Northrop Grumman Regional Challenge
2/11/2013 - 2/13/2013

Location: Palos Verdes (Calif.) GC

Type: College Women 

Team Scores
# Team Name Rounds Total
1 UCLA  288-291-291 870
2 USC  298-280-301 879
3 Duke  290-295-296 881
4 Texas  299-290-301 890
5 Florida  290-302-300 892
6 Baylor  302-297-299 898
7 Arizona  307-297-307 911
8 Oklahoma State  309-305-302 916
9 Washington  309-300-309 918
9 Oregon  303-309-306 918
11 Pepperdine  306-306-307 919
12 Arizona State  305-310-305 920
13 Wake Forest  306-308-307 921
14 Colorado  304-307-316 927
15 Michigan State  309-309-310 928
16 Ohio State  311-304-317 932


Individual Scores
# Name Team Rounds Total
1 Erynne Lee UCLA 72-72-69 213
2 Kelsey Vines Oklahoma State 71-72-71 214
3 Kyung Kim USC 74-69-73 216
4 Madison Pressel Texas 75-69-73 217
5 Cassy Isagawa Oregon 71-76-71 218
5 Lee Lopez UCLA 73-73-72 218
5 Tiffany Lua UCLA 72-72-74 218
8 Camilla Hedberg Florida 71-72-76 219
9 Caroline Powers Michigan State 74-74-72 220
9 Charlotte Thomas Washington 74-70-76 220
9 Hayley Davis Baylor 72-74-74 220
9 Noemi Jimenez Arizona State 76-73-71 220
13 Desiree Dubreuil Texas 74-75-72 221
13 Emma Carberry Baylor 76-71-74 221
15 Alejandra Cangrejo Duke 70-70-82 222
15 Grace Na Pepperdine 75-74-73 222
15 Louise Ridderstrom UCLA 71-75-76 222
18 Annie Park USC 72-76-75 223
18 Laetitia Beck Duke 73-77-73 223
18 Lauren Taylor Baylor 75-75-73 223
18 Lindy Duncan Duke 74-74-75 223
22 Celine Boutier Duke 73-75-76 224
22 Isabelle Lendl Florida 74-75-75 224
22 Rachel Morris USC 77-69-78 224
25 Amy Meier Ohio State 71-78-76 225
25 Ani Gulugian UCLA 73-74-78 225
25 Anna Young Florida 74-77-74 225
25 Doris Chen USC 76-74-75 225
25 Laura Blanco Arizona State 77-73-75 225
25 Mia Piccio Florida 71-78-76 225
25 Younjin (Anna) Kim Arizona 81-71-73 225
32 SooBin Kim Washington 78-75-73 226
32 Yi Xiao Duke 78-76-72 226
34 Caroline Inglis Oregon 71-79-77 227
34 Haley Stephens Texas 76-75-76 227
34 Julie Yang Oklahoma State 80-73-74 227
37 Bertine Strauss Texas 77-71-80 228
37 O. Kristinsdottir Wake Forest 76-74-78 228
39 Alexis Keating Colorado 73-74-82 229
39 Irene Jung Duke 72-77-80 229
39 Jamie Oleksiew Colorado 74-80-75 229
39 Manon Gidali Arizona 78-75-76 229
39 Susana Benavides Ohio State 80-72-77 229
44 Cali Hipp Oregon 77-78-75 230
44 Marissa Dodd Wake Forest 76-77-77 230
46 Danielle Gillaspy Pepperdine 79-77-76 232
46 Mariana Sims Wake Forest 77-78-77 232
46 Marissa Chow Pepperdine 78-76-78 232
49 Andrea Vilarasau Arizona 77-78-78 233
49 Daniela Ordonez Arizona State 74-81-78 233
49 Emily Wright Wake Forest 77-79-77 233
49 Janie Jackson Arizona 77-76-80 233
49 Somin Lee Pepperdine 74-79-80 233
49 Kendall Prince Arizona 75-75-83 233
55 Jennifer Coleman Colorado 75-78-81 234
55 Liv Cheng Pepperdine 80-76-78 234
55 Ying Luo Washington 77-77-80 234
58 Allison Harper Ohio State 79-76-80 235
58 Kimberly Santiago USC 76-80-79 235
60 Katelyn Sepmoree Texas 74-77-85 236
60 Laura Lonardi Baylor 79-77-80 236
62 Allie Zech Colorado 82-75-80 237
62 Elcin Ulu Florida 79-83-75 237
64 Allyssa Ferrell Michigan State 78-78-82 238
64 Cyd Okino Washington 77-83-78 238
64 Jayde Panos Oklahoma State 82-80-76 238
64 Jennifer Yang Washington 80-78-80 238
68 Trisha Witherby Michigan State 79-75-85 239
69 Josephine Janson Oklahoma State 79-80-81 240
69 Natalia Perez Baylor 80-82-78 240
71 Christine Meier Michigan State 83-82-77 242
71 Emilie Alonso Arizona State 78-83-81 242
71 Jacqueline Le Marr UCLA 80-80-82 242
71 Kristin Coleman Colorado 82-80-80 242
71 Paveenuch Sritragul Michigan State 78-85-79 242
76 Alina Ching Pepperdine 82-79-84 245
76 Claudia Lim Ohio State 83-78-84 245
76 Courtney Ferguson Oklahoma State 79-84-82 245
79 Alexis Chai USC 79-84-83 246
79 Brittany Tallman Washington 80-85-81 246
79 Monica Petchakan Oregon 84-76-86 246
82 Greta Lange Wake Forest 79-84-85 248
83 Jan Chanpalangsri Ohio State 81-78-90 249
84 Raphaela Dyer Oregon 85-83-83 251
85 Nicole Jones Arizona State 93-90-85 268
86 Sheridan Balyeat Ohio State 88-97-91 276
Note: In compiling our archives, some information, such as earnings or relation to par, was unavailable. If information is missing, such as earnings, it does not necessarily mean that no money was earned and should not be interpreted as such.