True but as I commented during or just after the game. I felt Nico and his receivers made every single possible play in the first half. Every throw. Ever catch. Even the contested ones went their way. They were kind of due for something to hit the turf.
If their game plan and the execution of it continued through the second half. My narrative was going to be that UCLA had played the perfect game.
They committed to stop the USC run and also to take lemon out of the game. Lane they played physical with an early on. He was not making catches dropping balls and not fighting for 50-50 chances.
UCLA was controlling the clock limiting possessions snapping the ball with five seconds left huddling not going down field and executing. Long slow drives. Each team had the ball three times in the first half. That is unbelievable. We often witness games where teams have the ball four times in the first quarter. I think they were counting on USC to be impatient and tried to go down the field and hopefully get short possessions by USC and then control the clock on their own.
Instead, USC was similarly patient the half flew by because both teams only had the ball three times. And USC missed two field goals. I think the turning point in the game was USC stopping UCLA three and out on the opening possession out of halftime. If the Bruins go down the field like they had started to in the second quarter and gone up 10 this could’ve been a very different game.
Similarly, when USC had the ball and was driving for the go-ahead touchdown, throwing that interception was a game changer and the penalties they got allowing them to keep the ball and gain 15 yards was an even bigger one
.
