Backup leads No. 19 Wisconsin past pesky Penn State |

Backup leads No. 19 Wisconsin past pesky Penn State

Penn State’s Josh Reaves, left, and Jamari Wheeler battle against Wisconsin’s Brad Davison, center, for a loose ball during the second half of an NCAA college basketball game Saturday, March 2, 2019, in Madison, Wis. Wisconsin won 61-57.

MADISON, Wis. — As Brevin Prtizl stepped to the free-throw line with less than 2 seconds left and the game all but won, the chant rained down from the student section: “MVP! MVP!”

He promptly missed.

It was the only blemish on an otherwise stellar day. Pritzl came off the bench to score 17 points Saturday and lead No. 19 Wisconsin past Penn State, 61-57.

The junior has long had a reputation as one of the team’s best shooters but is sometimes hesitant to fire. Coming into this game, he was averaging less than 5 points for the Badgers (20-9, 12-6 Big Ten).

But he hit all five of his field-goal attempts, including four 3-pointers, and was 3 of 4 from the line. He also scored 14 of his points in the second half as the Badgers climbed out of an early hole.

“He’s one of the best shooters I’ve ever seen,” Wisconsin’s Ethan Happ said. “I tell him all the time. ‘Stop passing the ball. Shoot the ball.’ “

Pritzl was also involved in a no-call in the closing seconds that helped deny Penn State (12-17, 5-13) a chance to tie.

Held without a field goal for the final eight minutes, the Nittany Lions still had a chance with 14 seconds left, down 59-57.

After a timeout, Penn State’s Rasir Bolton tried to throw the ball to Lamar Stevens at the elbow. But Wisconsin’s Khalil Iverson tipped it away, and the referees ruled it went off Stevens’ hand. After a review, the ball stayed with Wisconsin.

Nate Reuvers was fouled on the ensuing inbounds play but converted just one at the free throw line, leaving the door open for the Nittany Lions again. But there was a collision between Bolton and Pritzl near the sideline with less than 2 seconds left. No foul was called, and the referees ruled the ball went off Bolton.

Wisconsin coach Greg Gard said the Badgers weren’t trying to foul intentionally in that situation, up three, and Pritzl said Bolton initiated the contact.

But Penn State coach Pat Chambers argued after the game Bolton should have been awarded three free throws, believing he made a shooting motion after the contact.

“It’s unfortunate the players can’t decide the game, but it is what it is,” Chambers said. “We’ve got to move on. We won’t play the victim.”

It wasn’t a particularly pretty game offensively for either team. The Nittany Lions shot 35 percent, below their average of nearly 42 percent.

Meanwhile, take away Pritzl, and Wisconsin made just 34 percent of its field goal attempts.

Happ scored 14 for the Badgers. Stevens led Penn State with 22 points and 10 rebounds, and Josh Reaves added 14.

Pritzl’s heroics might have been for naught if the Badgers hadn’t taken Gard’s halftime speech to heart. Down 33-26 at half, the Badgers were outrebounded 19-14 over the first 20 minutes. Gard said Wisconsin was simply not tough enough. Along with Pritzl’s second-half performance, Happ flipped the switch from shooting 3 for 10 in the first half to 3 of 4 in the second. He also finished with five assists.

“We didn’t win the 50-50 battle in the first half,” Gard said. “They got almost all of them, if not 90 percent of them. We were able to change that in the second half and the result showed. We played with more energy, more toughness, more physicality.”

Categories: Sports
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.