Washington’s Late Push Was Real, but the WSU Exhibition Still Leaves Useful Questions

Washington’s 84–80 exhibition loss to Washington State should not be read as a verdict on the Huskies’ season. It does not count in the regular-season standings, and no October result can answer every question about a team. Still, I think the game supplied more usable evidence than a final score alone. Washington produced an early lead, found three major scoring contributors and gave itself a late chance to tie. It also gave Washington State too many extra opportunities around the basket and could not match the Cougars from three-point range.

That is the proper scale for this one: not an alarm, not a declaration, but a preseason snapshot worth studying. The Huskies have a few days before their regular-season opener against Colgate. The task is not to relive an exhibition loss. It is to carry forward the portions of the performance that held up and address the ones that did not.

The game was close, but it was not simple

Washington State scored six of the first seven points, then Washington answered with a 16–3 run and built a first-half lead as large as 10. The Cougars recovered to take a 38–37 advantage into halftime. Washington again moved ahead in the second half, leading by six with 12 minutes remaining, but a 10–0 Washington State burst changed the shape of the game. LeJuan Watts’ layup tied it at 62–62 with 5:46 left, yet Washington State regained control after Ronnie Harrison made consecutive baskets.

The final minute is the part that could make the score feel more dramatic than the whole evening. Washington trailed by eight with 46 seconds remaining and still worked its way into a possession that could have tied the game. Watts’ three-point attempt was blocked by Harrison in the closing seconds. That finish deserves credit as a competitive response, but it does not erase the earlier stretches when Washington State created its cushion.

For me, that distinction is useful. A late comeback can show resolve, and Washington did not stop playing. It cannot, by itself, prove that the team controlled the game. The more complete reading is that the Huskies showed enough fight to make the finish meaningful, while the Cougars made the plays needed to protect their lead.

Three players provided a real offensive base

Watts led all scorers with 28 points, making seven of 12 field-goal attempts and 12 of 13 free throws. Lathan Sommerville added 19 points on 6-for-7 shooting, and Nikola Dzepina posted 16 points and 12 rebounds. Those are concrete contributions, not preseason promises. Together, they accounted for 63 of Washington’s 80 points.

The distribution matters because it offers something more useful than a single hot hand. Watts gave Washington volume and late-game responsibility. Sommerville was highly efficient from the field. Dzepina paired his scoring with a double-double and seven offensive rebounds. The exhibition does not establish a finished hierarchy or guarantee that those numbers will translate unchanged into November. It does show that Washington had multiple avenues to offense even on a night it shot 39.3% overall.

That is a more constructive takeaway than simply treating the loss as a missed opportunity. A team that can get production from Watts, Sommerville and Dzepina has identifiable pieces. The next question is how consistently those pieces can create efficient possessions when the games begin to count.

The possession battle deserves attention

The teams made exactly 22 field goals apiece and both finished at 39.3% shooting. The difference was in the details surrounding those makes. Washington State hit nine three-pointers to Washington’s six, won the rebounding margin 40–32 and scored 22 second-chance points to Washington’s 11. Those are not cosmetic gaps. They are additional ways to create separation in a four-point game.

Washington did generate 22 points off 19 Cougar turnovers, compared with Washington State’s 15 points off 12 Husky turnovers. That is encouraging, particularly because it shows the Huskies could create pressure and convert it. But Washington State’s edge on the boards and its extra three-point makes outweighed that advantage. The Cougars also had 31 bench points, while Washington had 21.

I would not turn those figures into a sweeping claim about what Washington will be all season. An exhibition is too small a sample for that. They do identify the clearest items to watch next: whether the Huskies finish more defensive possessions with rebounds, whether they can limit second chances and whether their three-point volume or accuracy rises. Those questions come directly from this game rather than from guesswork.

The value is in the next response

Washington opens the regular season at home against Colgate on Nov. 2 at 7 p.m. PT. That game will carry the normal stakes that this exhibition did not. Before then, the Huskies have a compact set of evidence: a close loss, a credible late response, high-level individual production and a few possession-based numbers that need improvement.

That is why I would keep the conclusion measured. Washington State won an exhibition, 84–80. Washington did not get the tying shot to fall. Yet the Huskies also left Alaska Airlines Arena with specifics to build on, and specifics are more valuable in late October than grand conclusions.