Basketball 2011-12
QuikStatsIowa

Points Scored

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

74.0
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

66.8
3
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

58.4
4
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

57.5
5
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

53.5

Points Against

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

34.8
2
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

43.4
3
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

45.6
4
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

48.0
5
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

54.0

Point Difference

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

39.2
2
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

14.2
3
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

12.8
4
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

12.8
5
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

4.4

Points Per Game

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

74.0
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

66.8
3
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

58.4
4
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

57.5
5
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

53.5

Assists Per Game

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

20.9
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

14.0
3
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

13.8
4
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

11.2
5
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

10.6

Rebounds Per Game

1
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

34.1
2
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

34.0
3
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

32.3
4
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

29.6
5
Cardinal

Class 2A - SEISC-South

27.9

Steals Per Game

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

15.0
2
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

14.1
3
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

11.1
4
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

9.9
5
Cardinal

Class 2A - SEISC-South

8.7

Blocks Per Game

1
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

3.4
2
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

3.3
3
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

2.5
4
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

2.4
5
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

2.2

Field Goals Made Per Game

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

29.3
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

25.3
3
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

23.0
4
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

20.8
5
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

20.1

Field Goal Attempts Per Game

1
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

56.7
2
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

56.2
3
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

55.2
4
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

49.6
5
West Burlington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

46.8

Field Goal Percentage

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

53.1%
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

51.0%
3
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

41.6%
4
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

40.9%
5
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

35.4%

Three Pointers Made Per Game

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

5.0
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

4.9
3
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

4.9
4
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

4.2
5
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

3.9

Three Point Attempts Per Game

1
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

17.0
2
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

14.5
3
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

13.7
4
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

13.5
5
West Burlington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

12.0

Three Point Percentage

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

37.2%
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

35.6%
3
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

29.0%
4
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

28.6%
5
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

27.6%

Free Throws Made Per Game

1
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

12.1
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

11.3
3
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

10.4
4
Cardinal

Class 2A - SEISC-South

9.4
5
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

9.3

Free Throw Attempts Per Game

1
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

17.7
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

17.2
3
Cardinal

Class 2A - SEISC-South

16.4
4
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

16.0
5
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

15.9

Free Throw Percentage

1
Burlington Notre Dame

Class 2A - SEISC-South

68.4%
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

66.0%
3
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

65.2%
4
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

58.4%
5
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

53.9%

Effective Field Goal Percentage

1
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

57.6%
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

55.9%
3
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

46.1%
4
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

43.7%
5
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

39.7%

Offensive Rebounds Per Game

1
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

15.3
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

13.1
3
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

11.3
4
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

11.1
5
Harmony, Farmington

Class 1A - SEISC-South

9.9

Defensive Rebounds Per Game

1
Holy Trinity Catholic

Class 1A - SEISC-South

23.0
2
Van Buren County

Class 2A - SEISC-South

19.2
3
Central Lee

Class 2A - SEISC-South

18.6
4
Cardinal

Class 2A - SEISC-South

18.5
5
Danville

Class 1A - SEISC-South

18.3
Privacy | Terms | © 2024 BOUND