efficiency of 93.4% as compared with 89.41%.

The data show that for each score point the visitors
earned 17.2 evaluation points and Kansas earned 22.2 evaluation
points. By deducting the 5 evaluation points for each score point
one sees that 12.2 evaluation points were earned as compared with
17.2 for Kansas. While Kansas had the ball earning the extra eval-
uation points it is certain that the opposition was not scoring.
However, es pointed out previously, the various styles of play may
effect the total number of evaluation points, but the style shoul
not have a great deal of effect on errors in ball handling.

In making direct comparisons between specific teams, a
summary table made up from the evaluation summaries shows much the
same facts as the totals between Kansas and the opposition.

 

TABLE IV.
Summary from Evaluation Chart: 4 ay
ats oh: ee
an ‘2 ee eee ee
& z cS a 6 a £8 |
o a : oa ad ao © 2
Ba ret oH ® Ge | o $ St et 3s Pee
62% 2 sf is fi fy 33 32
itis: a S$ ew & wh an ao ee ao fe he
Kansas a IT 38 It #7 IS Ws ces @5 BB 1.3 :
School A 35 12 16 9 56 15 18 441 3,9 41 91. |
oe ee ee oe ee ee
School B 33 15 29 3 60 8 26 3286 7.4 24 86.6
ee ee ee ee ee er ee
School C 36 12 20 12 51 13 158 325 3.8 20 89.2

School A played the home team fairly even on most of the
comparisons except that they could not hit the goal, making only 16%
of their field goals while Kansas was making 53% of their attempts.
| School B played the closest game from the score standpoint.
Their less can be credited to a poorer shooting percentage than Kansas