Oregon State couldn’t maintain momentum from a spirited first half as No. 22 Illinois ran away after halftime and defeated the Beavers 85-66 in women’s basketball in Champaign, Ill.

Illinois, leading by 10 at halftime, outscored OSU 29-14 during the third quarter to put the game away.

Oregon State (1-4) dropped its third consecutive game, all to Power 4 conference opponents. AJ Marotte scored 16 points and Catarina Ferreira had 15 to lead the Beavers. Ferreira also grabbed 11 rebounds.

OSU shot 39% in the game, and 7 of 29 from three-point range.

Kendall Bostic and Makira Cook combined to score 51 of Illinois’ 85 points. Bostic, a senior forward, hit 15 of 18 shots and scored 31 points, while Cook, a senior guard, had 20 points and eight assists. Genesis Bryant, another senior guard, scored 12.

Illinois (5-0) made 55% of its shots, hitting 35 of 64.

Oregon State never led in the game, but kept contact throughout the first half. The Beavers got as close as 27-20 on a layup by Marotte with 5:13 left in the second quarter. A three-pointer by Kelsey Rees with 44 seconds left before halftime trimmed the deficit to 10.

Illinois cranked up its offense during the third quarter, and OSU couldn’t keep up. Illinois hit eight of its first nine shots, four by Bostic, as it rolled to a 46-28 lead with 2:18 left in the third. The lead swelled to 28 points during the second half before Oregon State scored some late points to reduce the final margin.

Oregon State heads to the Bahamas, where it will face No. 2 Connecticut in the Continental Tire Baha Mar Championship at 4:30 p.m. Monday.

–Nick Daschel can be reached at 360-607-4824, ndaschel@oregonian.com or @nickdaschel.

Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

BeaversEdge Staff Predictions: Washington State vs Oregon State

T.J. MATHEWSON’S PICK

DYLAN CALLAGHAN-CROLEY’S PICK

BRENDEN SLAUGHTER’S PICK 

During the just-concluded campaign for attorney general, Republican Will Lathrop dodged a question about whether he supported his party’s presidential candidate by saying he was “laser focused” on public safety issues in Oregon and not on national politics. National issues, he suggested, were not a major part of the job for an Oregon attorney general.

He was wrong.

What’s become obvious in the days since the election of Donald Trump as president is that the line between Oregon’s and national issues could be erased, and that courtrooms — and specifically those likely to be frequented by Oregon’s attorney general — will be a primary battleground over the broader subjects of safety and security. 

Oregon’s next Democratic attorney general, Dan Rayfield, reflected as much immediately after his race was called. In some of his first remarks post-election, he said, “In light of this week’s election, our work to defend Oregon’s values and the rule of law against national attacks will be front and center like never before. As the last line of defense for the rights and freedoms of Oregonians, we will be prepared to stand firm against the unconstitutional and unlawful threats President-elect Trump promised on the campaign trail.”

Oregon statewide officials overall have been less strident than those in some other blue states with their responses to the incoming federal administration, but their comments have included warnings that offensive federal policies wouldn’t go unchallenged. Gov. Tina Kotek, for example, said, “While I seek to work with the incoming administration, I will not stand idly by as abortion access, environmental standards, civil liberties or other priorities come under attack from national partisan politics.”

Rayfield seems likely to ask the Oregon Legislature in coming weeks for more money to do battle with the Trump administration. And he’s likely to get it.

That would mirror most of the blue state attorneys general. Washington state, for example, situated much like Oregon, also has just elected a new AG with the incumbent, Bob Ferguson, a veteran of many battles with the prior Trump administration, moving up to governor. 

A number of California-Oregon-Washington legal initiatives may be on the way.

Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said, “If Trump attacks your rights, I’ll be there.”

Washington’s incoming AG, Nick Brown, remarked that, “We will be prepared for whatever comes and do everything in our power to defend the rights of Washingtonians, the people of this great state, and to make sure that when there is an illegal action, that we look very closely to see if we can bring a case.”  

Where might the battles be located?

You can start with some of the topics Trump emphasized in his campaign. Oregon’s protections for immigrants and transgender people are two likely targets. Education policy may shift dramatically, since there’s discussion of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, though its reach is not as broad as some critics appear to think. The Affordable Care Act is again, as during the first Trump term, very much at risk.

Trump’s discussion of election fraud has faded since his win, but Oregon’s vote-by-mail process may become a target anyway.

But the meaningful list of battlefields is much longer.

In 2017 the Trump administration proposed to decrease the size of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which had been expanded by President Barack Obama. The effort failed. But the effort did not happen because Trump made a personal push for it; the proposal came from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. In all presidencies, many administration proposals come from officials other than the president, and the list of those initiatives could be extensive.

Taken together, many changes in environmental rules and management could happen. 

On the campaign trail, Trump indicated that California’s water woes could be solved by draining water from the Columbia River: “So you have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north with the snow caps in Canada and all pouring down. And they have essentially a very large faucet. And you turn the faucet and it takes one day to turn it. It’s massive.”

This may have been nonsensical, but if Trump did decide to follow up, the legal battles over water could be heated. 

Different approaches to policy, even when not outright or obvious reversals, could matter. Native American tribes have expressed concern about this, noting unwelcome changes in policy during the first Trump administration. 

Policy clashes are likely, too, in areas like housing, where the state has begun efforts to ease housing shortages and pricing — but the next Trump administration is likely to push very different approaches. 

The battle begins on Jan. 20. It will not end quickly.