Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Richmond rallies, comes up big at Duquesne

Richmond 72, Duquesne 58: Up until now, beating N.C. State represented the high point of the Richmond season. But this is bigger, in part because it came on the road but also because, frankly, Duquesne is a better team than N.C. State. The Dukes (15-3, 2-1 Atlantic 10) came in with a seven-game winning streak and the resume of a Top 25 team. Early on, they played like one, too, as the jumped on the Spiders and built a 21-point lead. But Duquesne's weakness is committing turnovers, which works out well for the Spiders since their strength is forcing turnovers. And early in the second half, with the Spiders still down 15, Richmond's defense and running game created a 19-0 spurt that completely flipped this game over. The Spiders wound up outscoring the Dukes by 26 points in the second half. Brittani Shells had 25 points, Crystal Goring 18 (on 6-of-8 shooting) and Abby Oliver 16 for the Spiders (13-5, 4-0 A-10), who scored 22 points off 20 Duquesne turnovers. The Spiders have now won four straight and 9 of their last 10. By the way, we waffled on picking Richmond in this game, but we had a guest analyst do the picks and he went with the Spiders. Maybe we should consult him more often....

South Carolina Upstate 61, Longwood 57: Hard-luck Lancers (3-13) lose their fourth straight game by four points or less. This one might be the most painful of the bunch, as for the first 33-plus minutes, Longwood was giving the Lady Rifles (8-8) a pretty good whuppin'. Crystal Smith's layup with 6:42 left gave the Lancers a 55-45 lead, but then...nothing. Over the next 6:34, Longwood went 0-for-11 from the field, 0-for-5 from 3-point range, 0-for-2 from the line, committed four fouls and coughed up six turnovers. When Chelsea Coward got a layup to fall to finally end the drought, only eight seconds remained. Then the buzzer sounded, and we can imagine the Lancers alternating glances at the scoreboard and each other and wondering, what the heck just happened here?

No comments:

Post a Comment