Is women’s basketball better in Indiana than Michigan?

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – This story is part of a series that will continue through October. Is Indiana better than any of its Big Ten opponents?

Nine categories were selected. There will be no ties in individual categories. Think of it like the Supreme Court.

The categories: point guard play, free throw shooting, interior scoring, perimeter shooting, rebounding, perimeter defense, rim protection, how many proven Power Five talents are on the roster and intangibles.

The daily series includes both the men’s and women’s basketball teams and rotates between teams.

In today’s edition we examine the Michigan women’s basketball team. Youth will be served in Ann Arbor during 2024-25.

The Wolverines (20-14 in 2024) lost nine players from the 2024 team that beat Indiana in the Big Ten Tournament — including leading scorers Leila Phelia (16.8 ppg) and Lauren Hansen (11.9 ppg). The latter no longer had any authorization. The former moved to Texas.

Guard Jordan Hobbs (9.8 ppg, 4.2 rpg) is the only returning starter. What Michigan brings is a top-10 freshman class, according to ESPN.

Guard Syla Swords played for the Canadian national team and can score in a variety of ways. She was ranked #11 nationally by ESPN. Guard Olivia Olson (ranked 15th by ESPN) is a big guard. Mila Holloway is considered an outstanding point guard.

Striker Te’Yala Delfosse is a modern player who can navigate the boards well and also spread the floor. Post player Aaiyanna Dunbar rounds out the class.

It could be a bright future, but it could be a difficult present as the freshmen and three other transfers make their way to the Big Ten.

Here’s how the battle between the Hoosiers and Wolverines goes.

• Point guard play – Brooke Quarles-Daniels, a transfer from Oakland, had an excellent assist rate of 21.8% for the Golden Grizzlies. Holloway will likely get some playing time here as well. None of them have proven they can compete with Chloe Moore-McNeil and Lexus Bargesser, which Indiana has. Edge: Indiana.

• Free throw shooting – The Hoosiers have a significant advantage here, as Hobbs (80.9%) is the only college veteran to shoot over 70% from 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.

• Interior rating – If you thought Indiana was unproven here, the Hoosiers still have an advantage over the Wolverines. Forward Ally VanTimmeren (5.7 ppg) was poached from Boston College but did not play regularly for the Eagles. Over and beyond? Delfosse and Dunbar could get their chance. In 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 in – although Hobbs was the only one of the trio to play regularly in 2024. Indiana has three 3-point shooters over 40% in Parrish, Moore-McNeil and Yarden Garzon and a tough trio to beat. Edge: Indiana.

• Rebounding – Tough call here. Indiana isn’t blessed with elite rebounders, but it is blessed with plenty 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 to the glass. Likewise, Quarles-Daniels (6.6 rpg in Oakland), Hobbs (4.2 rpg), VanTimmeren (3.4 rpg) and Middle Tennessee State transfer center Yulia Grabovskaia (3.4 rpg) are all capable. Hoosiers get the nod with a little more proven ability on the boards. Edge: Indiana.

• Perimeter defense – The returning Michigan players have good advanced base stats, and Quarles-Daniels was very opportunistic in Oakland, averaging a Horizon League-best 2.3 steals. Still, Indiana can rely on the tandem of Moore-McNeil and Parrish, both excellent defenders. Bargesser is also a strong defender. Edge: Indiana.

• Defense at the rim – Both programs have a lot to prove here. Striplin and Meister have not yet proven themselves as shot blockers. The same goes for VanTimmeren and Grabovskaia. The Indiana pair fared slightly better in the advanced stats and both played at the top of the women’s basketball pyramid, giving the Hoosiers bigs the nod. Edge: Indiana.

• Proven Power 5 ability on the roster – The standard here is whether a player averaged 25 minutes or more at the Power Five level at his current or previous school.

Hobbs is the only Wolverine to qualify by this standard. All expected Indiana starters except Meister/Striplin reach the 25-minute power five mark. Edge: Indiana.

• Intangible assets – The problem for Michigan is obvious. It’s an age-imbalanced roster with a majority of players who haven’t proven themselves at the Big Ten level. That’s a lot to overcome, and the Hoosiers don’t have a similar problem. Edge: Indiana.

• Verdict – After a few close calls and two losses early in this series, Indiana gets its first win. Something about this doesn’t feel right considering Michigan is a quality program. But these aren’t the same Wolverines who knocked the Hoosiers out of the Big Ten Tournament a year ago. Michigan’s strengths also align with Indiana’s, and that is reflected in the overall score.

However, there is a feeling that Michigan coach Kim Barnes Arico will be excited about the Wolverines and that they will be better than they appear on paper and as troublesome 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.