BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – This story is part of a series that will continue through October. Is Indiana better than each of its Big Ten opponents?
Nine categories were chosen. There will be no ties in individual categories. Think of it like you would the Supreme Court.
The categories: Point guard play, free throw shooting, inside scoring, perimeter shooting, rebounding, perimeter defense, rim protection, how much proven Power Five talent is on the roster, and intangibles.
The daily series will cover both the men’s and women’s basketball teams, and it will alternate between the teams.
In today’s edition, we examine the Michigan women’s basketball team. Youth will be served in Ann Arbor in 2024-25.
The Wolverines (20-14 in 2024) lost nine players from the 2024 team that defeated Indiana in the Big Ten Tournament – including leading scorers Leila Phelia (16.8 ppg) and Lauren Hansen (11.9 ppg). The latter ran out of eligibility. The former transferred to Texas.
Guard Jordan Hobbs (9.8 ppg, 4.2 rpg) is the only returning starter. What Michigan does bring to the table is a top 10 freshman class, according to ESPN.
Guard Syla Swords has played for the Canadian National Team and can score in a variety of ways. She was ranked No. 11 nationally by ESPN. Guard Olivia Olson (ranked 15th by ESPN) is a big guard. Mila Holloway is projected as a standout point guard.
Forward Te’Yala Delfosse is a modern player who can handle herself on the boards and also spread the floor. Post player Aaiyanna Dunbar rounds out the class.
It could be a bright future, but it might be a rocky present as the freshmen and three more transfers find their way in the Big Ten.
Here’s how the battle between the Hoosiers and Wolverines shakes out.
• Point guard play – Brooke Quarles-Daniels, a transfer from Oakland, had an excellent assist rate at 21.8% for the Golden Grizzlies. Holloway will likely get some playing time here, too. Neither of them has proven they can match what Indiana has in Chloe Moore-McNeil and Lexus Bargesser. Edge: Indiana.
• Free throw shooting – The Hoosiers have a significant advantage here as Hobbs (80.9%) is the only collegiate veteran who shot above 70% at the line in 2024. Shay Ciezki (90.2%), Sydney Parrish (79.2%) and Moore-McNeil (76.1%) make Indiana better in this category. Edge: Indiana.
• Inside scoring – If you thought Indiana was unproven here, the Hoosiers still have an advantage over the Wolverines. Forward Ally VanTimmeren (5.7 ppg) was wooed from Boston College, but she didn’t play regularly for the Eagles. Past that? Delfosse and Dunbar might get their chance. By comparison, Karoline Striplin (7.2 ppg) and Lilly Meister (3.7 ppg) are more established. Edge: Indiana.
• Perimeter shooting – Michigan’s freshmen could help here, but in terms of proven shooters Hobbs (38.7% 3P), senior guard Greta Kampschroeder (38%) and forward Alyssa Crockett (36.4%) can fill it up – though Hobbs was the only one among the trio to play regularly in 2024. Indiana has three 40%-plus 3-point shooters in Parrish, Moore-McNeil and Yarden Garzon, a tough trio to beat. Edge: Indiana.
• Rebounding – Tough call here. Indiana is not blessed with elite rebounders, but a lot of solid ones. Parrish (6 rpg), Garzon (4.4 rpg), Moore-McNeil (3.6 rpg), Striplin (3.1 rpg at Tennessee), Meister (2.7 rpg), Bargesser (2.7 rpg) can all contribute on the glass. Similarly, Quarles-Daniels (6.6 rpg at Oakland), Hobbs (4.2 rpg), VanTimmeren (3.4 rpg) and Middle Tennessee State transfer center Yulia Grabovskaia (3.4 rpg) are all capable, too. Hoosiers get the nod with slightly more proven ability on the boards. Edge: Indiana.
• Perimeter defense – Michigan’s returning players have good underlying advanced statistics, and Quarles-Daniels was very opportunistic at Oakland as she averaged a Horizon League-best 2.3 steals. Still, Indiana has the tandem of Moore-McNeil and Parrish, both excellent defenders, to depend on. Bargesser is also a strong defender. Edge: Indiana.
• Defense at the rim – Both programs have a lot to prove here. Striplin and Meister haven’t yet proven themselves as shot blockers. The same can be said for VanTimmeren and Grabovskaia. The Indiana pair do slightly better in advanced stats, and both played at the top of the women’s basketball pyramid, so the Hoosiers bigs get the nod. Edge: Indiana.
• Proven Power 5 ability on roster – The standard here is whether a player averaged 25 minutes or more at the Power Five level at their current or former school.
Hobbs is the only Wolverine to qualify by that standard. All expected Indiana starters except Meister/Striplin clear the 25-minute Power Five bar. Edge: Indiana.
• Intangibles – The problem for Michigan is obvious. It’s an unbalanced roster age-wise with a majority of players who haven’t proven themselves at the Big Ten level. That’s a lot to overcome and the Hoosiers do not have a similar problem. Edge: Indiana.
• Verdict – After quite a few close calls and two losses early in this series, Indiana gets its first sweep. Something about it doesn’t feel right, given that Michigan is a quality program. But these aren’t the same Wolverines that ran the Hoosiers out of the Big Ten Tournament a year ago. Michigan’s strengths also match Indiana’s, and that’s reflected in the overall score, too.
You get the feeling, though, that Michigan coach Kim Barnes Arico will get a song out of the Wolverines and that they’ll be better than they seem on paper and pesky as ever.
Previous Is Indiana Better Than Women’s Basketball Results
Oregon – Indiana 5-4.
Rutgers – Indiana 5-4.
Maryland – Maryland 7-2.
USC – USC 6-3.
Penn State – Indiana 8-1.
Minnesota – Indiana 6-3.
