Lots of articles, and it may actually take a couple days before I get to everything. So, starting with the local dailies, there is a sense that this is not an earthshattering loss. Ron Cook is a leading proponent on this and has two columns extolling this line.

I want to be disappointed with Pitt this morning. Disappointed that it blew a 12-point second-half lead against Connecticut. Disappointed that it blew a wonderful chance to win a second consecutive Big East Conference tournament championship. Disappointed that it blew a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. Disappointed that it blew it all.

But I’m sorry, I can’t feel that way.

That was too good of a game at Madison Square Garden last night.

That was too good of an opponent.

It’s fairly safe to say Pitt won’t play a better team in the NCAA tournament. That doesn’t mean the Panthers are a lock for the national championship or even the Final Four. It also doesn’t mean they don’t have plenty to work on between now and their first-round game Thursday or Friday.

It just means there was no shame in this 61-58 loss.

The most annoying thing, is I don’t totally disagree. I wanted Pitt to win. I leapt from my seat at times, shouted, yelled, cheered and fell to the floor when Gordon put UConn ahead with less than a minute left. But after it was over, I was not despondent. It would have been great to win, but part of me was already moving on to NCAA Tourney dreams. Mike Pirusta also was ready to start the NCAA Tourney dreaming.

This is probably the best recap of the game, and it points out an interesting figure: UConn had a 23-4 edge in second chance points. It also points out that Pitt was outrebounded 41-33. I don’t find that so disturbing, because UConn had a 14-3 rebounding edge at the 12:02 mark of the first half, most coming during UConn’s initial run. From that point on, Pitt actually held a slight 30-27 rebounding edge. Strangely, none in the Pittsburgh media or in recaps seems to note that in the first half both teams exchanged runs. Even the final 8 minutes is not put in the context of a run. I guess that was just me.

The “notebook” columns from each paper are interesting. This one leads with the high bench scoring from Pitt. The other one observes that this was the 8th time the BET Championship game was played between 2 top ten teams. It also has a little note about Brandin Knight contacting Dixon and Krauser the day of the game with some advice.

From the BET site, they list the:

2004 BIG EAST ALL-TOURNAMENT TEAM
Taliek Brown, Connecticut, Sr.
Jaron Brown, Pittsburgh, Sr.
Carl Krauser, Pittsburgh, So.
Chris Taft, Pittsburgh, Fr.
Craig Smith, Boston College, So.

Dave Gavitt Trophy (Most Outstanding Player)
Ben Gordon, Connecticut, Jr.

Here are the interview transcripts for Pitt and UConn. There was a follow up to Taliek Brown on his joking comments about “hating” Pitt.

Q. Last night you said (inaudible)?
TALIEK BROWN: They cool with me, now (laughter). They all right with me now.

I should note that none of the Pittsburgh media used the “We hate them” quote in any articles. I expected them to, but they didn’t bother. Good.

Throw In

I meant to highlight this article earlier in the week about the NCAA Tournament selection committee. It talks about how the conferences lobby the committee members for their bubble teams. I found it interesting.

One of the more covert aspects of the NCAA Tournament selection process is the work done by conference offices to advocate the candidacy of their teams. Nobody likes to use the word “lobbying.” Fair or not, this connotes the use of expensive dinners, extravagant gifts and junkets to manipulate the political process. What the conferences primarily do with members of the selection committee is give them more to read.
…
Just before selection weekend, the leagues present organized material that champions the strength of their teams. A lot of this information can be found on a Ratings Percentage Index breakdown page: overall record, conference record, record against various levels of RPI teams, etc. But there also is information about injuries and suspensions that might have affected results. The committee often talks about how teams will be given breaks if injuries affected results — so long as those players are back competing effectively.
…
Ultimately, the conferences do this work because they’re passionate about it and their members are, effectively, paying them to do it. Coaches appreciate knowing somebody is out there fighting for their cause. But who knows whether it works? Without being lobbied, bracket analysts Jerry Palm of CollegeRPI.com and Joe Lunardi of ESPN.com routinely come close to matching the committee’s picks. They’ve come to understand what numbers the committee values.

Of course, that reminds me that it is time for the members of PSB and its readers to sign-up in the ESPN NCAA Tourney Challenge. Our group is called, not surprisingly, “Pitt Sports Blather.”