Submit your Pitt basketball question

Q: How much stock do you put into the Georgetown win? Of course I'm thrilled to see a quality conference win, but it seems like it was more due to a bad game by Georgetown than anything else. They shot 3 for 20 from beyond the arc, while Lafayette lit us up from there.

Matt Mills, Granbury, Texas

FITTIPALDO: It's a tremendous win. Pitt beat the No. 5 team in the country without two starters. How many other teams can do that?

You say Georgetown did not play great, but the Hoyas shot 44 percent from the field. That's usually good enough to win most games. Let's give the Panthers some credit for the 3-for-20 shooting performance from 3-point range. Good defensive teams force those types of numbers.

Pitt just beat a team that returned four starters from a team that went to the Final Four last season. This is a team that lost once previously before last night, to the No. 2 team in the country. This is a team that led the Big East in almost every statistical category entering the game. Don't overanalyze it. Plain and simple, it was a great win.

Q: Do you believe the national college basketball experts, particularly ESPN, have a bias against Pitt? During the first half of the Georgetown game the announcers kept harping that Pitt was shooting terribly, yet Pitt was winning. For Pitt to be shooting terribly and still be winning, Georgetown had to be shooting at least as poorly and maybe worse. Not one mention of how bad Georgetown was shooting from the ESPN crew. At halftime, Digger Phelps and the blond chick both agreed it was Georgetown's game to win.

There was no mention of the fact, during or after the game, that Pitt lead from wire to wire. Not even one tie.

The week after Pitt beat Duke, Jay Bilas had one loss Duke ranked No. 8 and unbeaten Pitt ranked No. 11 in ESPN's Power poll. Last week Joe Lunardi, the guru of bracketology, had Pitt seeded 6 in his 64 team bracket. There are 20 to 22 teams better than Pitt?

Fred Messmer, Vanport, Pa.

FITTIPALDO: I don't get to watch the game telecasts, so it's hard for me to comment, Fred. But they probably had a point about Pitt's shooting. The Panthers were shooting 30 percent at halftime. Georgetown was shooting well. The Hoyas made 50 percent of their first-half shots. The Panthers won because they took 10 more shots, made more 3-pointers and more free throws.

If I was an analyst I probably would have said the same thing. Nothing in the first half suggested Pitt would shoot 50 percent in the second half. Kudos to Pitt for taking apart the Big East's best defense after halftime.

I don't think there's an anti-Pitt conspiracy out there. But a lot of people in the media, including myself, did not believe the Panthers would be able to play this well without Levance Fields and Mike Cook. I think what you're seeing is analysts readjusting their thoughts on the Panthers the more they watch them play.

Q: In light of the current play by last year's bench players, doesn't it make you wonder what could have been if coach Dixon would have let these guys(Benjamin & Young) play more last year? The outside game they bring is exactly what we were missing in the NCAA tournament. I think he had more loyalty to Levon Kendall than he to developing the younger players.

Mike Nixon, Libertyville, Ill.

FITTIPALDO: You might have a point, Mike, but you have to remember that Young was not completely healthy last season. He had problems with both knees that prevented him from being the player he is now. If Young had been healthy all season, I believe he would have received more playing time.

Benjamin is someone who is thriving with more playing time. This is the first time he has ever been in position to play 30-plus minutes per game. I guess you can say Benjamin deserved more minutes last season, but at whose expense? Ramon? Graves? They both played vital roles on a team that advanced to the Sweet 16.

Dixon is going to have an interesting dilemma on his hands when Fields is healthy enough to return to the lineup. Does he send Benjamin back to the bench? Or does he have Fields come off the bench? I suppose these types of problems are nice to have. It means you have players who are playing well and deserving of playing time.