Pitt notebook: Duquesne coach praises Pitt
• Duquesne coach Jim Ferry said following his team's City Game loss that Pitt was “significantly better” than No. 15 Georgetown, whom the Dukes played on the road Nov. 11. Pitt coach Jamie Dixon said Ferry told him the same thing but figured he was just trying to give him a hard time so the media would jump on it. “Georgetown is good, we're good. It's who's going to be good next month and February and March,” Dixon said. “We've got a long way to go. But I was excited because we improved on the things we wanted to this week.”
• Dixon said he got the sense in practice Thursday that his players knew they didn't play as well as they could have against Duquesne. “They focus more on the offensive part, probably, individuals, and we probably had some guys who felt they could have played better in that regard. I think they came out ready to do something about it, and that's good. I think they've seen our improvement, and they're excited about what they can become.”
• The Panthers have just four games remaining in the nonconference schedule, and while it's easier to compare rankings in statistical categories once the Big East season opens, Dixon said he does still look at how his team measures up in some areas. Pitt's scoring offense is ranked fourth (74.8 points per game), their scoring defense is second (54.7 points per game) and they lead in field-goal percentage (49.4 percent) and rebounding defense (28.6 per game).
• Cameron Wright, whose father passed away at the beginning of the season, said he's gotten the same support from his teammates that he has from his family. “That's why I always mention they're like my brothers. I guess since they're my brothers, I would say my coaches are like my uncles,” he said. “I'm not going to say they're my dad. I feel even stronger knowing (my dad's) with me.”
— Karen Price
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.