Pitt women fade down stretch in loss to 'Nova
After a close first half, the Pitt women could not contain Villanova in the second half and lost, 68-52, on Saturday at Petersen Events Center.
Junior Asia Logan scored 21 points for the Panthers and sophomore point guard Brianna Kiesel had 11 points and four rebounds.
Seniors Laura Sweeney and Rachel Roberts led Villanova with 18 and 14 points, respectively.
The Panthers (9-6, 0-2 Big East) have already surpassed their win total from last season when they went 8-22, but their winless streak in the Big East continues now at 0-20. Their most recent conference victory was against South Florida in the 2011 Big East Tournament.
“We just have to get better,” said Logan, who has scored 21 points in each of the last three games. “We work so hard. We'll take the loss but have to get back to practice and move on.”
Villanova (13-2, 3-0) led by 33-31 at the break and opened the second half with a 7-0 run. Roberts hit Villanova's fourth 3-pointer of the half to make it 55-41.
Villanova shot 56 percent in the second half and 46.6 percent overall.
Pitt missed its first six field-goal attempts and trailed, 10-2. Finally Loliya Briggs hit a 3-pointer with 13:50 left in the half to make it, 11-5, and four minutes later the Panthers had closed the score to 13-11.
Logan hit a 3-pointer to give Pitt a 27-25 lead with 2:37 remaining in the first half and, after Villanova again took the lead, hit a jump shot to make it, 30-29, with just under a minute left. But Villanova's Caroline Coyer dropped in a 3-pointer.
“The first half was a fabulous game, an unbelievable game and I was really proud,” coach Agnus Berenato said. “They came out and hit us with a punch and we came back and that shows tremendous growth and improvement, especially with a young team. It looked like it was going to be a runaway and that's what Villanova does.”
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.