College Basketball 2/23-3/1

[lhacbigfan]

Crimson: I know you think you're right on this, but you can't see the forest for the trees. 13 and 16 (after their defeat of Pitt) is NOT LOWLY for Wake Forest. We know that they are not an upper echelon team. But all that headline does is make Pitt's loss WORSE in the minds of sports fans. It'd like a DIG at Pitt. Would last years BM football team want to be described as lowly? The bias in this town is obvious, and you, of all the posters on this site, should see it. Again, call your DAD. Let's see what he has to say.

A losing record for a team in a power conference is definitely considered lowly. Especially since most of the non conference games are against cupcakes early in the season. I don't think anyone's opinion of Pitt or any team for that matter is going to change for better or for worse based on a headline. I can't believe you are still complaining about this.

[El-Moldo]

That headline speaks VOLUMES. For those who don't follow local basketball closely, what are they thinking about Pitt. What if every Penguin game, win or lose, shows some kind of negativity in every headline or story? Sure, Pitt lost a game they should have won. But why give a "dig" to Pitt's performance by calling the other team lowly. I guess PSU's loss to NW should have been called a debacle in the paper. After all, NW had a losing record in a power conference at that time.

[El-Moldo]

On Saturday, #12 Iowa State lost to Kansas State, who had a losing record. Wonder if the newspapers in the states of Iowa and Kansas (or in the stories written by the AP) termed KSU lowly in their headlines?

[DragonsDoExist]

Wake Forest team ranked outside the top 100 even after the win over Pitt. If that's not "lowly" I'm not sure what is.

But it's your story, tell it how you'd like.