West Virginia loses to Davidson in Old Spice semifinals
College Football Videos
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. — Chris Czerapowicz had 15 points and nine rebounds to lead Davidson past West Virginia, 63-60, in a semifinal game Friday at the Old Spice Classic.
De'Mon Brooks added 12 points for Davidson (3-2), which advanced to Sunday night's championship game.
West Virginia (1-2) got 15 points from Juwan Staten and Gary Browne added 11.
After Staten scored after a steal to get West Virginia within one point with 1 minute left, Czerapowicz made a 3-pointer on Davidson's next possession to put the Wildcats up, 61-57.
The Mountaineers cut the deficit to 61-60 on Terry Henderson's long-range jumper with 13.6 seconds left. Nik Cochran made two late free throws for Davidson's three-point advantage.
Davidson opened the second half with a 9-0 run, including four points by Jake Cohen and Clint Mann's 3-pointer, to take a 39-32 lead.
After Czerapowicz hit a 3-pointer and added a free throw, Cohen had a basket to make it 49-38 midway through the second half.
Cohen, who fouled out late, had 11 points.
West Virginia center Aaric Murray, who picked up his fourth foul six minutes into the second and fouled out with 1:56 remaining, finished with six points and eight rebounds.
Jabarie Hinds and Staten both had eight points to help West Virginia take a 32-30 halftime lead.
Czerapowicz connected on a 3-pointer during Davidson's 8-0 run that tied the score at 30-all one minute before the break.
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.