ShareThis Page
Roundup: Wheeling Jesuit slams St. Vincent women |

Roundup: Wheeling Jesuit slams St. Vincent women

| Friday, December 2, 2005 12:00 a.m

District women

Wheeling Jesuit 89, St. Vincent 38

Sarah Setcavage scored 20 points and grabbed seven rebounds, as Wheeling Jesuit (3-0) stoped St. Vincent (3-4).

Kristin Meyers had 17 points to lead all St. Vincent scorers.

Hillsdale 88, Mercyhurst 64

Jodie Haines scored 22 points, including four 3-pointers, as Hillsdale (5-1, 2-0) defeated Mercyhurst (0-6, 0-1).

Stephanie Prischak had 19 points, while Jena Schafer and Erin Solada scored 13 points apiece for Mercyhurst.

Wayne State 66, Gannon 62

Nicole Rogers recorded a double-double with 14 points and 10 rebounds to lead Waynes State (3-3, 1-1) past Gannon (2-5, 0-1 GLIAC).

Carrie Nolan had 14 points on 5-for-13 shooting for Gannon.

Salem International 61, Seton Hill 59

Jody Green scored 20 points and dished out 10 assists, as Salem International edged Seton Hill (3-5).

Elizabeth Martin had 20 points to go along with five rebounds for Seton Hill in the loss.

District men

Gannon 53, Wayne State 48

Every player on the Gannon (3-4, 0-1 GLIAC) roster scored, as it defeated Wayne State (2-2, 0-1).

Herb Goliday scored 12 points for Wayne State to lead all scorers.

Hillsdale 63, Mercyhurst 52

Cory Coe scored 16 points, and Drew Powell added 13 to lead Hillsdale (3-1, 2-0) over Mercyhurst (5-1, 0-1 GLIAC).

is a former freelancer.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.