Verkaik has been named a preseason All-American. I have no doubt that Calvin will crack the Top 5 in the season and stay there throughout their potential National Championship run.
Brian VanOchten Likes the Calvin Women's Chances of Getting Some NCAA Hardware
Just passing on an interesting link from MLive.com. GR Press sports writer Brian VanOchten listed the potential for a Calvin Women's run as his number one college basketball storyline to watch this season. Check it out:
In my opinion, one of the biggest roadblocks for Calvin as they attempt a deep tournament run is the University of Chicago. They knocked out the Knights last year in the second round, and they're bringing back the majority of their major contributors as well. With the two schools being relatively close in proximity, there's a decent to good chance that they'd meet before the Final Four.
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
Hope College is set to host the NCAA Division III Final Four in women’s basketball at spectacular DeVos Fieldhouse in Holland on March 16-17, 2012, and there’s a fighting chance a local team reaches the national semifinals. Except, it’s not the host school that has the best shot to get there.
Calvin College is poised to make a run at the national title.
Calvin College is poised to make a run at the national title.
From www.mlive.com (share this quote)
In my opinion, one of the biggest roadblocks for Calvin as they attempt a deep tournament run is the University of Chicago. They knocked out the Knights last year in the second round, and they're bringing back the majority of their major contributors as well. With the two schools being relatively close in proximity, there's a decent to good chance that they'd meet before the Final Four.
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
A Look at the 2011-12 Women's Hoops Roster
The Women's Basketball roster hasn't been posted online yet, but it was provided at today's Winter Sports Lunch. Here's what the varsity squad will look like:
Julia Hilbrands is obviously playing Volleyball, so the basketball team will be without her as she chases a back-to-back nation title there. They're going to have to get creative when it comes to post players in her absence (coach Ross said it "really strains them").
I'm not expecting Breanna Verkaik to be a carbon copy of her older sister (that would be quite unfair), but according to coach John Ross, the sisters have a special chemistry when they're on the floor together.
Coach Ross also noted that Freshman Maria DeKuiper scored over 2,000 points in high school.
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
| # | Name | Class | Ht | Pos | High School |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Shelby Sheehan | SO | 5-3 | G | Dearborn Divine Child |
| 10 | Kayla Engelhard | FR | 5-7 | G | Saginaw Valley Lutheran |
| 11 | Kelsey Irwin | JR | 5-4 | G | Fraser |
| 12 | Leah Mattson | SR | 5-7 | G | Cadillac |
| 15 | Kirstin Tripp | SO | 5-6 | G | Brighton |
| 20 | Danielle Kapustka | SO | 5-7 | G | Northview (via Aquinas College) |
| 22 | Breanna Verkaik | FR | 5-11 | G | Holland Christian |
| 23 | Jill Thomas | SR | 5-6 | G | West Catholic |
| 24 | Logan Marsh | JR | 5-6 | G | Byron Center |
| 30 | Jessica Lang | FR | 5-9 | F | Rochester Adams |
| 32 | Carissa Verkaik | JR | 6-2 | F | Holland Christian |
| 34 | Courtney Kurncz | SR | 5-11 | G | St. Johns |
| 40 | Ally Wolffis | JR | 5-11 | F | Mona Shores |
| 42 | Julia Hilbrands | JR | 6-0 | F | Grand Rapids Christian |
| 44 | Maria DeKuiper | FR | 6-0 | F | Bradenton Christian |
Julia Hilbrands is obviously playing Volleyball, so the basketball team will be without her as she chases a back-to-back nation title there. They're going to have to get creative when it comes to post players in her absence (coach Ross said it "really strains them").
I'm not expecting Breanna Verkaik to be a carbon copy of her older sister (that would be quite unfair), but according to coach John Ross, the sisters have a special chemistry when they're on the floor together.
Coach Ross also noted that Freshman Maria DeKuiper scored over 2,000 points in high school.
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Van Noord Arena Gets A New Paint Job
The wife, child, and I often stop at Van Noord Arena for a bathroom break (or just to take a look at the arena) during our walks around the Calvin campus*. Yesterday I discovered a surprise: the three-foot restricted area arc had been painted on the main basketball court. (Sorry for the terrible quality of the picture. It was pretty dark in the gym and all I had was my cell phone. I had to use a picture editor to get it to show up brighter.)
*Our house is a stone's throw away from the Gainey Athletic Field/Calvin Cross Country course area so we often stroll around the college campus for our evening walks. Anyway, we told our two year-old daughter that we were going to walk to "Calvin". As we approached the Fieldhouse (after walking through the rest of the campus to get there), she pointed to it and exclaimed "There it is! Calvin!" That's my girl.
Anyway. I snuck down a level to inspect the new lines (they weren't there the last time we came through). The lines don't appear to be taped, but they are raised against the finish of the court like it was painted on top.
D2's and D3's aren't required to have the arc painted for this upcoming season, but it appears that Calvin wanted to at least get used to having the lines on the floor this year. I'm not sure if this is going to be the permanent solution, or if it's a "for now" fix.
Monday, June 13, 2011
NCAA Basketball Rule Changes for 2011-12 Approved
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel recently approved a few rule changes to the Men's and Women's game (hat tip oldknight). You can check out the NCAA's article on the changes. I'll hit the highlights below.
Here's the highlights:
Men: They will be adding a "restricted area" in the paint. A secondary (helpside) defender cannot step into this area to take a charge (automatic blocking foul). The NBA has been doing this for some time. This will go into effect this coming season for D1, but D2 and D3 aren't required to have the arc in place until the following year.
Women: The biggest change for the women will be the movement of the three point line. They'll be using the same line as the men beginning this coming season, so we won't have to have the dually-lined courts any longer.
The women will also be getting the resricted area under the hoop. Same implementation timeline as the men.
The women will be experimenting with a 10-second backcourt count in scrimmages and exhibitions. (It's about time). For now, they'll keep the 30-second shot clock. I would not be surprised to see this rule officially added as soon as next season.
Here's the highlights:
Men: They will be adding a "restricted area" in the paint. A secondary (helpside) defender cannot step into this area to take a charge (automatic blocking foul). The NBA has been doing this for some time. This will go into effect this coming season for D1, but D2 and D3 aren't required to have the arc in place until the following year.
Women: The biggest change for the women will be the movement of the three point line. They'll be using the same line as the men beginning this coming season, so we won't have to have the dually-lined courts any longer.
The women will also be getting the resricted area under the hoop. Same implementation timeline as the men.
The women will be experimenting with a 10-second backcourt count in scrimmages and exhibitions. (It's about time). For now, they'll keep the 30-second shot clock. I would not be surprised to see this rule officially added as soon as next season.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Calvin Women's NCAA Tournament "Pod" Preview
| NCAA | Tournament |
|---|---|
| What | Rd. 1 and 2 |
| Where | Van Noord Arena |
| When | Friday and Saturday |
| Who | #25 Hanover vs. #6 Chicago |
| La Roche vs. #18 Calvin | |
| LiveStats | Live Stats |
| Audio | Web Audio |
| Video | Web Video |
| Tickets | $6, $3 |
How We Got Here
Calvin vs. Hope Women's Bball game winning shot by Jill Thomas from Calvin College on Vimeo.
OK, so that's not exactly the reason Calvin's in the tournament. This team earned their trip with a stellar season and would have been in the tournament with a loss in that championship game, but they wouldn't have had a home game if Jill didn't nail that shot.
Four Factors
(click on the image for a larger version)
In case you're just joining us on the year, here's an explanation of the above graph. It was from a post I did for a men's game, so the league averages won't be exactly the same, but the principles still hold.
These are what are referred to as the four factors. They are supposedly the four stats that are most indicative of winning and losing. They are (in priority order) effective field goal percentage (eFG%), turnover rate (TOr), rebounding percentage (Rb%), and free throw rate (FTr). The first four sets of bars are for each team's offense and the second four are from the perspective of the defenses.
Effective field goal percentage is just like field goal percentage, but it adjusts numbers to account for the additional point of a made three pointer. Because when it comes to scoring points, 2-6 from three point range is worth the same as 3-6 from two. Average offenses are in the 0.490-0.500 eFG% range.
Turnover rate is the percentage of team possessions that end in a turnover. This one's pretty simple and obvious. Good offenses turn the ball over infrequently (you want to be less than 20%), and good defenses force extra turnovers (you'd like to force more than 20%).
Rebounding percentage is also easy to grasp. It's the percentage of available rebounds that a team collects on each end of the court. Average teams get about 68% of the rebounds on defense and 32% on offense.
Lastly, we have free throw rate. Getting to the free throw line can be an underrated skill. As long as you're shooing better than 60% from the stripe, you're helping your team's offensive efficiency rating. Free throw rate just tells us how many free throws a team shoots for every field goal attempt. Extra shots usually mean extra points. Average is about 0.36. A good offense supplements their point total with trips to the line, but a solid defense can lock you down without fouling.
Let's first look at the first four sets of bars, which represent the respective offenses.
Calvin is right up there with Chicago in effective field goal percentage, but they lag behind the other three teams in the remaining three categories.
The Knights turn the ball over a lot. Some of that might be high risk-high reward type plays in which they're trying to feed the ball into Carissa for an easy (as she always makes it look) basket. Still, come tournament time all the teams are good, and you simply can't afford to give the ball away. This isn't Kalamazoo, so high turnover totals will cost you (see: St. Norbert).
It actually surprised me quite a bit to see that Calvin as the fourth best offensive rebounding team of the bunch (considering CARISSA!). MIAA teams averaged 34% on offensive rebounds, so Calvin actually was a bit below average. La Roche, Chicago, and Hanover have all been above the 34% mark for the season.
Calvin doesn't really get to the free throw line very much. This doesn't look like it will come into play very much against La Roche, the Red Hawks are very close to Calvin in this respect, but the differential could hurt Calvin in a potential Saturday matchup.
Things look a lot better for the Knights on defense. They hold a dominating edge against the other three teams in effective field goal percentage allowed. The really good news is that field goal shooting is the most important of the four factors, and Calvin's the best in that when we consider both offense and defense.
Calvin looks to be fairly average in forcing turnovers, but the fact that they have forced more than they've given up is an encouraging sign. The Knights rebound very well on the defensive end (CARISSA!), but it looks like Chicago also does as well. Calvin sends opponents to the free throw line more than the La Roche, Chicago, and Hanover do, but none of the three teams seem to foul at extreme rates.
Efficiency Ratings
Another (simpler) way to compare the offenses and defenses is to look at efficiency ratings. The offensive efficiency rating is given as points scored per 100 possessions. The defensive efficiency rating is points allowed per 100 possessions. Here's the comparison in graphical form.
This tells us pretty much what the four factors graph did, but it emphasises exactly how good the Calvin defense is. A potential second day game versus either Chicago or Hanover would provide an interesting strong offense versus strong defense matchup. I have no idea how that would play out.
Probable Starters
Here's a quick statistical look at the players on each team that will probably be starting. The numbers that are bolded on the player lines indicate the high mark among the 20 starters. The team line represents total team stats, not just those of the starters listed.
| Calvin | %MIN | %Shots | PPWS | eFG% | TO% | Rb% | FTr | Ar | Blk% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verkaik | 0.65 | 0.37 | 1.30 | 0.616 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.15 |
| Kurncz | 0.54 | 0.19 | 0.95 | 0.447 | 0.31 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.04 |
| Thomas | 0.54 | 0.18 | 0.98 | 0.476 | 0.22 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.22 | 0.02 |
| Wolffis | 0.49 | 0.23 | 1.30 | 0.612 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.51 | 0.09 | 0.02 |
| Marsh | 0.44 | 0.14 | 0.96 | 0.430 | 0.29 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.22 | 0.00 |
| Calvin | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.07 | 0.503 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.68 | 0.17 |
| La Roche | %MIN | %Shots | PPWS | eFG% | TO% | Rb% | FTr | Ar | Blk% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stewart | 0.74 | 0.17 | 0.63 | 0.283 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.01 |
| Pitts | 0.71 | 0.21 | 1.09 | 0.550 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.46 | 0.14 | 0.03 |
| Jennings | 0.70 | 0.34 | 0.99 | 0.455 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.02 |
| Garland | 0.64 | 0.11 | 0.89 | 0.408 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.02 |
| Green | 0.61 | 0.13 | 0.95 | 0.460 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.02 |
| La Roche | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.89 | 0.412 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 0.51 | 0.09 |
| Chicago | %MIN | %Shots | PPWS | eFG% | TO% | Rb% | FTr | Ar | Blk% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simpson | 0.74 | 0.24 | 1.21 | 0.567 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.12 | 0.02 |
| Meg. Herrick | 0.71 | 0.22 | 1.03 | 0.429 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.78 | 0.23 | 0.01 |
| Halfhill | 0.71 | 0.25 | 1.13 | 0.557 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.00 |
| Mor. Herrick | 0.62 | 0.23 | 1.07 | 0.498 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.13 | 0.04 |
| Torres | 0.56 | 0.11 | 1.23 | 0.576 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.32 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
| Chicago | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.09 | 0.505 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.64 | 0.07 |
| Hanover | %MIN | %Shots | PPWS | eFG% | TO% | Rb% | FTr | Ar | Blk% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Franz | 0.71 | 0.29 | 1.09 | 0.501 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.11 | 0.01 |
| Martin | 0.71 | 0.28 | 1.20 | 0.563 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.44 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| Vogel | 0.63 | 0.18 | 1.10 | 0.511 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.55 | 0.14 | 0.01 |
| Bentz | 0.63 | 0.16 | 0.77 | 0.366 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.05 |
| Schmahl | 0.43 | 0.14 | 0.90 | 0.354 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.71 | 0.22 | 0.00 |
| Hanover | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 0.467 | 0.23 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.57 | 0.09 |
Some of these stats are explained above in the four factors section, but an explanation may be needed of the new ones.
%Shots - The percentage of the team's shots a player takes while he's on the floor.
PPWS - Points per weighted shot. How many points a player records per attempt to score.
Ar - Assist rate. The percentage of made field goals that a player assists on while he's in the game.
Blk% - The percentage of opponents' two-point shot attempts that a player blocks while he's in the game.
A quick glance through the player stats, and it appears that CARISSA! is the best player in the pod. Any surprises there?
Sure To Be Wrong Prediction
I like Chicago to pull away from Hanover in a closely fought contest in the early game, and I like Calvin to beat La Roche rather handily in the late game.
Saturday will be a battle, but the home court advantage will lift Calvin over Chicago.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Lady Knights Hand Flying Dutch First Loss of Season
Also, Dude, Lady Knights is not the preferred nomenclature. Knights, please.
In what was, by all accounts, a fantastic game from start to finish, the Calvin Knight women defeated #1 Hope 56-55.
Unfortunately, I was only able to catch the final 25 seconds or so, but I still came away impressed with the Calvin defense.
Hope had just dome down with a rebound with 20something seconds left when I entered the arena (down 56-55) and called a timeout. They spent the next 15 seconds or so dribbling around the three point line looking for an opportunity while running some clock.
Finally, they were forced into a difficult shot that was well defended; the ball ended up on the floor and eventually out of bounds (possession to Hope).
2.0 seconds showed on the clock, and I whipped out my phone to catch some video:
Major kudos to Jill Thomas (I'm 99% that it's her, I was watching through my screen) for her defensive effort here. She immediately recognized that she was guarding the screener, and peeled off to get in Snikkers' face before she gets an inch to work with. Then she established position with her hands straight and didn't give the officials any reason to blow the whistle.
So, by my count, Calvin is 2-0 against Hope in all gender varieties of basketball this season!
In what was, by all accounts, a fantastic game from start to finish, the Calvin Knight women defeated #1 Hope 56-55.
Unfortunately, I was only able to catch the final 25 seconds or so, but I still came away impressed with the Calvin defense.
Hope had just dome down with a rebound with 20something seconds left when I entered the arena (down 56-55) and called a timeout. They spent the next 15 seconds or so dribbling around the three point line looking for an opportunity while running some clock.
Finally, they were forced into a difficult shot that was well defended; the ball ended up on the floor and eventually out of bounds (possession to Hope).
2.0 seconds showed on the clock, and I whipped out my phone to catch some video:
Major kudos to Jill Thomas (I'm 99% that it's her, I was watching through my screen) for her defensive effort here. She immediately recognized that she was guarding the screener, and peeled off to get in Snikkers' face before she gets an inch to work with. Then she established position with her hands straight and didn't give the officials any reason to blow the whistle.
So, by my count, Calvin is 2-0 against Hope in all gender varieties of basketball this season!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)