ShareThis Page
Pitt

New York Post bashes Pitt in ACC tournament preview

Matt Rosenberg
| Wednesday, March 7, 2018, 12:06 p.m.
Pitt's Jared Wilson-Frame (0) passes away from Notre Dame's Bonzie Colson (35) and Rex Pflueger (0) during the second half of their first-round ACC tournament game Tuesday, March 6, 2018, in New York.
Pitt's Jared Wilson-Frame (0) passes away from Notre Dame's Bonzie Colson (35) and Rex Pflueger (0) during the second half of their first-round ACC tournament game Tuesday, March 6, 2018, in New York.

They didn't write anything we hadn't all been thinking. But the New York Post pulled no punches when trying to conjure up something interesting about Pitt basketball.

In the paper's ACC tournament preview capsules for the event in Brooklyn, the Post tried to find some strengths and weaknesses for Pitt and discusses whether it can win the ACC title (It can't. The Panthers lost to Notre Dame on Tuesday).

And, well, it did — sort of.

• Strengths: Showing up to the next game on time.

• Weaknesses: Basketball.

Ouch.

As to whether Post writers thought Pitt could win the tournament — not so much.

The Post writes: "Can win the title if: Every team dies laughing at the notion. The Panthers are the only team in the nation to go winless in conference."

It didn't exactly take a Nostradamus-like premonition to say how Pitt was likely to perform in the tournament. But we can appreciate the Post's frankness.

Submitted

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.

click me