I sat and thought, and thought, and thought about what to write in the wake of Washington’s 31-24 overtime loss to California on Saturday. And to be honest, I’m still not sure where to start.

It’s not that there isn’t anything to write about, it’s that there’s so much. The game was a tough one to wrap my mind around.

Was I impressed by what I saw from the Huskies? Yes, very much so. Was I confused by what I saw? Yes, very much so. Was I unimpressed by what I saw? Yes, very much so.

I can’t remember feeling exactly this way after a Husky game this year or last.

Here’s what I think my problem is: I’m someone who relies on logic more than faith. And logically, the Huskies had no business being in that game. A backup quarterback, five interceptions, a backup running back, on the road against the No. 11 team in the nation. Everything pointed to a one-sided game.

Yet somehow Washington not only stayed in the game but had a chance to win, and that’s impressive. Other than his five interceptions, quarterback Carl Bonnell looked really good (what a strange sentence to write). He ran well, threw the ball well, was poised and confident. The defense played well, until wearing down because of the number of Husky turnovers.

But then there were the turnovers, something Washington is not good enough to overcome. There was the frustrating way Louis Rankin refused to run forward, settling for side-to-side, and the way his line did not open up holes. The secondary still seems incapable of intercepting a pass even when it’s thrown pretty much right to one of them, and the tackling remains mediocre.

And there was the play-calling. I’ve been impressed with the coaching this season, and Tyrone Willingham and his staff seem to have the Huskies on the right track. But there were moves on Saturday that left me scratching my head. I have no problem with the decision to kick the extra point following the Hail Mary touchdown that ended regulation. Washington hadn’t run the ball well and hadn’t done well on third downs, so there’s nothing to lead me to believe that going for two would have been successful. But three plays do stick out as questionable.

First was the decision to squib kick near the end of the first half after taking a 10-0 lead. The defense had shut down Cal, the crowd was quiet, Washington had momentum. It made no sense to me to kick short and give the Bears good field position. It showed little confidence in the coverage team (there’s some merit to that given this season’s play by that unit), but it put the defense in a tough spot. The ensuing field goal by Cal gave the Bears a bit of momentum into halftime and that’s all a good team like Cal needed.

Then there was the mistake on the Bears’ two-point conversion in the fourth quarter. Washington had just 10 men on the field. It couldn’t have been a surprise to the Huskies that the Bears would go for two in order to take a seven-point lead, yet somewhere along the way there was miscommunication as to what defensive unit should be on the field. Maybe it cost the Huskies a stop on the play and maybe it didn’t, but having 11 on the field instead of 10 wouldn’t have hurt.

Finally, the decision to give California the ball first in overtime. Washington’s offense had gained momentum by scoring on the last play of the game to go to overtime and had to be flowing with confidence. The Cal defense had to be stunned by allowing that play to happen. Why not take advantage of that by putting those units on the field to start OT? Instead, Cal gets the ball and scores quickly and all of a sudden the pressure is on the Huskies to respond against a Bears team that has regained its edge.

But given all of that, Washington still has nearly upset the top two teams in the Pac-10 in the past three weeks. Should that be enough to expect from this team? At the expense of sounding a bit like Willingham, yes and no.

This team has already achieved more than most would have expected. It has shown it is good enough to compete with anyone in the conference and is on the road back to respectability. But the Huskies were also 4-1 and seemingly on a fairly easy road to a bowl game.

Now, Saturday’s home game against Arizona State looms as the biggest game the Huskies have played in at least three years. The Sun Devils are 4-3 and though they’ve been a disappointment, they’re dangerous. And after Oregon State, Washington has seen it can’t just show up and win games at Husky Stadium. A win over ASU would all but guarantee the Huskies six wins and bowl eligibility (with a home game against winless Stanford still to come). A loss might end those hopes, as Washington still must go to Oregon and Washington State.

Are we talking about the Huskies and a bowl game still? Now that’s something that’s tough to comprehend.

Mike Allende is The Herald’s college football writer. His UW blog can be read at www.heraldnet.com/huskies.