West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Scrub]

Lots of work to do on this team before next season. There has been a push over the last 10 years to build .WLU based on athletes that can "do it all " While that has produced some good results, it has also resulted is some poor (by WLU standards) teams. We need to remember that no one forced WLU to change from the "gym rat/coaches son/3 point sniper/Charlie Hussle" type player I wasn't like we started losing with these type players. Perhaps we need a few more of those and fewer "athletes."

I don't disagree that WLU has to get back to finding the under-recruited gym rat kids. Here's my take on why:

With so many branches of Crutch's coaching tree out there now, any big, long, athletic kid who wants to play Crutchball will have a lot of options for where to go to do so. And most of those options are more attractive than being perched on a hilltop in middle-of-nowhere WV. Ft. Lauderdale is destination #1. But you can go to Indy if you're a D1 body. You can go to Erie where there's actually a city and, you know, a gas station. You can even go down to Beaufort, SC if you want the warm weather but a small town.

When Crutch started this, he was the only one playing this way, so a kid who wanted to play this way chose WLU. That's how you end up with studs like Bonifant, Cedric Harris, Bryce Butler, etc. recruited to WLU. But does anyone really believe that the next kid with Bonifant's ability isn't going to be in Ft. Lauderdale, Indy, Erie, or elsewhere this time around?

When Crutch started this, he had to recruit the under-recruited gym rat kids just to get people willing to play. WLU might have to full-circle go back to that simply because the on-the-radar kids are heading to Ft. Lauderdale & Erie, so WLU has to get back to finding the under-the-radar kids (need more Dalton Bolon, Luke Dyer types again). Might be a full circle moment for the program because WLU once again faces a recruiting challenge (just of a different nature this time around).

[Layton]

What in the world was that

[boatcapt]

Advanced stats aside, this was not a good version of WLU. They started the year with some serious flaws and never really got better. Sure, we won a lot of regular season games but it always felt like we where barely doing enough to win and not much more. 3 point shooting, a calling card of typical WLU team, never really got on track and at numerous times was downright atrocious. Heading into the season there was a lot of hype about having seven .400 3-point shooters...also a lot of hype about having a plethora of bigs and how that was going to be a game changer. Neither materialized. What we doing ended up with was about two .400 3-point shooters and a plethora of bigs that did their best to play like 6 foot shooting guards.

Lots of work to do on this team before next season. There has been a push over the last 10 years to build .WLU based on athletes that can "do it all " While that has produced some good results, it has also resulted is some poor (by WLU standards) teams. We need to remember that no one forced WLU to change from the "gym rat/coaches son/3 point sniper/Charlie Hussle" type player I wasn't like we started losing with these type players. Perhaps we need a few more of those and fewer "athletes."

[Scrub]

U. G. L. Y.

I really thought having seen the VUU zone once the Hilltoppers would have a plan for picking it apart. They clearly did not.

I never thought this was an Elite 8-worthy edition of the Hilltoppers, but you hate to see it end with such a whimper. You'd like to see a better showing (even in a loss) than this cringe-worthy, unwatchable mess.

Congrats to Coach Butler and the Panthers. The unwatchable mess was exactly what they were game planning for. Good on them for executing.

[Scrub]

More of the same as we saw in November in Richmond. Terrible first half against the VUU zone.

Gotta do better adjusting in the second. Never were able to recover from the terrible start in that game back in November.

[Columbuseer]

FYI Data Analytics for the mathematically-inclined folks...
Team Single Game Advanced Stats

• Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90^th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available)
• D1 data is used for comparison because D2 data is not readily available

WLU vs MEC Fairmont 3/8/26 game 31
Statistic	Fairmont MEC	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	32	31	34.5	1071	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	65	57	70.6	2190	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	18	18	19.1	593	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	26	23	25.9	803	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	6	13	10.6	328	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	23	29	29.6	919	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	11	6	12.0	373	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	22	26	25.5	791	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	33	43	37.9	1175	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	20	32	19.6	609
Assists	17	30	18.8	584	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	19	23	12.8	396	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	0	2	2.3	70	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	15	8	12.4	385	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	23	19	20.2	627	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	10	20			N/A
Points in the Paint	52	32			N/A
Second Chance Points	12	5			N/A
Fast Break Points	32	28			N/A
Bench Points	27	35			N/A
Points	88	93	98.8	3063	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	31	31	31.0	31
Number of Possessions	84	84	82.8	2566	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	1.04	1.11	1.2	1.19	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.91	0.798	1.0	0.991	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	104	111	119.4	119	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	53.8%	65.8%	0.6	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	57.6%	69.3%	0.6	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	69.2%	78.3%	0.7	74%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	49.2%	54.4%	0.5	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	26.1%	44.8%	0.4	36%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	61.9%	64.3%	0.6	58%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	19	23	12.8	13	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	4	-4	19.5	7.5	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	22.5%	27.3%	0.2	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	65.2%	42.1%	0.6	61%	D1 90th percentile is 55%
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.43	1.05	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	53.1%	96.8%	0.5	55%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.89	1.30	1.5	1.47	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	78.6%	70.3%	0.7	71%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	29.7%	21.4%	0.3	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-5	5	15.8	-491	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on MEC WLU vs Fairmont 3/8/26

WLU 93 – Fairmont 88

Fairmont State (FS) Preview
FS has about 3,300 students (as of 2023). They have a very deep and talented team, with strong inside and outside players. It is purported that FS has the most resources (as in NIL, also known as pay-to-play) in the MEC to acquire players.
They have 3 former D1 players from Marshall, Univ. Md BC, and Wright State. They are loaded with athletic, tall, long players, who can score at all three levels as well as quick guards. They have the former Concord big man and former MEC Defensive Player of the Pear in Diop.
They have quality depth; there are 8 players that play16 minutes or more and no one plays over 29 minutes.
Apparently, they have designed their roster to combat the fatigue generated by WLU and to score a high percentage of open looks from three or attack the rim when they break the trap.

Team Stats (26-5, 17-3)
Overall Team Statistics
Statistic	Fairmont St.	Opponents
Scoring
Total Points	2811	2307
Points Per Game	90.7	74.4
Scoring Margin	16.3	--
Shooting
FG: Made-Attempted	980-1963	781-1877
FG: Percentage	0.499	0.416
FG: Per Game	31.6	25.2
3PT: Made-Attempted	336-854	282-814
3PT: Percentage	0.393	0.346
3PT: Per Game	10.8	9.1
FT: Made-Attempted	515-716	463-627
FT: Percentage	0.719	0.738
FT: Per Game	16.6	14.9
Rebounding
Total	1227	978
Per Game	39.6	31.5
Margin	8	--
Assists
Total	547	369
Per Game	17.6	11.9
Turnovers
Total	385	430
Per Game	12.4	13.9
Margin	1.5	--
Assist/Turnover Ratio	1.4	0.9
Points Off Turnovers	18.9	13.3
Steals
Total	269	209
Per Game	8.7	6.7
Blocks
Total	118	71
Per Game	3.8	2.3
Attendance
Total	11850	4295
Per Game	15-790	13-330

Fairmont State (FS) Game Plan
The FS strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Mix up their defenses, switching between zone and man-to-man. In the first half, the zone slowed down the WLU offense, as they took additional time to get bell passed into the middle of the zone at the foul line. Fairmont is an excellent defensive team with their length and quickness.
• PASSED – Get the ball inside to their taller players. Fairmont got 52 points in the paint, compared to 32 for WLU.

Stat	FS Season Avg	FS avg for WLU game	WLU season Avg	WLU avg for FS game
FG%	49.9%	49.2%	50%	54.4^%
3FG%	39.3%	26.1%	34.9%	44.8%
# 3FG Made	10.8	6	10.6	13
FT%	71.9%	69.2%	70.4%	78.3%
# FT Made	16.6	18	19.1	18

• PASSED – Limit the turnover margin. FS had 19 turnovers while forcing 23 WLU turnovers. FS got 23 points off turnovers to 19 points for WLU.
• PASSED– Dominate rebounding, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. FS won offensive rebounds 11-6 and overall rebounds 33-32. FS won second chance points 12-5.
• FAILED– Shoot their average FG % and 3FG%. FS shot only 26% 3FG, far below their elite 39.3% average.

Keys to the WLU Game
FS is a very athletic, tall, and talented team with ex-D1 players, that plays excellent defense and who can score at all three levels. They present numerous matchup problems against the shorter (overall) WLU team. When one plays such a strong team, WLU cannot have a subpar shooting performance (like WLU had in the first meeting) and must keep FS near their average shooting %. WLU cannot get dominated on the boards by this much taller team (unlike the first meeting).
Often, victory often depends on a combination of 3 factors – true shooting %, offensive rebounding, and points off turnover margin. Teams that are deficient in one factor can win by dominating in one or more other factors, with the objective of getting sufficiently more FGA or FTA to offset a lower true shooting percentage, resulting in higher points per possession.

• • True Shooting % - WLU 69.3% FS 57.6%, aided by cold FS 3FG (26.1%) and elite WLU 3FG (44.8%). This disparity overcame the fact that FS got 8 more FGA.
  • Offensive Rebounding – FS 11 WLU 6
  • Turnovers – FS 19 – WLU 23. – very unusual for WLU
  • Points off Turnovers – WLU 20 FS 19

Fortunately, the large lead that WLU got in the first half due to forcing turnovers and shooting much better from three, enabled a lead from which FS could not recover. WLU had an offensive rating of 111, compared to 104 for FS (points per 100 possessions)

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• End-of-game player situational awareness. WLU committed 7 turnovers in the last 4 minutes of the game on poor decisions or soft passes. I wonder if the fatigue from the previous strenuous 2 games was finally taking their toll, in addition to a highly energetic FS defense.
• Players are still telegraphing passes and throwing passes too casually.
• Playoff-level teams like FS will strip the ball when WLU tries to split defenders on the dribble in half-court. FS had quick, active hands.

[Columbuseer]

FYI Glenville Data Analytics

Team Single Game Advanced Stats

• Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90^th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available)
• D1 data is used for comparison because D2 data is not readily available

WLU vs MEC Glenville 3/7/26 game 30
Statistic	Glenville MEC	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	33	36	34.7	1040	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	65	81	71.1	2133	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	18	23	19.2	575	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	20	42	26.0	780	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	16	10	10.5	315	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	29	30	29.7	890	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	9	23	12.2	367	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	33	25	25.5	765	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	42	48	37.7	1132	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	34	19	19.2	577
Assists	22	16	18.5	554	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	28	16	12.4	373	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	7	3	2.3	68	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	6	22	12.6	377	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	16	28	20.3	608	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	15	33			N/A
Points in the Paint	30	46			N/A
Second Chance Points	12	30			N/A
Fast Break Points	17	6			N/A
Bench Points	19	40			N/A
Points	100	105	99.0	2970	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	30	30	30.0	30
Number of Possessions	93	92	82.7	2482	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	1.08	1.14	1.2	1.20	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.80	1.076	1.0	0.998	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	108	114	119.7	120	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	63.1%	50.6%	0.6	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	67.8%	52.8%	0.6	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	90.0%	54.8%	0.7	74%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	50.8%	44.4%	0.5	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	55.2%	33.3%	0.4	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	47.2%	51.0%	0.6	58%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	28	16	12.4	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-12	12	19.7	7.8	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	30.2%	17.3%	0.2	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	37.5%	78.6%	0.6	62%	D1 90th percentile is 55%
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.94	1.18	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	66.7%	44.4%	0.5	53%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.79	1.00	1.5	1.49	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	58.9%	73.5%	0.7	71%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	26.5%	41.1%	0.3	33%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-5	5	16.2	-486	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on MEC WLU vs GU 3/7/26

WLU 105 – GU 100 in double OT

Glenville Univ. (GU) Preview
GS has about 1,583 students (as of fall 2023). GS is a very athletic, tall, and talented team. They have quick, athletic guards who are excellent three-point shooters, and who can also create their own shot. They have long, tall forwards and a bulky, strong center who is hard to defend. They play excellent defense. Glenville has 4 double figure scorers and several elite three-point shooters. They have two of the best guards in the MEC in Knott and Redfern. They play 4 players over 30 minutes a game, and their bench only goes 7 deep, so they may be vulnerable to fatigue.
Glenville is 7-1 in the last 8 games, losing only to Fairmont State. They are 10-6 in the MEC and 18-11 overall. They are a dangerous team, with the roster composition to defeat WLU.
WLU must avoid a cold shooting night, rebound well, generate turnovers and cause fatigue in Glenville. If Glenville breaks the press, I expect them to attack the rim to take open threes from the corner in transition.
Here are some stats, sorted by descending scoring average.



Scoring

Overall Scoring Statistics
#	Player	GP	GS
MIN	FGM	FGA	FG%	3PT	3PTA	3PT%	FTM	FTA	FT%	PTS	AVG
14	Stump, Trey	9	0	27	3	12	.250	3	12	.250	0	0	.000	9	1.0
12	Redfern, Elijah	30	30	907	170	374	.455	51	144	.354	99	128	.773	490	16.3
07	Mosengo, Prince	30	30	928	155	254	.610	8	13	.615	67	89	.753	385	12.8
00	Maxwell, Ammar	30	26	849	124	257	.482	15	47	.319	62	86	.721	325	10.8
01	Knott, Jalen	30	30	978	178	425	.419	111	286	.388	79	109	.725	546	18.2
13	Kisner, Garrison	20	0	143	9	24	.375	5	19	.263	0	0	.000	23	1.2
02	Kelly, Julian	8	0	26	3	8	.375	1	2	.500	3	8	.375	10	1.3
24	Holmes, Jordan	8	0	34	2	10	.200	0	4	.000	2	6	.333	6	0.8
32	Greenwich, Malachi	1	0	1	0	0	.000	0	0	.000	0	0	.000	0	0.0
22	Gadd, Rye	24	4	486	55	111	.495	23	58	.397	43	60	.717	176	7.3
11	Crossman, Callum	24	0	248	46	79	.582	0	1	.000	27	42	.643	119	5.0
33	Colon-Lewis, Don	30	30	969	141	323	.437	62	183	.339	29	34	.853	373	12.4
23	Boulden, Corey	30	0	529	71	162	.438	62	142	.437	11	21	.524	215	7.2
	Total	30		6125	957	2039	.469	341	911	.374	422	583	.724	2677	89.23
	Opponents	30		6125	839	1953	.430	316	903	.350	492	673	.731	2486	82.87

Team Stats (18-12, 11-9)

Overall Team Statistics
Statistic	Glenville St.	Opponents
Scoring
Total Points	2677	2486
Points Per Game	89.2	82.9
Scoring Margin	6.4	--
Shooting
FG: Made-Attempted	957-2039	839-1953
FG: Percentage	.469	.430
FG: Per Game	31.9	28.0
3PT: Made-Attempted	341-911	316-903
3PT: Percentage	.374	.350
3PT: Per Game	11.4	10.5
FT: Made-Attempted	422-583	492-673
FT: Percentage	.724	.731
FT: Per Game	14.1	16.4
Rebounding
Total	1158	1096
Per Game	38.6	36.5
Margin	2.1	--
Assists
Total	478	392
Per Game	15.9	13.1
Turnovers
Total	360	389
Per Game	12.0	13.0
Margin	1.0	--
Assist/Turnover Ratio	1.3	1.0
Points Off Turnovers	16.5	13.0
Steals
Total	204	221
Per Game	6.8	7.4
Blocks
Total	101	84
Per Game	3.4	2.8
Attendance
Total	4850	4046
Per Game	14-346	13-311

Glenville (GU) Game Plan
The GS strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Attack the rim in transition with their tall players or kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters.
• PASSED – Shoot their average. GS shot far above average in FG, 3FG and FT. These numbers were good enough for almost certain victory, except against WLU.

Stat	Glenville Season Avg	Glenville vs WLU	WLU stats
FG%	46.9%	50.8%	44.4%
3FG%	37.4%	55.2%	33.3%
FT%	72.4%	90.0%	54.8%

• FAILED– Limit the turnover margin. GS had 28 turnovers (12.0 season avg.).
• FAILED –Win the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Despite GU’s size advantage, WLU dominated offensive rebounding won the rebounding battle 23-9.

Keys to the WLU Game
MEC teams are following a similar blueprint to challenge WLU. Tall, athletic teams with good 1-on-1 skills, strong guards, and several elite three-point shooters. So far, it seems that there is no longer more than 1 pushover in the league. GS has an impressively athletic team.
GS was packing the defense to stop the WLU inside game, and was leveraging their height with 7 blocks. GS was expending tremendous energy defending WLU and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. GU was playing their starters far too long in the first half and continued this strategy in the second half. It would prove to be their undoing.
In addition to putting great pressure on GU with their trapping defense, the constant movement of WLU on offense was forcing GU to work very hard on defense. By the second half, GU was getting a step slow. WLU was attacking them by driving to the rim and drawing fouls.
Despite being a smaller team, WLU got an amazing 41% of offensive rebounds (D1 90^th percentile is 33%). An amazing 78.6% of the 28 forced turnovers by WLU were live ball turnovers (D1 90^th percentile is 55%). WLU scored 33 points off turnovers to just 15 for GU. These live ball turnovers were essential in erasing the 9-point GU lead in the last three minutes. WLU forced 4 turnovers in the last 3:30 seconds. A deep three by WLU with 30 seconds remaining tied the score at 77.
GU was exhausted, both mentally and physically. Key players fouled out for GU, instinctively committing fouls and losing situational awareness (that they had to stay in the game and could not foul out). However, give GU credit. Despite having little depth, they kept battling until the end of the 2^nd OT.

Often, victory often depends on a combination of 3 factors – true shooting %, offensive rebounding, and points off turnover margin. Teams that are deficient in one factor can win by dominating in one or more other factors, with the objective of getting more FGA or FTA to offset an lower true shooting percentage, resulting in higher points per possession.
In this game, a high points off turnover margin (33-15) and offensive rebounding margin (23-9) resulted in WLU getting 26 more FGA than Glenville. It allowed WLU to squeak out a win.



Areas for Improvement for WLU

1. WLU has had shooting woes for the last three games, especially foul shooting. Hopefully, it is an aberration. Wheeling showed that limiting points off turnover margin and shooting better than WLU is a key to beating WLU,

[boatcapt]

But now we need to talk about the fact that WLU got manhandled in Richmond earlier this season. They're clearly a more mature version of the Hilltoppers now than they were then, but they better have a plan for how to crack the vaunted VUU defense that caused them so many problems before.

With only occasional acceptations, WLU has a history of getting manhandled in the Tourney. They sometimes can overcome through insane shooting, but by and large, WLU has been susceptible to teams with several dominant bigs. Recruiting this year was supposed to have addressed this. Didn't produce the results we hoped for in Richmond. Let's see if a neutral court and an entire season of experience are enough to close the gap.

[Scrub]

But now we need to talk about the fact that WLU got manhandled in Richmond earlier this season. They're clearly a more mature version of the Hilltoppers now than they were then, but they better have a plan for how to crack the vaunted VUU defense that caused them so many problems before.

[Columbuseer]

Fyi
wlu post game press conference starts at 33:15. Montgomery and Williams there with lamberti.
montgomery was tourney mvp with mec tourney record 14 steals. williams and muldowney also made all tourney.
https://mountaineast.tv/?B=3670729

[boatcapt]

Worth noting that future MEC school Shawnee State is going-dancing their final season in the NAIA Tourney.

We'll see how a good NAIA team stacks up against DII competition next year

[Scrub]

FINALLY WLU shoots over .400 from 3 and claims the MEC Tourney title.

The season ending loss to Wheeling is huge. If we had done what we should have done and win that game, we would have been hosting the NCAA Regional Tourney at the ARSC where we are really hard to beat

You're right about one thing, Boat. Shooting carried the day today. Lost both the rebounding and turnover battle (and not by a little on that last front). Hard to win when you give the opponent 23 extra possessions. Hot shooting was the lifeline. Good to get out of there with a win.

[boatcapt]

FINALLY WLU shoots over .400 from 3 and claims the MEC Tourney title.

The season ending loss to Wheeling is huge. If we had done what we should have done and win that game, we would have been hosting the NCAA Regional Tourney at the ARSC where we are really hard to beat