Pitt women rally in second half to win City Game |

Pitt women rally in second half to win City Game


Like its men’s counterpart, the City Game between the Pitt and Duquesne women’s basketball teams has been one-sided of late. The Dukes, coming into Saturday’s meeting at A.J. Palumbo Center, had won four straight and eight of the past nine.

Pitt senior Cassidy Walsh — with plenty of help from junior Jasmine Whitney — made sure she and her fellow seniors wouldn’t end their careers without a win over their crosstown rivals.

Walsh (Seton LaSalle), who had no points and three personal fouls in the first half, scored all 14 of her points in the first 14 minutes of the second half, and Whitney had a game-high 23 points as the Panthers rallied to beat the Dukes, 66-58. The win moved Pitt to 9-5 and dropped Duquesne, the preseason favorite in the Atlantic 10, to 5-7.

After Pitt led 28-26 at the half, Duquesne opened the third quarter on an 11-3 run and eventually built its lead to nine with 3 minutes, 22 seconds remaining in the quater. But a layup by Whitney and a three-point play by Walsh got Pitt within four.

A layup by Walsh and two free throws by Whitney cut the margin to two, and Danielle Garven’s layup in traffic tied the score 48-48 headed to the fourth. It was 52-52 when Walsh made back-to-back 3-pointers that gave the Panthers a lead they would not relinquish.

The Dukes, who were led by 17 points from senior Chassidy Omogrosso (Blackhawk), never got closer than five the rest of the way.

“It was just an attack mentality,” Walsh said of the team’s second-half approach. “We just continued to fight. I’m so proud of this team. We’re growing every single day.”

Chuck Curti is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact at Chuck at [email protected] or via Twitter @CCurti_Trib.

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.