Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jonson, post: 2615450, member: 6034"] Anyone can engage in this kind of hypothetical (I know I do), and it's particularly difficult to resist the "ifs" and "should have wons" after a tough loss. But, as reasonable as statements like this may seem--couldn't I say that the game wouldn't have been close if Oregon had shot its normal percentage from the field or from the line?--in the end they don't matter. What did matter was Oregon's ability (and UCLA's inability) to handle a different kind of pressure: the pressure that attends a close game in the closing minutes. Oregon ended the Pac 12 semifinal on a 10-0 run. A fluke? Don't think so, since the score in overtime for the UCLA/Oregon game in Eugene was 11-4 in favor of Oregon, and--even further back--Oregon outscored UCLA 12-2 during the last 2 minutes+ when they played in Los Angeles, going from one point behind to a 9 point win in the process. UCLA has an extraordinarily gifted senior point guard, an almost as talented 6'4" senior forward whose athleticism is second only to Gabby's, and at least 4 other players whom Hoopgurlz ranked among the top 15 prospects the year each of them landed at Westwood. I don't think that any other Pac 12 team has a roster with those credentials, and it is no accident that the Bruins were picked to win the conference this year. They should also be a shoe-in for the "pick your poison" label that is the starting point for this thread. But they didn't and they're not. Instead, they tend to resemble the alternative: a team that is too dependent upon one or two great players. In a conference in which the teams ahead of, or tied with, the Bruins in this year's final standings have found success (in my view) by creating a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, UCLA seems to have gone in the opposite direction. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach