In this past weekend’s sweep of the former Killer P’s, Columbia demonstrated not only its ability to hit the three-point shot and perimeter jump shots, but also its strength to defend the three-point shot.

The previous weekend against Brown and Yale, Columbia relied heavily on a 1-3-1 zone. This was primarily because of the matchups that the Bears and the Bulldogs presented against the Lions. The Lions countered the athleticism of these teams with John Baumann patrolling the middle of the zone and either Mack Montgomery, Kevin Bulger, or Niko Scott guarding the basket. Columbia’s reliance on this must have altered the Quaker game plan, as Penn probably expected the Lions to come out in the 1-3-1.

In the Columbia-Penn game, the Quakers shot a dismal 34.5 percent from the field in the second half, and the Lions were able to extend a nine-point lead into a 16-point win. Columbia’s ability to nearly double its lead in the second half was a result of both their 1-3-1 zone and man-to-man defense.

For most of the game, Columbia relied heavily on its man-to-man defense, which forced Penn to turn the ball over 17 times and only dish out seven assists. Furthermore, the Lions held Penn to 2-of-11 shooting from behind the three-point line, which is 18.2 percent, compared to the Lions 57.9 percent three-point shooting on 19 attempts.

The same trend continued the following night against Princeton. The Lions were able to play solid man-to-man against the Princeton offense, which consists of intricate passing and screening, leading to backdoor cuts. Typically, the Lions have been somewhat slow to react and switch men on defense. Against the Tigers, the Lions did a phenomenal job switching men and communicating defensively.

In the first half, the Tigers shot a miserable 3-for-14 (21.4 percent) from three-point range. This led to only 33.3 percent shooting from the field in the first half. Further, the fact that Princeton took 14 three-pointers compared to 24 overall shots allowed the Lions to give up only 23 points in the first half.

In the second half, the Tigers were able to do a little bit better offensively, shooting 47.8 percent from the field and 38.5 percent from behind the line. This left Princeton with a 40.4 percent overall field goal percentage, but the Tigers scored only 53 points, ten below Columbia’s average points allowed per game.

Last weekend’s trend has not been an anomaly, but has been consistent throughout the Ivy season. The Lions have held Ivy League opponents to the lowest percentage from behind the three-point line. Columbia’s conference rivals have shot just 27.9 percent from behind the arc, compared to the 45.5 percent that the Lions shoot from three-point range.