UCLA deserved better? Lucky shot or not? NCAA

So I was reading on Facebook a post about the UCLA vs Gonzaga NCAA game. It was based on an LA times column. Whereas the writer claims that UCLA deserved better because in OT Gonzaga with seconds left hit a shot that was a good distance outside the 3 point line. Almost a hail mary.

Reading comments I heard moans and groans of the unfairness and to win off a lucky shot. My first thought - this was not a lucky shot. Players do practice for just this sort of situation. Yes, it is a very low percentage shot - but there is skill involved.

My own kid practices this shot - after her normal practice shooting all sorts different skilled shots she will spend 10 minutes just doing that run and half court shot that you see players do with seconds left in a half or game. She practices for just a situation like what happened in this game. And I would have to venture to guess that a highly skilled D1 player would do the same at the very least.

There is luck involved, yes, because it is difficult to make - but there is also skill and hours of practice. Yes, UCLA made a valent effort and hats off to them. But they did not deserve to win. The team that made the most points deserves to win. And no - they did not lose because it was a lucky shot, they lost because that night Gonzaga was just a little bit better and their point guard more than likely has practiced hours and hours for just this sort of situation.