ShareThis Page
College

Notebook: Pacific a worthy foe

| Tuesday, March 15, 2005

The Pitt basketball team would be wise not to look past Pacific in the first round of the NCAA Tournament on Thursday in Boise, Idaho.

Yes, it is tempting to focus on the carrot hanging over the second round, with No. 1 seed Washington likely waiting in the wings of the Albuquerque Regional. But Pacific is a well-coached, upper-classmen oriented team that has the best record in college basketball since Jan. 1, 2004 at 46-5.

The Tigers made The Associated Press rankings for the first time in history this year (they are No. 22) and feature older, foreign-born players who play selfless basketball. Still, No. 9 seed Pitt knows that a win in the first round against No. 8 Pacific would lead to a marquee matchup against the Huskies in Round 2.

"I wouldn't want to be Washington right now," said Pitt center Aaron Gray, who felt the Panthers deserved a better seed. "I'm sure they're not too happy to play us. They're going to have to meet us quick."

  • Athletic director Jeff Long understands that the NCAA selection committee gave Pitt a high seed because of a poorly rated non-conference schedule. He also said it is something that can be addressed.

    "Do we need to add, maybe, another top-level program to our schedule• Yes, we probably should look at that," he said.

  • Pitt had looked into taking a commercial flight to Boise, but opted instead for a charter, which was schedule to depart at 10 a.m. today. There are no direct flights from Pittsburgh to Boise. Pitt went through a national travel agency, provided by the NCAA, to make its arrangements.

  • 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