Connecticut upsets No. 19 Louisville in 3OTS
TribLIVE Sports Videos
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Blidi Wreh-Wilson knew the ball would eventually come his way. The Connecticut cornerback just wanted to make sure he was in the right position to make a play.
Wilson's first interception of the season came in the third overtime Saturday and helped the Huskies upset No. 19 Louisville, 23-20.
Four plays later, Chad Christen kicked a 30-yard field goal to give the Huskies (5-6, 2-4 Big East) their second straight win and maintain their bowl hopes.
Connecticut's victory denied Louisville (9-2, 4-2) a chance to tie first-place Rutgers (9-2, 5-1). The Cardinals will play at Rutgers on Thursday night, and the winner will earn the Big East's BCS bid.
The Huskies' defense made a 10-0 lead stand for more than three quarters before the Cardinals regrouped in the fourth behind quarterback Teddy Bridgewater. Although Louisville outgained Connecticut, 401-241, the Huskies made the stand they needed at the right time.
It was nearly a storybook comeback for Bridgewater, who sustained a broken left wrist on a second-quarter sack by Sio Moore and sat out most of the third quarter. The sophomore returned to lead Louisville's fourth-quarter rally and force overtime with a 6-yard touchdown pass to Parker with 21 seconds remaining in regulation.
Bridgewater finished 30 of 53 passing for 331 yards and two TDs.
Show commenting policy
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.