West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Columbuseer]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Lubbock Christian’s (LC) 12/21/25 WLU 87 – LC 88

Lubbock Christian (LC) Game Plan

LC is a Texas school with 1,700 students. LC comes into the WLU game at 11-2 and ranked #7 in D2. They are very well coached, are unselfish and have a talented, tall, fundamentally sound, veteran inside game with outstanding rebounding.

They have four ex-D1 players coming from Univ. Texas, LaSalle, San Francisco and Longwood. They also have several non-U.S. players. They are excellent FG shooters at 49.9%. Five players average in double figures, led by Miller at 22 ppg (an all-conference player last year at Fort Lewis) and Pusateri (D1 San Francisco transfer) at 15 ppg. They make 40% of threes, making an average of 9 per game. They only commit about 12 turnovers per game and average 15 assists. Their vulnerability is depth, as only 6 players average over 10 minutes a game.

The LC strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – In the half-court offense, attack WLU inside with their excellent interior passing game and great scorers.

• PASSED – Limit WLU second shots. LC dominated both offensive and defensive boards.

• PASSED– Trust their half-court offense. When they broke the press, they often refrained from attacking the rim in transition.

• PASSED – Shoot their average FG %. LC shot 53%, better than their 49% average. They were deadly from 10 feet and closer. LC shot 43% 3FG (avg 40%) in the first half, but cratered to 16% in the second half (probably due to fatigue).

• FAILED –Keep their composure against the WLU pressure. LC faltered against the WLU pressure with 21 turnovers. Their fatigue and turnovers allowed WLU to to come back and take the lead in the second half.

Keys to the WLU Game

WLU was going to play at a fast pace with extreme defensive pressure to exploit the short LC bench. On offense, LC was forcing WLU to take threes, and WLU’s offensive rating was a good 113 (points per 100 possessions) compared to just 109 for LC. This is one of those games where technical fouls gave LC more possessions and points, resulting in a narrow win. WLU’s effective shooting % was 49% to 56% for LC, due to LC’s strong inside game. Their true shooting % was 52% for WLU to 59% for LC (this stat takes in account FT shooting). For the game, WLU shot a very subpar 38% FG and 30% 3FG. WLU had a strong 2nd half shooting, averaging 50% FG, as they were wearing down the LC defense.

WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently, and putting severe mental stress on LC. LC fatigue resulted in turnovers and made them a step slow on defense, especially in the 2nd half.

• IMHO, the difference in the game was the great rebounding and inside game of LC. It barely offset West Liberty’s pressure, which caused extreme mental fatigue on LC. The rebounding advantage plus three technical fouls on WLU made the difference.

• WLU has quality depth. Four players shot 50% or greater from three – Abdullah 1-1, L. Butler 3-5, Hurray 1-2 and Davis 1-2. The three freshmen are making solid contributions, which is very unusual for WLU freshmen.

• In the second half, WLU was much more confident in attacking the rim, which helped them overcome a double-digit deficit and actually take the lead.

• WLU shot an outstanding 13-16 for 81% Free Throws.

• WLU only had 5 turnovers and an incredible 3.2 assist to turnover ratio

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• This was a valuable learning experience for WLU, as Lubbock Christian is a talented, very well-coached, legitimate top-10 team and emphasized strong rebounding, with an excellent inside scoring and passing game. It is a different style and player profile than what one normally faces in the Mountain East. It will pay dividends in helping WLU improve rebounding and team interior half-court defense.

• WLU needs to avoid the technical fouls, as it can make a difference in a close game.

[Columbuseer]

That's totally fair. I would argue that Angelo is a top-tier team as well, but I take your point. The elite shooters aren't here this year.

But I would say I'm encouraged by the improved performance (despite the lack of 3-point prowess) against these kinds of teams. These are the sorts of matchups you're more likely to face in March, so I do think WLU has shown some progress in the last month, and I hope more progress is yet to come.

But you're right that they'd look a lot different if they had a 3-point ace to go with the other pieces. They don't even need a Seger Bonifant or Zach Rasile. I'd settle for an Eric Meininger, who always seemed to be able to be counted on for a 3 in a big spot. I know Lamberti downplays the 3 in this system (perhaps somewhat differently than how Crutch or Howlett ran it) and wants his guys to shoot fewer of them, but a Meininger- or Zac Grossenbacher-type who always seemed to hit in a big spot would be nice to have around.

Mature, intelligent points scrub. I watched one half of wv Wesleyan game and graded every three on the following criteria:
1. was the defender at least 6 feet away when the ball was released?
2. Was shooter stationary and in shooting position when receiving the pass?

when these 2 criteria were met, wlu shot 50% from three.

we have great shooters, but they underestimate difficulty of 3 pt shot when making adjustments in mid shot.
the offense has to get more wide open looks. We generally get more of them when opponent fatigue slows close outs on the three in the second half.

Lubbock Christian is one of best teams I have seen recently. 4 ex d1 players and all conf transfer from fort Lewis. Very well coached and unselfish.

this game will help us in March.

[Scrub]

We've played two top tier teams thus far. We lost to both while shooting a combined .290 from three.

That's totally fair. I would argue that Angelo is a top-tier team as well, but I take your point. The elite shooters aren't here this year.

But I would say I'm encouraged by the improved performance (despite the lack of 3-point prowess) against these kinds of teams. These are the sorts of matchups you're more likely to face in March, so I do think WLU has shown some progress in the last month, and I hope more progress is yet to come.

But you're right that they'd look a lot different if they had a 3-point ace to go with the other pieces. They don't even need a Seger Bonifant or Zach Rasile. I'd settle for an Eric Meininger, who always seemed to be able to be counted on for a 3 in a big spot. I know Lamberti downplays the 3 in this system (perhaps somewhat differently than how Crutch or Howlett ran it) and wants his guys to shoot fewer of them, but a Meininger- or Zac Grossenbacher-type who always seemed to hit in a big spot would be nice to have around.

[boatcapt]

My point was simple too, 3 point shooting has been and continues to be a real problem and that this is not a young team that will grow as the season goes along.

We are good enough to beat most teams rather handily. But when put up against a top tier team, we are going to struggle and probably lose more of those games than we win.

We've played two top tier teams thus far. We lost to both while shooting a combined .290 from three.

[Scrub]

Box score showed that our season long 3 pt shooting problems continued and that we got smoked inside on the boards.

While the vast majority of this team is new to WLU, this is NOT a "young" team with most having considerable experience playing to get her and within the WLU System. At this point in the season, this team is what it is. As a team we struggle from 3 which means we struggle against good teams. Yes, we can smoke the WVW of the world and look good doing it. But when the quality of our opponent ticks up a notch or two, we struggle and more than occasionally lose.

We can hope that our many 3 point shooters finally find their range, hope our bevy of bigs suddenly figure out how to play facing the basket and hope the new to WLU players suddenly figure out who's going to zag and zag when but hope isn't a strategy.

So you're complaining about losing on a buzzer beater to the #7 ranked team in the country that features the one of individual scoring leaders in the nation (Amondo Miller)? Or putting up 88 points on one of the top scoring defenses in the nation that allows fewer than 70 points a game? Or getting outrebounded by a couple of D1 forwards who played at University of Texas and LaSalle respectively last year?

My point was simply that when faced with big/long/physical competition a month ago (in Richmond, Virginia) this Hilltopper team folded like a cheap suit. This weekend in Vegas, they faced two teams with a similar makeup and managed to punch back when the other team landed the first punch--in one case running Angelo out of the gym in the second half and in the other requiring a miracle buzzer beater by Lubbock to prevent the comeback.

I'm happy with the performance this weekend (having gone into the weekend fearing that WLU would look like the version that showed up in Richmond a month ago). That is all.

[boatcapt]

Box score showed that our season long 3 pt shooting problems continued and that we got smoked inside on the boards.

While the vast majority of this team is new to WLU, this is NOT a "young" team with most having considerable experience playing to get her and within the WLU System. At this point in the season, this team is what it is. As a team we struggle from 3 which means we struggle against good teams. Yes, we can smoke the WVW of the world and look good doing it. But when the quality of our opponent ticks up a notch or two, we struggle and more than occasionally lose.

We can hope that our many 3 point shooters finally find their range, hope our bevy of bigs suddenly figure out how to play facing the basket and hope the new to WLU players suddenly figure out who's going to zag and zag when but hope isn't a strategy.

[Scrub]

Didn't get a chance to watch the Lubbock game, but the write-up and box score make it look like it was a real heavyweight fight. Overall, nice showing by these young Toppers out in Vegas this year--handling a long and athletic Angelo team with relative ease and battling the heck out of a Lubbock team that is getting a lot of attention nationally. The Toppers have a lot to be proud of heading into the break and appear to be somewhat "ahead of schedule" heading into the teeth of the conference season.

[Columbuseer]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Angelo State (AS) 12/20/25 WLU 101 – AS 79



Angelo State (AS) Game Plan
AS is a West Texas school with 12,000 students, AS comes into the WLU game at 9-3. They have some strong FG shooters in Barsham at 59% and Murray at 56%. Two elite 3pt shooters are Nicholls at 50% and Pettaway at 43%. As a team, AS makes about 5.5 3-pointers per game at a 30% clip. They only commit about 13 turnovers per game and rebound well. They are a very athletic team, with long, quick players, who can attack the rim. They also play good defense with their quickness. They use their bench, with 8 players averaging over 16 minutes a game, with no one playing over 27 minutes.

The AS strategy seemed to be:
• PASSED – In the half-court offense, attack WLU on the dribble drive or in the post.
• PASSED – Play tight half-court defense. However, hey only scored 19 points from the 7 steals and 14 WLU turnovers.
• PASSED – Win rebounding battle – AS dominated the offensive and defensive boards.
• PASSED– Challenge the WVLU defenders. When they broke the press, attack the rim for dunks.
• PASSED – Shoot their average FG % 3FG %. AS shot 46% FG (avg 44%) and shot close to their average 3FG at 29% (avg is 30%).
• FAILED –Keep their composure against the WLU pressure. AS faltered against the WLU pressure, despite playing 8 players at least 14 minutes, committing 21 turnovers, of which 10 were steals. WLU scored 37 points off turnovers to only 19 for AS. Crawford played 38 minutes and Nicholls played 32 minutes. The foul troubles for AS probably disrupted their normal subbing pattern.
• FAILED –Keep the WLU score under 80, for AS averages 72 ppg. WLU scored 101 points on 75 possessions.

Keys to the WLU Game

From the opening tip, it was apparent that WLU was going to play at a fast pace with extreme defensive pressure. On offense, WLU was making a determined effort to get the ball inside, which resulted in some shot clock violations. However, once WLU started driving to the rim, they started getting AS in foul trouble. Despite 14 turnovers, WLU’s offensive rating was an elite 134 (points per 100 possessions) compared to just 103 for AS. Many of WLU’s turnovers were unforced, as many were committed due to trying to make interior passes through tight windows. WLU’s effective shooting % was 57% to just 50% for AS. Their true shooting % was 74% for WLU to just 53% for AS (this stat takes in account FT shooting). For the game, WLU shot a very good 38% (10-26) from Three. WLU was 5-9 (56%) threes in the second half, increasing their focus on attacking AS inside rather than settling for a three.
WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently, and putting severe mental stress on AS, even though AS was subbing. AS fatigue resulted in foul trouble for AS and made them a step slow on defense.
• IMHO, the difference in the game was West Liberty’s pressure causing extreme mental fatigue on AS. in spite of AS subbing. IMHO, AS also played several players too long before subbing them. In the second half, AS focus and concentration faltered, resulted in numerous silly turnovers and ten straight scoring possessions for WLU. WLU broke their will. It is a testament to the WLU system that it can overcome a team with superior athletes. It is quite likely that no one on WLU could defeat their opponent in a 1-on-1 game.
• WLU forced 21 turnovers on 27% of AS’s possessions, of which 48% were live ball turnovers on 10 steals. WLU scored 1.76 points per opponent turnover, compared to 1.36 for AS. WLU scored 37 points off turnovers to just 19 for AS.
• WLU shared the ball at an elite level. WLU had 67% of goals from assists to only 50% for AS. 90th percentile for D1 is 59.8%.
• WLU was very good from three, averaging 38% for the game. Three players shot 50% or greater from three; Montgomery was 1-1, L. Butler was 4-6 and Abdullah was 1-2. WLU did not fall in love with the three, especially in the second half, emphasizing instead to attack the AS defenders, who were playing as if wearing concrete boots.
• WLU has quality depth. Nine players played 12 minutes or more. Nine players scored at least 9 points. WLU played many different combinations of lineups, with no apparent drop-off in production. The three freshmen are making solid contributions, which is very unusual for WLU freshmen.
• WLU is improving in getting the ball inside on the half-court offense scoring two-point field goals. They are patient in getting the ball inside, either on passes to big men or by guards exploiting openings to attack the rim.
• WLU shot an outstanding 17-18 or 84% Free Throws.
• WLU made some outstanding interior passes, leading to layups.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU was vulnerable to dunks in transition, especially in the first half. In the second half, WLU made adjustments in their spacing and reduced the dunks when AS had 2-on-1 situations in transition.
• Some of the 14 turnovers were unforced by errant passes in attempting to get the ball inside in traffic or due to teammates zigging instead of zagging. As they play more together, these issues will decrease. Players are learning that interior passes in traffic are much more challenging than perimeter passes. However, the interior passing is improving.

[Columbuseer]

Big test for the Hilltoppers this weekend. If we can get our shots to fall, I think we can win at least 1. Looks like the video broadcast is behind a paywall.

Flosports $20 for a month. Can see many different sports contests.

[Topper_Hopper]

Big test for the Hilltoppers this weekend. If we can get our shots to fall, I think we can win at least 1. Looks like the video broadcast is behind a paywall.

[Columbuseer]

Fyi

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs WV Wesleyan (WVW) 12/17/25 WLU 101 – WVW 65

WV Wesleyan (WVW) Game Plan
WVW comes into the WLU game at 0-9. They have had 2 close losses, but the rest have been decisive losses.They are mediocre shooters, averaging 42% FG and 31% on about 21 threes per game. However, they have some elite 3FG shooters in Janciauskas 47%, Foster 42%, Harkins 37% and Baptiste 36%. Besides shooting, they are turnover prone at 19 turnovers per game. They only average 11 assists per game. Their vulnerability appears to be turnovers, and lack of quality depth, even though no one plays over 30 minutes a game and 10 players average over 13 minutes.

The WVW strategy seemed to be:
• PASSED – In the half-court offense, attack WLU on the dribble drive or in the post. If help defense comes, kick the ball out for an open three by their deadly shooters.
• PASSED – Substitute frequently– No one played over 25 minutes, and 9 players played at least 13 minutes.
• PASSED – Play tight half-court defense. Fatigue, despite frequent subbing, ultimately caused them to get a step slow on their defense in transition and in the last 10 minutes of the first half and the second half.
• PASSED– Avoid an up-and-down game with WLU. When they broke the press, they did not attack the rim when they had numbers, deciding instead to set up the offense. Sometimes they did take a wide-open three point shot in transition.
• FAILED – Breakeven on the rebounding stats. WLU won the rebounding battle 45-30 and won offensive rebounds 18-9.
• FAILED – Shoot above their average 3FG %. WVW shot right at their average was 5-16 and 31% 3FG, and 42%FG.
• FAILED – Limit turnovers. Although turnovers have been an issue with WVW at 19 per game, WVW collapsed against the WLU pressure, committ ing 30 turnovers, of which 16 were steals. WLU scored 43 points off turnovers to only 4 for WVW.
• FAILED –Keep the WLU score under 80 as WVW averages 71 ppg. WLU scored 101 points on 89 possessions.

Keys to the WLU Game
From the opening tip, it was apparent that WLU was playing with great intensity. They were making WVW work very hard on defense and also against the press. On offense, WLU was making a determined effort to get the ball inside. They were very patient in rapidly passing the ball, until they got the interior shot that they wanted. They offensive rating was a good 115 (points per 100 possessions) compared to just 71 for WVW. Many of WLU’s turnovers were unforced, as many were committed trying to make interior passes through tight windows. WLU’s effective shooting % was 54% to just 46% for WVW. Their true shooting % was 57% for WLU to just 47% for WVW (this stat takes in account FT shooting). For the game, WLU shot 25% (10-40) from Three. Nearly all of the threes were wide open looks, so it was just an off-shooting night.

WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently and putting severe mental stress on WVW, even though WVW was subbing also. This strategy became disruptive to WVW, as they committed 30 turnovers.

• IMHO, the difference in the game was West Liberty’s pressure forcing turnovers and the disruption in the focus of WVW players. WVW was totally unprepared for the pressure, and the pressure seemed to distract them even when they got into their half-court offense. The effect was mental fatigue as much as physical fatigue.
• WLU forced 30 turnovers on 33% of WVW’s possessions, of which 61% were live ball turnovers on 16 steals. WLU scored 1.43 points per opponent turnover, compared to 0.22 for WVW. WLU scored 43 points off turnovers to just 4 for WVW.
• WLU shared the ball very well. WLU had 59% of goals from assists to only 41% for WVW. 90th percentile for D1 is 59.8%.
• WLU was subpar from three, averaging 25% for the game, despite getting many open looks. Only two players shot 50% or greater from three. Abdullah was 1-2, and Davis was 2-4.
• WLU has quality depth. WLU played many different combinations of lineups, with no apparent drop-off in production. The three freshmen are making solid contributions, which is very unusual for WLU freshmen.
• WLU is improving in getting the ball inside on the half-court offense scoring two-point field goals. They are patient in getting the ball inside, either on passes to big men or by guards exploiting openings to attack the rim. This strategy will give opponents one more thing to worry about, especially since our big men can also shoot threes.
• WLU shot an outstanding 13-16 or 81% Free Throws.

Areas for Improvement for WLU
• Some of the 18 turnovers were unforced by errant passes in attempting to get the ball inside in traffic or due to teammates zigging instead of zagging. As they play more together, these issues will decrease. Players are learning that interior passes in traffic are much more challenging than perimeter passes.
• At times, the offense seemed to stagnate and WLU settled for 3-point shots early in the shot clock, even though they were open looks. IMHO, 40 attempts are probably too many attempts.

[boatcapt]

Great points Scrub. It is puzzling that the variation in FT % from game to game is so high.
I agree that montgomery's energy is much like Spadafora's. Davis seems to be high energy too.

Almost as puzzling as our high variance in 3 pt shooting.

[Columbuseer]

One more area for improvement might be free throw shooting. There were a lot of key missed front ends.

But perhaps the biggest question coming out of the UC game is Spadafora's health. He went down late with what seemed like a bad ankle sprain, but it didn't look great. Here's hoping it was just a twist to the ankle and some basic rest will do the job. He'd be a hard one to replace. I do love Montgomery's energy (he's a bit of a mini-Spadafora), but WLU really needs Dante's leadership right now. Hope he'll be ready to go for the next one!

Great points Scrub. It is puzzling that the variation in FT % from game to game is so high.
I agree that montgomery's energy is much like Spadafora's. Davis seems to be high energy too.

[Scrub]

One more area for improvement might be free throw shooting. There were a lot of key missed front ends.

But perhaps the biggest question coming out of the UC game is Spadafora's health. He went down late with what seemed like a bad ankle sprain, but it didn't look great. Here's hoping it was just a twist to the ankle and some basic rest will do the job. He'd be a hard one to replace. I do love Montgomery's energy (he's a bit of a mini-Spadafora), but WLU really needs Dante's leadership right now. Hope he'll be ready to go for the next one!

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Univ. Charleston (UC) 12/10/25 WLU 82 – UC 65


Univ. Charleston (UC) Game Plan
UC comes into the WLU game at 4-3, They were the 2md best shooting team in the country, with an effective FG % of 63%. They are 12Th in 3FG % at 41.58%. They have many players who are elite 3FG shooters – #11 Rivens 57%, #14 Nicol 52%, #01 Robertson 50%, #02 Jacobs 50%, #00 Chapman 41%, and #05 Campbell 38%. They share the ball, ranked 20TH in assists at 18.6. They average 82 points a game. This season they have won the rebounding battle. Their vulnerability appears to be turnovers, as they average 17 turnovers a game. Their two highest scorers are #22 Hailey at 14 ppg (25.3 min per game), and #32 Shelton (23.6 min) at 13 ppg. #00 Chapman averages 12 ppg (24.1 mins) and #13 Nicol averages 7.5 ppg (22.9 min). They have a deep bench, with 9 players averaging over 12 minutes and no one playing more than 25 minutes. They share the ball very well, averaging about 57% assist to FGM ratio. UC seems to have built a team roster that was designed to mitigate the effects of the WLU style.

The UC strategy seemed to be:
• PASSED – In the half-court offense, attack WLU on the dribble drive or in the post. If help defense comes, kick the ball out for an open three by their deadly shooters.

• PASSED – Dominate the boards. UC won the rebounding battle 39-32 and won offensive rebounds 14-10.

• PASSED – Substitute frequently to mitigate effects of fatigue – No one played over 27 minutes, and 9 players played at least 14 minutes.

• PASSED – Play tight half-court defense. Fatigue ultimately caused them to get a step slow on their defense in the second half.

• PASSED– Avoid an up-and-down game with WLU. When they broke the press, they did not attack the rim when they had numbers, deciding instead to set up the offense.

• FAILED – Shoot their average 3FG %. UC was 5-21 and 24% 3FG, far below their 41.58% season average.

• FAILED – Limit turnovers. Although turnovers have been an issue with UC at 17 per game, UC collapsed against the WLU pressure, committing 30 turnovers, of which 17 were steals. WLU scored 32 points off turnovers to only 13 for UC.

• FAILED –Keep the WLU score under 80 as UC averages 82 ppg. In the first half, they succeeded with WLU leading only 31-24. However, WLU scored 51 in the second half, as the mental fatigue affected UC.

Keys to the WLU Game
From the opening tip, it was apparent that WLU was playing with great intensity. They were making UC work very hard on defense and also against the press. On offense, WLU was making a determined effort to get the ball inside. They were very patient in rapidly passing the ball, until they got the interior shot that they wanted, even as the shot clock was winding down (it reminded me of the NW Missouri State offense under McCollum). They were making a conscious effort to run the offense through their big men inside. WLU’s offensive rating was a mediocre (for WLU) 105 (points per 100 possessions) compared to just 81 for the high-powered UC offense (which is a testament to the WLU pressure). WLU’s effective shooting % was 53% to just 46% for UC. Their true shooting % was 58% for WLU to just 50% for UC (this stat takes in account FT shooting). For the game, WLU shot 37.5%% (6-16) from Three. The 16 3FG attempts show the restraint WLU was using on taking an early three, as they had been averaging over 30 attempts a game.
WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently and putting severe mental stress on UC, even though UC was subbing also. This strategy became disruptive to UC, as they committed 20 turnovers in the second half
• IMHO, the difference in the game was West Liberty’s pressure forcing turnovers and the disruption in the focus of UC players. UC was totally unprepared for the pressure, and the pressure seemed to distract them even when they got into their half-court offense. The effect was mental fatigue as much as physical fatigue. At times, I thought UC was more concerned about protecting the ball and wondering where the next WLU player was coming from instead of running their offense. UC lacked cohesion as a team.

• WLU forced 30 turnovers on 37% of UC’s possessions, of which 65% were live ball turnovers on 17 steals.

• WLU shared the ball well. WLU had 45% of goals from assists to only 35% for UC. 90th percentile for D1 is 59.8%. However, the seemingly low WLU stat is deceiving in that many of the steals result in unassisted layups, and WLU was focusing on getting the ball inside, either on the dribble or on passes into the post, which lowered the assist numbers.

• WLU shot very well from three, averaging 37.5% for the game, despite a subpar 25% 3FG for the first half. Four players shot 50% or greater from three. Landon Butler was 1-1, Spadafora was 1-2, Montgomery was 1-2. And Davis was 1-2. The point is that WLU has very deep 3FG shooting roster.

• WLU has quality depth. WLU played many different combinations of lineups, with no apparent drop-off in production. The three freshmen are making solid contributions, which is very unusual for WLU freshmen.

• WLU is improving in getting the ball inside on the half-court offense scoring two-point field goals. They are patient in getting the ball inside, either on passes to big men or by guards exploiting openings to attack the rim. This game will give opponents one more thing to worry about, especially since our big men can also shoot threes.

Areas for Improvement for WLU
• Some of the 17 turnovers were unforced by errant passes in attempting to get the ball inside in traffic or due to teammates zigging instead of zagging. As they play more together, these issues will decrease.

• On occasion, WLU tried difficult, off-balance shots inside and either got the shots blocked or missed the shot. Good learning experience for the younger players.