# Co-GOW: #1 UCLA @ #17 Oregon



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

vs.








Saturday, 2:00







Comments/Predictions?


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

UCLA, but this one is closer then the UW game. Oregon has the perimeter play to keep up with UCLA. If Hariston plays that is another weapon for Oregon. 

However, Oregon has no decent big men, doesnt play the big men they have, and doesnt have anyone that can guard Shipp and Afflalo. The Prince is going to have a field day on the boards and Afflalo carries the Bruins to the win.

UCLA wins 84-78


----------



## PFortyy (May 31, 2006)

UCLA have been impossible to beat so far


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

ronna_meade21 said:


> UCLA have been impossible to beat so far


I think WSU showed it's possible


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Probably one of the toughest games UCLA will face during the regular season. I'm not entirely sold on Oregon since they've probably only played two top 100 teams all year. I think it'll be fairly close but UCLA will prevail.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

UCLA will win by no more than 20 but by no less than 10. They are absolutely unreal this year.


----------



## Yoyo (Oct 16, 2005)

TM said:


> I think WSU showed it's possible


Nope. UCLA hasn't lost yet! Texas A&M also took us to the end, you know...props to both teams. They both pushed us to the limit and we'll eventually lose a game or two.

We'll see how this Oregon game goes. I'm not making any predictions on this one.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Oregon lost tonight to USC


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Yoyo said:


> Nope. UCLA hasn't lost yet!


Thanks, even though I watched the game. A two point win at home isn't anything to brag about. They're beatable, and WSU showed it.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Oregon has always had a huge home court advantage. Oregon wins by more then 5.

Oregon has really only had one test, and it was a ways back. But beating Georgetown handily on the road was impressive.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Friday Look Ahead: Let's not throw confetti -- or spill blood



> Game worth flying to see in person: Boy, did Oregon really screw this up. We were supposed to have a showdown between two of the nation's three remaining unbeatens when No. 1 UCLA visits No. 16 Oregon on Saturday. But then the Ducks went out Thursday and lost to Southern California, leaving us with a showdown between one of the nation's two remaining unbeatens and a one-loss team coming off a loss to USC. That's still pretty good, but it just doesn't have the same ring.


----------



## Yoyo (Oct 16, 2005)

TM said:


> Thanks, even though I watched the game. A two point win at home isn't anything to brag about. They're beatable, and WSU showed it.


We are most certainly beatable, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that even on our worse nights (33% shooting), we will hold out and stay in it till the very end thanks to our defense.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

The Washington State game was proof that UCLA can be beat.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

People are considering UCLA unbeatable? Give me a break. I'd take Florida over them every day of the week and twice on Sunday.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

UCLA with their hands full at the moment. I missed narly the whole first half. Anyone been watching?


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

TM said:


> UCLA with their hands full at the moment. I missed narly the whole first half. Anyone been watching?


I'll recap: Oregon can't miss. Neither Afflalo or Collison can buy a bucket. = UCLA down 10.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*cough* Go Ducks *cough*


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Its looking more and more like the quack attack is back.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

funny. it looks to me like they're about to collapse


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Afflalo wont let UCLA lose. Meanwhile the ducks have made a lot of poor decisions this half


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

dabruins pulling the fire alarm in an attempt to give the bruins an extended to? :biggrin:


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

fortunately for oregon, ucla forgot how to score.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

This is a great game


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

anyone teach shot selection anymore?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

That was a horrible horrible possession


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

fantastic defense at the end by oregon

ernie kent just keep his job?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

TM said:


> funny. it looks to me like they're about to collapse


Not to me.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Aaron Brooks looked pretty good.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

I hope Kent doesnt keep his job. He has a lot of talent and this is the first year in a while that the talent is playing well. I think Oregon can bring in a good coach; one who can coach X's and O's.

Great win for Oregon and ever better for Arizona. Now the showdown in Pullman tonight becomes a huge game. If Arizona wins they take control of the Pac-10. If they lose, it is going to be an interesting race the rest of the year.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

I liked the decision to go for 3 at the end, but we had the easy 2 if Collison just used his speed. Should've taken the 3 earlier to give us a chance to rebound. Refs were really crappy, we were in foul trouble all game, but Oregon won this one. We made too many stupid mistakes and Brooks played fantastic.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

Well, the Bruins *were* going to lose this season at some point (funny I thought they'd be beat inside though), and this is the time to pick up a few loses. It's just not possible to go through Pac-10 play without losing a few... I suspect the regular season winner will have 3 or 4 losses.

That one possession at the end when Shipp pushed it and threw a terrible alley-oop to Mata was the difference at that point, but the Bruins need to come out in the first half... The refs also need to get their first half game in shape (there were about 8 horrible calls, and that out of bounds awarded to Oregon was outrageous, clearly no Bruin had touched it), but what's really terrible about them is that they'll call a hand-check at 10' but not a shove at 15'.


Porter is a great player though... Not as line to line fast as Collison, but probably as quick. And Brooks just couldn't miss (although he had way to much separation on a number of occasions)... Leunen was the guy I thought would be the main factor, and he certainly changed the first half, but I was surprised they didn't isolate him outside in the second... Oguchi and Odia are so-so, and got away with subtlely hand-checking the hell out of whomever they were defending (particularly Odia on LRMaM). The Ducks should have a shot in the Tourney with their guard play, but if UCLA doesn't shoot like an amputee in the first half, it would have been a different game.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Not to me.


they got lucky, and you know it. fortunatly, a win's a win


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Quasi-Quasar said:


> The refs also need to get their first half game in shape... but what's really terrible about them is that they'll call a hand-check at 10' but not a shove at 15'.


Again? ... That's how it is everywhere. Get used to it.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

TM said:


> Again? ... That's how it is everywhere. Get used to it.


I know, the Bruins, really Howland, need to adjust to the Pac-10 refs calling petty contact... But it still can annoy me. The focus on petty contact rather than real contact (and other Pac-10 ref pet peeves) interferes with a game settled by coaches and players. Wazzou is the only physical team that I haven't seen really reemed by the refs for their routine petty contact. Stanford, UCLA and ASU have plenty to complain about, even if it comes off as whining, looking at some of the games thusfar. But still, the Bruins play on-ball D, and the selective and odd enforcement often negates their ability to do so. If they let everything go, Wazzou would probably win the conference, but the selective focus of the refs needs to be reexamined IMO. There also seems to be a visual problem among the refs relating to arm length and recognition of what they're seeing with long-armed players... But that's another story completely.


----------



## Blazers2121 (Oct 5, 2006)

What a great win, way to bounce back from that USC loss.


----------



## Yoyo (Oct 16, 2005)

DaBruins said:


> I liked the decision to go for 3 at the end, but we had the easy 2 if Collison just used his speed. Should've taken the 3 earlier to give us a chance to rebound.


Agreed. Going for 3 showed that we wanted to play to win. I'm not too worried about this loss...every team was bound to lose sometime and we lost to a good team on their home court.

Mad props to Oregon. Their shooting performance was simply unbelieveable. It may have been on their home court, but they simply outplayed us. I'll be sure to make some noise when they come to Pauley next month, because their crowd certainly made themselves a factor.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

Yoyo said:


> Agreed. Going for 3 showed that we wanted to play to win. I'm not too worried about this loss...every team was bound to lose sometime and we lost to a good team on their home court.
> 
> Mad props to Oregon. Their shooting performance was simply unbelieveable. It may have been on their home court, but they simply outplayed us. I'll be sure to make some noise when they come to Pauley next month, because their crowd certainly made themselves a factor.


Not to mention we were in some foul trouble all came long....I wouldn't want to play like that in overtime at one of the toughest arenas in the country. However we did have a lot more momentum toward the end of the game. Oregon went about 7 minutes near the end without a bucket and just relied on stupid free throws.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

TM said:


> they got lucky, and you know it. fortunatly, a win's a win


Whats wrong with getting lucky. 

If they even got lucky. I wouldn't say being down nearly the entire game and losing to be unlucky.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Yoyo said:


> Agreed. Going for 3 showed that we wanted to play to win.


Down two on the road, go for the win... Down two at home, play for a tie. That's textbook... Someone needs to give that book to Greg Paulus... Sorry to always bring this back to Duke :sad:


----------

