For a team on a 10-game losing streak, it was an awfully ominous start.

Nine seconds into the Penn women’s basketball game against Rider, the Broncs’ Danielle Constantino knocked down a three-pointer.

But the Quakers would score the next 14 en route to the blowout victory and a much-needed respite from the losing skid.

While Rider was clearly an inferior opponent, as any small team that can’t shoot would be, it was a needed win. And as much as Patrick Knapp wants to criticize the team’s defensive effort after the game, it was a needed win.

It was a needed win for a team that had simply forgotten how to win. In the previous 10 games, the losses had come in all shapes and sizes.

There was the never-had-a-chance loss in the 78-34 game at Delaware. There was the heartbreaking loss in overtime to American, the slow-starting losses in Seattle and the slow-finishing loss in the Ivy opener against Princeton.

And while the game was nothing to be proud of, the Quakers remembered how to win just in time for the first Ivy weekend.

Some thoughts from the women’s game

For a freshman, Kelly Scott has shown an impressive bit of confidence since joining the starting lineup in place of the injured Lauren Pears. She stepped up and hit a couple of big shots today including a three-pointer in the opening run. Knapp, who was very reluctant to play freshmen last year, has shown just as much confidence in his freshman guard. Makes Scott’s prep year at Blair Academy look more than worthwhile.

The best moment of the Rider game was seeing senior Henley Hansen score her first points of the season. Hansen, who has been among the last players off the bench during her four years in the program, scored her 17th and 18th career points as she caught the ball on the left baseline and drained a 14-footer like she’d done it hundreds of times before.

The quote of the day on this morning’s Basketball Extra page bears repeating here, because it says a lot about the biggest flaw in Penn’s offense this season.

“We took some shots that are successful maybe 10 to 20 percent of the time, and that’s not good enough,” Quakers coach Fran Dunphy said.

On the way up to the Bronx, David, Josh and I spent a while discussing the changes Fran Dunphy has made to Penn’s offense this year. In particular, we noted how the Quakers have become far less reliant on three-point shooting than in years past. There’s no question that this change has been made necessary by the fact that for the first time in a very long time — perhaps as far back as the Matt Maloney-Jerome Allen era — Dunphy doesn’t have what I’d call a “purebred” three-point shooter on his team.

As a result, Penn has fed the ball inside a lot more often, and by and large this tactic has worked well. The backdoor cuts and layups we’ve seen from Steve Danley, Mark Zoller and Brian Grandieri have not only put points on the board for Penn, they have also forced opposing defense to adapt and force the Quakers to take more difficult shots from outside.

I think that’s the right way to go for this team. Even though Zoller isn’t the most graceful player on the floor, he has an impressive knack for getting the ball into the basket. Grandieri, with his big wingspan, has also been good at getting to the receiving end of backdoor cuts and missed jumpers — as evidenced by his average of 4.9 rebounds per game, third-best on the team. That matters a lot in a season where Penn is shooting an astonishing 28.1 percent as a team from three-point range, including last night’s game.

It’s fair to say that most of those outside shots have had a better than “10 to 20 percent” chance of going in, but Dunphy is right that his team has to stick to the shots that work instead of those that don’t. That means continuing to feed the ball inside instead of looking for threes as his team has done so often in recent years. There have been a couple of occasions this year where a Penn player in the paint has had a decent chance to get two points but instead kicked it out for a three-point shot by someone else. Those players might be better off being a little more selfish.

If that happens, Penn will probably force its opponents to commit more fouls, which will help counteract physical teams such as Fordham — and, more than likely, whoever the Quakers face in the NCAA Tournament if they get there. The Rams were called for 13 fouls last night compared to Penn’s 21, even though the home team was far more physical. I suspect the Ivy League will be a far different story, but that differential ought to be a focus of the Quakers’ film studies this week.

If Penn can improve in this area, it will be very well-served in the weeks to come. It might also get the Quakers some in-game free throw-shooting practice, and they could certainly use some of that.

I just got back from Penn’s disappointing loss at Fordham.

Despite all those fans saying that the team will run away with the Ivy title this year, tonight’s game was the perfect example of how Penn can lose to any opponent — bad shooting from beyond the three-point line, bad shooting from beyond the free-throw line (this team must have a major aversion to lines), an inability to rebound and lots of fouls.

With Penn opening Ivy play this weekend against Cornell, I decided to find out the statistical categories where Penn has struggled this season compared to the rest of the league. Granted, the Quakers have played a much tougher schedule, but the numbers are still telling.

Here’s a summary:

1. Penn is horrible at shooting foul shots (I thought losing Ryan Pettinella was supposed to help our free-throw percentage). They rank last in the league and amongst the worst in the nation with their 63.9 percent shooting. Twice this year they have shot better from the field than they have from the line. Public enemy number 1? Mark Zoller, who shoots under 50 percent from the line. I guess we know which player teams will be looking to foul at the end of close games.

Silver lining: Penn shot particularly well (relative to the rest of their games) down the stretch in their comeback against Villanova, making 9 of 12 attempts. Hopefully, this means that they can get their act together in big games.

2. Penn is almost as dismal at shooting the three. The team sinsk roughly a quarter of its attempts, amongst the worst percentages in the nation and second worst in the Ivy League.

Silver lining: Unlike other Penn teams, this year’s squad does not live and die by the three. They have won and competed with top competition despite their three-point woes. Shooting decently from three is no longer part of the equation in simply hanging with top teams; its now the secret to upsetting them.

3. Penn cannot rebound. The team gives up more rebounds per game than any other Ivy squad. The Quakers also rank among the worst teams in the nation in rebounding margin and offensive rebounds. This is not suprising, considering the team’s lack of bigmen. But then again, how many otherr Ivy teams — with the exception of Harvard — have significantly more frontcourt height?

Silver lining: Hey, if Penn can outrebound Duke it can outrebound any Ivy League team.

4. Penn fouls a whole lot. The Quakers average around 20 fouls per game. That’s second worst in the Ivies and amongst the worst in the nation. Think about it. We’re talking double-bonus every half. Again, this isn’t surprising considering Penn’s lack of inside size and the strength of the team’s schedule. Still, 21 fouls against Siena, 19 against Navy and 27 against Division II BYU-Hawaii (I know the referees were questionable) is just plain bad.

Silver lining: At least the team’s best player — Ibrahim Jaaber — has cut down his fouling. Since the start of winter break, he has not committed more than three personal fouls. Penn needs Jaaber on the court if it wants to win games.

It’s time for some uniform information on those Penn Quakers. This is a feature that will appear before and sometimes after every game for the rest of the season.

First of all, Penn is 6-5 overall, but is 3-3 in white, 1-1 in red, and 2-1 in blue.

Meanwhile, Penn’s uniforms are made by And 1 (which was founded by a Penn alum) and And 1 makes men’s basketball jerseys for four other teams.

Half of those — La Salle and Wyoming — have the same jerseys that Penn does, (note that TCU’s number font in that photo is the same as the Penn women) while Pacific has Penn’s (and La Salle’s) previous model and College of Charleston has something totally different.

It’s nice to see a little kickback to Penn from its alums by being the first team to get the new unis. We’ll see in a year or two what And 1 thinks of next.

This weekend, Penn will be hosting Columbia and Cornell. The Lions sport these uniforms on the road. The Lions do have a color named after them, and the uniforms are appropriately full of it. Overall, the road jerseys are pretty standard with the white trim and logo.

I can’t seem to figure out what company makes the Lions’ uniforms though. It looks like an upside down Nike swoosh, but I don’t know what company that is. If anyone knows, email me.

Meanwhile, the Big Red of Cornell will come in to the Palestra wearing this.

It is similar in style to Columbia’s get-up, and the color scheme makes it look a lot like Ohio State’s uniforms.

And both teams are supplied by Nike.

You can’t blame the Big Red for the similarities, except for the problem of gray not really being one of Cornell’s official colors. Although, when we get to Harvard in a couple weeks, we’ll see that the Crimson do something similar. Other Cornell teams, like the baseball and women’s basketball teams (well, that was until this year when they switched to accenting with black), also use gray, so at least there is some consistency.

That’s right, I was wrong. The coverage of the Temple-Saint Joseph’s game in the papers around the area this morning is completely the opposite of what I thought would happen. All the recaps focused on the game first, and the two columns I’ve read so far both emphasized the need to move on — and put the onus on Chaney for bringing up last year’s game.

I’m not so sure about that. Chaney didn’t make an opening statement, instead opening the floor to questions right away. So someone had to ask him, and more than one person did. One reporter even asked about how his team dealt with the Hawks’ screens, which probably quadrupled the tension in the room.

I’m glad the game is over with, because there really is no reason to revisit last year at this point. Then again, ESPN2 will be on hand when these teams meet at the Liacouras Center on Valentine’s Day, in a game that tips off an hour before Penn and Princeton do so.

I’m fairly sure they aren’t coming to celebrate the Big 5.

Later in the week I’ll post about something Phil Martelli said not related to any of this that I found quite fascinating.

For the record, Nehemiah Ingram — Temple’s infamous goon — scored two points today.

What impresses me more, though, is that Temple shot 45 percent from the field and 8-16 from three.

And what impresses me most is that at literally the same time, West Virginia — unranked at the moment, though that clearly shouldn’t be the case– shot the lights out at Villanova. Down 46-37 at halftime, the Mountaineers rallied for a 91-87 win.

West Virginia shot 11-22 from 3; ‘Nova shot 15-26. Ten in the first half and five in the second.

The talk of the Palestra media room, in which you literally couldn’t move after the game, was that it was a good thing that ‘Nova got its first loss out of the way. Still, I can’t help wondering what it would have been like if the Cats had won and Duke lost at Wake Forest. Villanova has never been ranked No. 1 in the country, and it seems they still won’t be for a while.