ShareThis Page
College

Dismal Panthers held down by turnovers

| Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2009

Pitt prides itself on its assist-to-turnover ratio, ranking second in the nation in that category at 1.56. But you wouldn't know it in the first half against Providence on Tuesday night.

The Panthers had three assists and 10 turnovers. Pitt point guard Levance Fields, second in the nation at 7.5 assists per game, had no assists and one turnover in the first half.

• After going nine consecutive games without 10 or more points, Pitt senior, forward Tyrell Biggs reached double figures for the second consecutive game, finishing with 10 points last night.

• The Providence seniors, which includes four-fifths of the starting lineup, were honored before last night's game, as the Friars played their final home game of the season.

• Pitt guard Ashton Gibbs snapped out of a minor funk when he hit a pair of 3-pointers in the first half. Gibbs had been 0 for 7 from the field in the past three games.

• Pitt ranks No. 1 in the nation in rebounding margin, but the Panthers didn't show it in the first half last night. Providence, which ranks seventh in the Big East in rebounding, out-rebounded the Panthers, 19-14.

• The Panther seniors — Biggs, Fields and Sam Young — were trying to win their 107th game at Pitt, which would have equaled the second most by any class in school history. The senior class of 2004-05 went an all-time best 108-25. The current seniors are 106-29.

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