Rutgers starts fast, tops No. 24 Pitt, 67-62
By Kevin Gorman
Published: Saturday, Jan. 5, 2013, 12:04 p.m.
PISCATAWAY, N.J. — The game plan for Pitt was to use its height advantage and get the ball inside, and the Panthers went directly to 7-footer Steven Adams on their opening possession for an easy layup.
Rutgers responded with runs that put No. 24 Pitt in a 14-point hole by halftime and a 67-62 victory Saturday at Rutgers Athletic Center that left the Panthers wondering what has happened to their Big East trademarks of rebounding and toughness, as well as their offensive identity.
“Certainly, we'd like to bottle that first half,” Rutgers coach Mike Rice said of the Scarlet Knights making 15 of 26 field goals (57.7 percent), including 6 of 9 attempts from 3-point range (66.7 percent).
It was the first loss at the RAC since 2001 for Pitt (12-2, 0-2), ending a string of six consecutive victories on Rutgers' home court. The Panthers lost to Rutgers for the second consecutive season, with last year's 62-39 defeat marking their worst-ever loss at Petersen Events Center.
“Give Rutgers credit,” Pitt coach Jamie Dixon said. “Obviously, they got off to a great start.”
While the Scarlet Knights (10-3, 1-1) made their first six shots to spark a 12-0 run, the Panthers abandoned the inside game almost immediately. They launched 26 3-pointers, including 15 in the first half. That they made eight — only one game after going 0 for 10 from beyond the arc in a loss to Cincinnati — was of little consolation after shooting 37.5 percent (21 of 56) overall.
“We took too many 3s. I took too many 3s,” said Pitt senior guard Tray Woodall, who was 3 of 9 and finished with 11 points, eight assists and one turnover. “We settled. We came up with fool's gold, thinking that was the best shot right there. We could have definitely got better shots, but we just settled for 3s.”
Rutgers relied on leading scorer Eli Carter, a 6-foot-2 sophomore guard who didn't start after violating team rules but quickly energized the Scarlet Knights by scoring 23 points on 6 of 14 shooting from the field and 9 of 10 on free throws.
For the second straight game, Pitt lost the battle of the boards. Despite not having a player taller than 6-9, Rutgers had a 36-24 rebounding edge. No Panthers player had more than four rebounds.
“I thought our offense led to our defensive shortcomings in the first half,” Dixon said. “But the rebounding is still a difficult number to comprehend.”
Pitt also had only two more points in the paint (26-24) despite scoring 22 off turnovers and continued to launch shots from beyond the arc when its interior game was working.
“I think their strength is in the paint,” Rice said. “That's always been Jamie's formula.”
After Durand Johnson banked in a 3-pointer from the top of the key to beat the shot clock and cut it to 55-51, Woodall threw an alley-oop to Adams for a dunk to make it 55-53 with 3:24 left. But Carter answered with a floater in the lane, and James Robinson responded by taking a 3-pointer. Adams grabbed the offensive rebound and fed it to Woodall, who missed another trey.
The final blow came when power forward Talib Zanna, whose nine points and one rebound were well below his season averages of 13.4 and 6.2, fouled out after drawing a personal foul on Wally Judge then a flagrant foul for pushing him to the floor. Rutgers made 8 of 11 free throws in the final 1:35, while Woodall and Johnson made 3-pointers to keep it close at the end.
“We're not a team that shoots a lot of 3s, so it's surprising that we would shoot a lot, especially with the emphasis,” Dixon said. “Some open ones we didn't make. We've got to do a better job of getting the ball to the right guys.”
Kevin Gorman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org or via Twitter @KGorman_Trib.
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.
- Pitt wraps up spring football practice with closeness, competition
- Pitt QBs show they can adapt to change
- Pitt displays football program for fans as spring practice closes
- Players, coaches laud changes in makeup of Pitt roster under Chryst
- Pitt football notebook: Bennett to undergo shoulder surgery
- Pitt running back calls pain in his sprained left knee a ‘minor setback’