ShareThis Page
Penn State falls to Hoosiers |

Penn State falls to Hoosiers

The Associated Press
| Sunday, January 6, 2002 12:00 a.m

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – Indiana got 17 points from Jared Jeffries and 12 points from Tom Coverdale, as it rallied from a 14-point first-half deficit to defeat Penn State, 61-54, on Saturday night.

It was the Hoosiers’ 10th straight win over the Nittany Lions (4-9, 0-2 Big Ten Conference).

Indiana (9-5, 2-0) won despite making a season-low 14 field goals. The difference was free-throw shooting. The Hoosiers made 32 of 38 from the line, and free throws accounted for 21 of their final 25 points over the last 13:07.

For a while, though, it looked as if the Hoosiers winning streak might be in jeopardy.

After Indiana scored the game’s first basket, Penn State went on a 12-0 run to take control. It extended the lead to 14 points before Indiana used its own 12-0 run to close to within 24-20 late in the first half.

But the Nittany Lions got a long 3-pointer from Sharif Chambliss at the buzzer and opened the second half with another long 3-pointer, this time from Tyler Smith, as they rebuilt a 35-26 lead. Chambliss led Penn State with 20 points.

Indiana charged back with a 12-3 run to tie the score at 38-38 midway through the second half, but the Hoosiers failed to take the lead until Jeff Newton hit his third straight free throw with 5:49 to go.

Indiana maintained control the rest of the night, as it allowed just three Penn State baskets in the final 6:59.

Brandon Watkins added 15 points for the Nittany Lions.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.