Share This Page

District roundup: Kilicli scores career-high 25 as WVU prevails

| Saturday, Feb. 16, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Deniz Kilicli scored a career-high 25 points as West Virginia (13-12, 6-6 Big 12) held off a formidable comeback by Texas Tech for a 66-64 victory Saturday.

The Mountaineers were comfortably ahead, 61-53, with 3:19 left, but Texas Tech (9-14, 2-10) made three 3-pointers in a span of 2:45.

Kilicli's point total surpassed his 22-point effort against Providence on Feb. 5, 2012.

Point Park 88, Cincinnati Christian 83 — Matt Noszka had 28 points and 14 rebounds and T.J. Heatherington added 26 points as Point Park (14-10, 8-7 Kentucky Intercollegiate Athletic Conference) beat Cincinnati Christian (14-15, 8-6).

District women

No. 23 Syracuse 80, Pitt 39 — In Syracuse, N.Y., Kayla Alexander scored 19 points and Syracuse (21-3, 9-2 Big East) exploited 23 Pitt turnovers.

Pitt (9-15, 0-11) lost its 31st consecutive conference regular-season game and suffered its second straight defeat by more than 30 points.

Sacred Heart 59, Robert Morris 52 — In Fairfield, Conn., Gabrielle Washington scored 19 points to lead Sacred Heart (17-7, 9-3 Northeast Conference) past Robert Morris (7-17, 6-7).

Artemis Spanou had 20 points and 13 rebounds for her 19th consecutive double-double but also committed nine of the Colonials' 29 turnovers.

West Virginia Tech 61, Point Park 45 — In Montgomery, W.Va., Courtney Sturdivant scored 24 points to pace West Virginia Tech (13-13) past Point Park (22-6), which shot 3 of 25 from behind the arc.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.