Summary
PITTSBURGH - Pitt Coach Dave Wannstedt faces this major worry: how to slow No. 8 West Virginias dynamic offense only five days after his slumping Panthers yielded 46 points to, of all Big East teams, Connecticut. Not only do they have a reduced week of preparation for what may be the best team on their schedule, the Panthers go into tonights game against the Mountaineers with the same problems they had a year ago at this time. Namely, a late- season slump and an inability to defend an opponents running game. West Virginia is going to get you into situations where youve got to make one-on-one tackles, and youve got to make open-field tackles, Wannstedt said. Theyve got a nice variety of plays. Were on a short week, and were playing a completely different offense than weve seen. Those worries added up last season to a 45-13 loss at West Virginia, which accumulated 451 of its 492 yards on the ground. Quarterback Pat White ran for 220 yards and running back Steve Slaton had 179 yards. Dont think Wannstedt is stressing over the fact that UConn quarterback D.J. Hernandez ran for 130 yards and the game-winning 2-point conversion in the Huskies 46-45, double- overtime victory over Pitt (6-4, 2-3 in Big East) last Saturday? Hernandez hadnt rushed for 75 yards all season before Saturday. Pitt, coming off a 5-6 season in 2005, got off to an encouraging 6- 1 start against relatively weak opposition but has since lost to No. 7 Rutgers, South Florida and Connecticut. The UConn loss was troubling to the Panthers because the Huskies (4-5, 1-3) had won only three games, and were manhandled by a losing-record Pitt team last season. They also hadnt won a Big East game until Saturday, And, in its last home game, Pitt gave up 225 yards to Rutgers Ray Rice in a 20-10 defeat last month. We could use (a signature win), Wannstedt said. These guys, obviously, are one of the best teams in the country, but were just concerned about ourselves right now. And were just trying to rally the troops. The trouble is, Pitt is playing at its lowest level of the season at the wrong time. The Panthers have only West Virginia (8-1, 3-1) and No. 10 Louisville (8- 1, 3-1) remaining, and losses to both would leave Pitt with a 6-6 record only a slight improvement over Wannstedts initial season last year. But weve had just one full recruiting class, and were going to need two to three to have the quality depth you need to build a program, Wannstedt said. And thats what were doing here. It never happens fast enough, but ... the reality is that weve got to get a lot better. And its going to take a little bit of time. Those are the facts, but were in this for the long haul. What the Panthers must be wondering is if they can get better, and in a hurry, to be competitive in the Backyard Brawl. We need to get back on track, and a win can do that for us. Weve got two more games left, and weve got to get that (losing) feeling out of our system, said quarterback Tyler Palko, whose touchdown run late in the fourth quarter rallied Pitt past West Virginia 16-13 in 2004. So its going to be exciting, Palko said. A win against West Virginia is a pride game. Thats the way were looking at it, and Im sure its the way they look at it, too.
BCS standings Games through Nov. 12 Harris USA Today Computer BCS Rk Pts Pct Rk Pts Pct Rk Pct Avg Pv 1. Ohio State 1 2800 1.0000 1 1574 0.9994 3 0.930 0.9765 1 2. Michigan 2 2688 0.9600 2 1513 0.9606 1 1.000 0.9735 2 3. Southern Cal 3 2458 0.8779 4 1373 0.8717 4 0.860 0.8699 7 4. Florida 4 2441 0.8718 3 1381 0.8768 6 0.800 0.8495 4 5. Notre Dame 5 2267 0.8096 5 1273 0.8083 5 0.840 0.8193 9 6. Rutgers 7 2024 0.7229 8 1082 0.6870 2 0.950 0.7866 13 7. Arkansas 6 2234 0.7979 6 1248 0.7924 9 0.680 0.7567 11 8. West Virginia 8 1864 0.6657 7 1113 0.7067 11 0.600 0.6575 10 9. Wisconsin 11 1678 0.5993 10 928 0.5892 8 0.740 0.6428 15 10. Louisville 10 1711 0.6111 12 884 0.5613 7 0.750 0.6408 3 11. LSU 9 1846 0.6593 9 1054 0.6692 13 0.480 0.6028 12 12. Boise State 13 1471 0.5254 13 830 0.5270 10 0.610 0.5541 14 13. Texas 12 1630 0.5821 11 927 0.5886 16 0.380 0.5169 5 14. Auburn 15 1304 0.4657 15 721 0.4578 14 0.480 0.4678 6 15. California 17 1033 0.3689 17 580 0.3683 12 0.580 0.4391 8 16. Wake Forest 14 1341 0.4789 14 724 0.4597 17 0.370 0.4362 19 17. Oklahoma 16 1257 0.4489 16 711 0.4514 19 0.260 0.3868 17 18. Georgia Tech 18 936 0.3343 18 566 0.3594 15 0.390 0.3612 18 19. Maryland 21 567 0.2025 21 325 0.2063 20 0.250 0.2196 23 20. Boston College 20 600 0.2143 20 384 0.2438 21 0.200 0.2194 22 21. Virginia Tech 19 694 0.2479 19 420 0.2667 23 0.100 0.2048 21 22. Tennessee 22 397 0.1418 23 213 0.1352 18 0.290 0.1890 16 23. Nebraska 23 396 0.1414 22 228 0.1448 NR 0.020 0.1021 NR 24. Oregon 25 129 0.0461 26 72 0.0457 22 0.170 0.0873 20 25. Brigham Young 24 325 0.1161 24 116 0.0737 NR 0.000 0.0632 NR Explanation Key Team percentages are derived by dividing a teams actual voting points by a maximum 2850 possible points in the Harris Interactive Poll and 1575 possible points in the USA Today Coaches Poll. Six computer rankings calculated in inverse points order (25 for No. 1, 24 for No. 2, etc.) are used to determine the overall computer component. The highest and lowest ranking for each team is dropped, and the remaining four are added and divided by 100 (the maximum possible points) to produce a Computer Rankings Percentage. The six computer ranking providers are Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsley, Colley Matrix, Kenneth Massey, Jeff Sagarin, and Peter Wolfe. Each computer ranking accounts for schedule strength in its formula. The BCS Average is calculated by averaging the percent totals of the Harris Interactive, USA Today Coaches and Computer polls.See the full content of this document
Extract
Pittsburgh Playing for Pride
AH RB CM KM JS PW 1. Ohio State 24 25...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
